Meyer abandons 5th Twilight book

[Jimorian]

Saw this news elsewhere, and her publisher has confirmed.

Because somebody leaked an incomplete copy of the manuscript for the 5th book, she's stopped work on it indefinitely. Article said she has a statement on her web site, but I haven't gone to look.

No editorial comment from me, I haven't read them, but I have a lot of friends who have and enjoyed them, while also recognizing their flaws.

EDIT: Huh, I guess it's old news, but from the number of people not knowing, not very common knowledge. Heck, I worked in a bookstore drowning in Twilight hype at the time, and I still totally missed this.

[Lord_Gareth]

I say good riddance to bad rubbish. I don't condemn the series for sucking; after all, every author goes through a long stage where they suck, myself included (actually, I'm still in the suck stage). No, my problem is Meyer's overblown ego, the cult-like following her books have, and the actual goddamn cult (Cullenism) that they started. Oh, and raping the vampire myth and leaving it to bleed out in an alleyway. That too.

[Griemont]

In other news, proof of God discovered, verified by scientists. :smallbiggrin:

[MammonAzrael]

I believe this news has been around for several months now, at the least. In fact, the transcript that was leaked should still be floating around somewhere if you care to read it. I understand that she is working on something different, which I think is in the same universe, though with different characters/location.

[Gavin Sage]

.... and there was much rejoicing.

[Raistlin1040]

Saw this news elsewhere, and her publisher has confirmed.

Because somebody leaked an incomplete copy of the manuscript for the 5th book, she's stopped work on it indefinitely. Article said she has a statement on her web site, but I haven't gone to look.

No editorial comment from me, I haven't read them, but I have a lot of friends who have and enjoyed them, while also recognizing their flaws.

Um, this has been known for quite a while. A shame, I've read the bit of the fifth she's got up on her site, it actually makes more sense than the other four, and Edward seems like a bit more of a traditional vampire rather than a cuddly bat who sparkles. Like, there's a couple pages devoted to how he wants to eat Bella, and him imagining how long it would take him to kill everyone in the room so there'd be no witnesses.

[Recaiden]

the actual goddamn cult (Cullenism) that they started.

I had to look this up, and I am, disturbed by what I found.

I did see before that she has cancelled her 5th book. Midnight Sun. bad news for people who like them, good news for us 5.

[Kaihaku]

Oh, and raping the vampire myth and leaving it to bleed out in an alleyway. That too.

The vampire myth has been raped by authors for decades now. Twilight may have taken it to a new level but it can't be blamed for everything.

[Innis Cabal]

I did see before that she has cancelled her 5th book. Midnight Sun. bad news for people who like them, good news for us with good taste.

Fixed it up for you

[FoE]

Why so sullen, Edward Cullen? Is it because your franchise is dead?

[Moff Chumley]

w00t!1

It needed to be said.

[Anteros]

I find the concept of the books silly and I have avoided them. If you don't enjoy a book series, you simply don't have to read it. It really is that simple.

Exulting in the fact that this person's fans won't be able to continue reading a series that they enjoy is very petty and childish.

Oh, and tastes are entirely subjective. You and your English teacher may enjoy Dickons, while Tom the gothic kid may enjoy Twilight. Your opinion is no more valid than his. Sorry, you aren't special.

It does seem very childish of an author to discontinue a profitable book series for this type of reason though. It suggests that she takes herself, and her work too seriously.

[Rogue 7]

So she gets a free preview of her book out to thousands of screaming fangirls, and her response is to stop working on it? Odd, but I can't really say I'm disappointed. I know a couple of gamer chicks who are big fans, so I'll see how they react.

[Nerd-o-rama]

So she gets a free preview of her book out to thousands of screaming fangirls, and her response is to stop working on it? Odd, but I can't really say I'm disappointed. I know a couple of gamer chicks who are big fans, so I'll see how they react.Artists are seldom reasonable when it comes to stuff like that, and one thing I can say for Meyer is that she writes for herself and on her terms. At least, as far as I can tell.

And yeah, this news is kinda old. I remember hearing rumors about it around the time I started hearing about the film of the book. Wasn't this one a redux of the first novel, from Edward's perspective? Or was that just hearsay?

[snoopy13a]

I find the concept of the books silly and I have avoided them. If you don't enjoy a book series, you simply don't have to read it. It really is that simple.

Exulting in the fact that this person's fans won't be able to continue reading a series that they enjoy is very petty and childish.

Oh, and tastes are entirely subjective.


I agree completely. I simply ignore works that I dislike or in the case of Twilight, would probably dislike. However, my tastes are different from other people and I realize that many people like Twilight. All the power to them. The world isn't supposed to cater to what I want.

[Flame of Anor]

I don't think it's fair to say that liking the Twilight series is incompatible with liking real literature. I, personally, love real literature, and have read a whole [whatever]-load of it, in English and other languages, but I do like to read the Twilight series as enjoyable fluff.

And no, the movie is not from Edward's perspective.

[Gaelbert]

I'm bummed. No, seriously. I actually enjoyed the series. Did I take it seriosuly? No. Did I think it is in any way realistic? No. Did I find it deep? No. Was it well written? Not really. Was it as good, deep, or informative as Orwell, Vonnegut, or Chomsky? Not a chance.
But sometimes when you read, you want to read something mindless. Something that you can imagine, something to help you get away from it all. It's called escapism. Perhaps I enjoy the fantasy world that Meyer has created.
And I don't see why the need for celebrating. It's not like anyone would tie you down and force you to read the book if you didn't want to.

Midnight Sun is the events of Twilight from the perspective of Edward instead of Bella.

[MeklorIlavator]

I think the backlash is from people claiming that it's on par with the classics, same as Eragon. Personally, I'm not sorry to see it go, if only so that people will stop talking about it so much.

[Nerd-o-rama]

And no, the movie is not from Edward's perspective.No, I meant the cancelled book.


Midnight Sun is the events of Twilight from the perspective of Edward instead of Bella.This is what I meant. Thanks for confirming. That concept actually sounded a little more interesting, but perhaps that's just because I'd sympathize more with a cynical male perspective (hopefully not full-on Louis from Interview self-loathing) than with a romantic, lovestruck female perspective.

[Rogue 7]

I'm bummed. No, seriously. I actually enjoyed the series. Did I take it seriosuly? No. Did I think it is in any way realistic? No. Did I find it deep? No. Was it well written? Not really. Was it as good, deep, or informative as Orwell, Vonnegut, or Chomsky? Not a chance.
But sometimes when you read, you want to read something mindless. Something that you can imagine, something to help you get away from it all. It's called escapism. Perhaps I enjoy the fantasy world that Meyer has created.
And I don't see why the need for celebrating. It's not like anyone would tie you down and force you to read the book if you didn't want to.


I'm the same way, 'cept I like my escapism to have more explosions. Hell, that's half the reason I'm still sticking with Naruto- it's got awesome fights.

And Melkor? Awesome Mustang Avatar.

[Roland St. Jude]

The vampire myth has been raped by authors for decades now. Twilight may have taken it to a new level but it can't be blamed for everything.

Indeed. It's almost a requirement because: 1) there is no single vampire myth; 2) upsetting the classic western European vampire myth elements make the characters seem knowledgeable; and 3) it's hard to put vampires under the classical restrictions like zero sunlight and still move things along.

This article talks a bit about this (http://fray.slate.com/id/2205143/), not that it's all that well-researched or written. But it's not bad for a newsy piece.

[turkishproverb]

Good. Now can she issue a retraction of the other four?

[TheSummoner]

Haven't read any of them, don't plan to, but from what I've heard, it is to books what Justin Timberlake is to music and Family Guy is to comedy.

Fairly offtopic, but I've always been annoyed by the way people (often forced by schools) pick apart classic literature... If I was a famous author, the last thing I'd want is my life's work to be picked apart by 15 year olds. I only mention this because it was mentioned that the fangirls think their precious glittery vampire story compares to... oh... say... The Count of Monte Cristo for example... Great literature will stand the test of time, and more likely than not be picked apart by the educational system as an expressive single digit to the author.

[Revlid]

YES.

Ha ha!

[Lord Seth]

I find all of the "Woohoo! It's cancelled!" posts to be quite pathetic. Don't like the series? Don't read it! I don't know how its existence is somehow so terrible.

Eragon has some of the worst prose I've ever read, its main character is the very model of a modern major Gary Stu on top of being an ouright sociopath, it's shamelessly derivative, and the author (as far as I can tell) has a major ego despite the fact that you'd think he'd actually be humble considering he got a shortcut to being published thanks to family connections. It's a very bad novel (if it can be called that) that doesn't deserve its popularity, but I'm not going to cheer if it's cancelled.

[FoE]

I find all of the "Woohoo! It's cancelled!" posts to be quite pathetic. Don't like the series? Don't read it! I don't know how its existence is somehow so terrible.

Lord Seth, you're deriding others for doing the exact same thing that the entire Dominic Deegan thread does every day, yourself included.


it's hard to put vampires under the classical restrictions like zero sunlight and still move things along.

Then how have other vampire stories been able to use that convention?

[RMS Oceanic]

I think Twilight has fallen victim to its own fandom. I haven't read the series, so can't comment on the quality of her writing, but I have seen some of the rabid fangirls and their works. It's on par with Zutara or Harrione, only this time, Zutara is cannon. It's that kind of obsessive fandom that has the risk of reducing one's own entertainment of a book/show/whatever. Case in point: Invader Zim.

I'm reminded of an episode of Disney's Fillmore, where they have to help a girl who's a massive fan of a novel series about a Vampire Astronaut, and the trouble starts when somebody reads an advance copy of the next book...

:smalleek: I just realised, Disney can predict the future!

[Dervag]

Their false positive rate must be horrendous, though.

Disney produces so much fiction that they need tons of plots (literally- if you thoroughly wrote up all the plots of all the Disney fiction to date, I suspect it would weigh multiple tons).

Some of it's bound to come true.

[Lord_Gareth]

Indeed. It's almost a requirement because: 1) there is no single vampire myth; 2) upsetting the classic western European vampire myth elements make the characters seem knowledgeable; and 3) it's hard to put vampires under the classical restrictions like zero sunlight and still move things along.

Points 2 and 3 are not necessarily true. Oftentimes, merely "upsetting" the classical myth without rhyme or reason makes the author/characters/entire story look utterly rediculous ("This is the skin of a killer," anyone?). Instead of simply disrupting them, creative re-imaginings can go a lot further. Take, for example, the kind of vampire I normally end up reading about. They have the following -

- Vampires are immortal in the sense that they do not age, and require blood to sustain themselves. The bite of a vampire makes the victim into a vampire.

- Vampires are susceptible to wooden stakes through their heart, in the sense that it's really hard to move when you're pinned to the ground with a spear in your friggin' chest. Vampires dislike the scent of garlic, cannot cross running water, and are paralyzed by the sound of church bells and by holy symbols. Sunlight destroys them utterly.

- Vampires are many times stronger and faster than mortals, and may have other supernatural powers such as shapeshifting, weather control, and hypnosis. Their senses are sharper, especially smell.

That's a fairly common Western vampire, with the exception of the (modern) idea that the stake destroys the vampire. But say I want to reimagine my vampires, so what I come up with is this -

- Vampires are immortal in the sense that they do not age. It takes significant time and effort to make a new vampire, and a simple bite will not suffice. They must feed on fresh human blood to survive.

- Newborn vampires are significantly more vulnerable than more experienced undead; unused to their new senses and capabilities, a newborn is likely to hurt herself or be overwhelmed by sensory input such as sharp scents (garlic) or loud noises (church bells). While running water is not an obstacle, holy symbols sometimes are, if used with enough conviction. The catch seems to be that holy symbols only work on the truly monstrous of the "monsters". Sunlight destroys them within moments, and even if they get out of it in time, there will be scars from the exposure for the rest of their unlives.

- Vampires enjoy enhanced strength, speed, and perceptions, as well as the ability to see with no light whatsoever and incredible powers of healing. Each one has a sort of 'signature' ability that seems to conform to their personality and is relatively unique. These abilities never effect real changes on the environment around the vampire, but illusions, mind control, shapeshifting, and many others are possible.

Now, compare either of those to, say, the Twilight vampires. The above undead have weaknesses that can be exploited and strengths that put them above normal mortals without being entire races of prancing Mary Sues sparkling in the sunlight like disco balls. Furthermore, the above have reasons to keep to many of the classic vampiric themes - like seduction, secrecy, clinging to one's former humanity and coming to grips with one's new life as a predator. I defy anyone who's read Twilight - which I have, by the by - to come up with ONE, just ONE reason that the 'vampires' therein should keep their existence a secret.

[Cristo Meyers]

I defy anyone who's read Twilight - which I have, by the by - to come up with ONE, just ONE reason that the 'vampires' therein should keep their existence a secret.

Roving packs of squeeing fangirls?

[bluewind95]

Hm, after watching the movie, I think that the idea could have been a lot better and more enjoyable had the author taken it in an entirely different direction. Had she not idealized everything that comes across as so terribly wrong and sick, and had she given some monstrosity to her vampires, the idea could have been better. Of course, for the idea to be well-written, she also should have made Bella less "special". How is it that Edward can read everyone's mind but hers? Is that even explained? Or is it just a trait tacked on Bella to make her special and alluring to Bella? So yeah, a bit less difficulty on keeping suspension of disbelief (... the implied pedophilia in the last book, for example) and a less unrealistically idealistic way of portraying things, and it could almost have been a decent idea.

As it is, it seems to be the movie of a really... bad... fanfiction. The kind that could almost have been good if the writer would have had any idea of how to write a story without being a squeeing fangirl of her own work.

[Cristo Meyers]

I'll admit ignorance here, but does Meyer really have the same ego-level as Paolini?

[Lord_Gareth]

Roving packs of squeeing fangirls?

As hilarious as that statement is, no; a Meyerpire can take out a pack of fangirls without thought or effort, as it would take a nuclear strike to actually hurt one of them with conventional weaponry (which also begs the question; how did the Meyerpires suffer so much in the Inquisition when NO HUMAN ARTIFICE CAN TOUCH THEM?)

And Meyer's ego is worse; she's taken to comparing herself to Jane Austen, in the sense that she says Twilight is better than her works.

[Cristo Meyers]

And Meyer's ego is worse; she's taken to comparing herself to Jane Austen, in the sense that she says Twilight is better than her works.

I am both educated and completely disgusted...

Makes me dread the day when my draft finally goes out to publishers, just because of the possibility that it might come back with advice to make it more like her work so it would sell better or some other dross...

[bluewind95]

... Wow. Yeah, I'd figured she had a pretty big ego (for the way she canceled her 5th book). But... she seems to have gotten her head inflated a bit too much there.

I have never read anything by Jane Austen, but after a quick wikipedia search... just by the themes used... yeah, Meyer can't compare.

Someday I should write something silly like Twilight. Going all idealistic and romantic. Just to get rich and known and THEN publish what I consider more decent stuff. Not that I'm a great writer, but it's still a fun thing to think.

[Aergoth]

Case in point: Eragon is a fairly bad rewrite of most of modern fantasy, including but not limited to: The Belgariad, Lord of the Rings and a dash or two of random nordic mythology thrown in on the side "because it's cool".

I don't read anything called a "bestseller". Frankly the blatant... fannism around Twilight has made me want to firebomb bookstores. FIREBOMB. This amounts to heresy for myself.

@The classics: Books are written by people trying to do one or both of two things: Write or make money. Literature is made by people a dozen or so years later who start attaching meaningless tags to the original work and bogging it down in "meaning". Anyone can find meaning in a book, but not all books are good.

@Bestsellers: My own personal volcabulary has rewritten this word as "mass-produced-zombie-tripe". When you see author reviews all over the back of it within the first few months, there's something wrong.
Those who have problems with Harry Potter, avert your eyes from the screen and continue to scroll.
Note that the first edition copies of the potter books had no such thing on them. At all. No endorsements or similar (it might just be an american thing then, but I'm not sure) If it's praise for earlier works in the series the chances are less fail. If you start seeing medals on it or awards, check the publication date. If it's less than a year, chances are you want to drop it like it's radioactive waste or kryptonite.

@General: Bram Stoker's ashes are roiling in their urn right now. Soon they will be at peace. Fiction is Going Downhill. Thankfully, the werewolf people should be the next to see their cherished favorites go downhill.

[Ganurath]

I'll admit ignorance here, but does Meyer really have the same ego-level as Paolini?Somewhere between Tim Buckley and Ayn Rand, thanks to the personality cult.

[Cristo Meyers]

@General: Bram Stoker's ashes are roiling in their urn right now. Soon they will be at peace. Fiction is Going Downhill. Thankfully, the werewolf people should be the next to see their cherished favorites go downhill.

Too late.

See: Underworld 3: Rise of the Lykans...

[Fredthefighter]

Too late.

See: Underworld 3: Rise of the Lykans...

That movie looks good in my opinion, then again, I may be wrong.

[Roland St. Jude]

...
Now, compare either of those to, say, the Twilight vampires. The above undead have weaknesses that can be exploited and strengths that put them above normal mortals without being entire races of prancing Mary Sues sparkling in the sunlight like disco balls. Furthermore, the above have reasons to keep to many of the classic vampiric themes - like seduction, secrecy, clinging to one's former humanity and coming to grips with one's new life as a predator. I defy anyone who's read Twilight - which I have, by the by - to come up with ONE, just ONE reason that the 'vampires' therein should keep their existence a secret.

I agree entirely. I'm not saying vampires of the Twilight universe are good or even make any sense. I'm just saying that fiddling with the mythical weaknesses/attributes of vampires is pretty standard, especially in modern books/films/games.

[Mx.Silver]

I agree entirely. I'm not saying vampires of the Twilight universe are good or even make any sense. I'm just saying that fiddling with the mythical weaknesses/attributes of vampires is pretty standard, especially in modern books/films/games.

Its also kind of funny in that 'being instantly killed by sunlight' was not part of the original mythos, but was added as a result of fiddling with attributes. So yeah, changing weaknesses is hardly a problem (hell, next to none of the archetypal 'facts' of vampires are shared by the original folklore). Providing the changes themselves aren't stupid or ridiculous (e.g. sparkling in sunlight).

[alchemyprime]

Maybe I'm lucky. Maybe I'm weird. But I know that my sister and I have very different tastes in fiction.

Her favorite "fantasy" books are the Twilight saga (thankly she isn't Cullenist...)

Mine... It's a very big tie between six series: The Finder's Stone Trilogy, the Cleric Quintet, the Prism Pentad, the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser books, the Blade of the Flame Trilogy, and Spelljammer Books.

That's right. She likes disco ball vampires, and I like trashy fantasy novels that are actually GOOD and when you look at the back of the book, it tells you the SYNOPSIS! I like my ships in SPACE!, my vampires to be fought by priests, my drow angsty, my northerners all barbarians, my deserts to be horrible, my dinosaurs to be paladins and my fiction to be GOOD!

So you know what, Twipire fans? I have some suggested reading for you. Theives of Blood. It's in the Eberron books. Read it. Enjoy it. And start realizing how vampires are meant to be: monstrous!

Now if you excuse me, I need to go duct tape my sister to a chair while I have my Microsoft Reader read to her Swords and Deviltry...

[Gaelbert]

I defy anyone who's read Twilight - which I have, by the by - to come up with ONE, just ONE reason that the 'vampires' therein should keep their existence a secret.

Have you read Breaking Dawn? I don't have the book (I would never actually pay for any of those books), but I seem to remember a scene towards the end:
Aro says that the reason for secrecy was something, I can't remember, but that the humans were creating technology that could evolve into something that could defeat vampires. Or something like that. This was during the face off between the Volturi and the Cullens & Co., so it is possible that he was just trying to come up with provocation.

[UncleWolf]

Thankfully, the werewolf people should be the next to see their cherished favorites go downhill.

Oh great, now all I can see are vegetarian werewolves that have poodle cuts.
*shudder*

[Yellow]

words words words lol personality powers in vamps words words words

I defy anyone who's read Twilight - which I have, by the by - to come up with ONE, just ONE reason that the 'vampires' therein should keep their existence a secret.

They still drink blood. The family Cullen and their animal feeding aren't the norm.
The humans in Meyerworld don't know about the sparklies and have the usual ideas of what a 'real vampire' is like and would not take kindly ta their type 'round yere.
Having to live in hiding would suck, it's more fun chilling with the humans.

[Innis Cabal]

Aro says that the reason for secrecy was something, I can't remember, but that the humans were creating technology that could evolve into something that could defeat vampires. Or something like that. This was during the face off between the Volturi and the Cullens & Co., so it is possible that he was just trying to come up with provocation.

This clears up nothing no answers the question at hand. They are super humans that can't die, but don't seem to hate (At least some don't) humans and try to stay with themselves. Medical blood and animal blood could sustain them, its not like they -need- to feast off humans.

[TRM]

That movie looks good in my opinion, then again, I may be wrong.
Haha...HA.

The first two were painful to watch. The third one is the vampires from the first two IN MEDIEVAL TIMES!


@General: Bram Stoker's ashes are roiling in their urn right now. Soon they will be at peace. Fiction is Going Downhill. Thankfully, the werewolf people should be the next to see their cherished favorites go downhill.
I disagree with any assertion that fiction was better in the past. When Bram Stoker was writing, there was certainly trash fiction; we just remember the past as being better because the only books we're still reading from then are the great ones.


Indeed. It's almost a requirement because: 1) there is no single vampire myth; 2) upsetting the classic western European vampire myth elements make the characters seem knowledgeable; and 3) it's hard to put vampires under the classical restrictions like zero sunlight and still move things along.
I agree with 1) and 3), and have no opinion on 2). @Lord Gareth: If the vampire is going to be your protagonist, you're either going to have to circumvent the sunlight restriction or write a substantially different story. From Twilight: Edward going to night school? That would hardly be romantic.

edit: Though it could possibly lend depth to the story.

[Gaelbert]

This clears up nothing no answers the question at hand. They are super humans that can't die, but don't seem to hate (At least some don't) humans and try to stay with themselves. Medical blood and animal blood could sustain them, its not like they -need- to feast off humans.

There are something like 7 or so of these "vegetarian" vampires. There are hundreds, most likely thousands more of the normal variety, who eat humans and find the thought of vegetarianism to be amusing and not at all plausible. It seems like it takes a certain type of vampire to not eat humans, for mental reasons, not physiological.

[WitchSlayer]

The Twilight books should just focus on Charlie, especially Movie Charlie. Now there's a real man.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Haha, take that, people whose tastes differ from my own! We showed you, this time. I hope none of the illiterate, mindless little ****s ever read again. Hell, I hope some kill themselves. God, I love my ivory tower. It must be so tragic not to have taste as flawless as my own.

[chiasaur11]

Don't Meyerpyers die if you light 'em and ignite 'em?

We got flamethrowers. Might be a reason for the obviously evil ones to hide.

Or all of them. I know I'd make ample use of flamethrowers, matches, gasoline, explosive barrels, etc if I knew those things existed.

[Yulian]

Indeed. It's almost a requirement because: 1) there is no single vampire myth; 2) upsetting the classic western European vampire myth elements make the characters seem knowledgeable; and 3) it's hard to put vampires under the classical restrictions like zero sunlight and still move things along.

This article talks a bit about this (http://fray.slate.com/id/2205143/), not that it's all that well-researched or written. But it's not bad for a newsy piece.

I think part of the problem was that Meyers did something almost no other author has: she rendered vampirism into an absolutely ideal state of being with no downsides, flaws, or frankly, inconveniences beyond what a living human has to face. Sunlight isn't a constant...fine, but basically, they have no weaknesses or flaws. Those have been more-or-less a constant in the varied mythologies. That there's some sort of flaw or price to be paid.

A Meyer's vampire can walk in the sun, live off animal blood indefinitely, has incredible physical power, psychic abilities, won't die unless burned to ash or minced, has no "allergens", no restrictions on behavior, no organization hunting them, no real enemies except other vampires (and that seems half-hearted most of the time), no objection or cost to living with their own kind for extended periods, and the average human, while potentially appetizing, creates no "trigger" to psychotic blood-rage under any circumstances.

It's frankly, sort of sickeningly perfect...which seems to be the theme of her work. That's what's dull about them. That's the issue with the mythology. She basically went in a direction other authors do not because they have good reasons like "dramatic tension" not to do so.

- Yulian

[Gem Flower]

...I feel like the only person on this entire forum who actually likes the Twilight series...:smallfrown:

[Solaris]

The world isn't supposed to cater to what I want.
That is correct. It's to cater to what I want.

It does seem rather... dim to cancel a book in a semi-popular franchise simply because it got leaked. I think the author needs to get a little perspective on herself - that just reeks of self-importance.

[xanaphia]

...I feel like the only person on this entire forum who actually likes the Twilight series...:smallfrown:

Basically, yes.

I've always explained Twilight's literary merits as Eragon for girls. Purple prose, occasional idiotic stupidity, high ego author.

Also, I'm pretty sure that I downloaded the first chapter of Midnight Sun from the Meyer website. Hmm.

I agree with Solaris. I suppose that millionares can basically do what they want.

[Innis Cabal]

Its like her throwing a temper tantrum. As said before it could only add to her publicity, and for free no less.

[Bluelantern]

I know that I should hate the books, but I just can't...

...well I only have readed the first though, and I got spoilers from the others who made me think that the series is bad, and like yullian and others point out... why the hell vampires just don't take over the world?

Well... actually that last one could be explained with other magical creatures, but I doubt they could be enough, much less, vampires can multiply at much greater rate than most monster =|


Also. I think the reason why I din't hated the book, was because I imagined Bella being played by Magda Apanowicz

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/Kylexy/images/e/ef/Andy.jpg

[Gem Flower]

Basically, yes.

...:smallfrown: That sucks. Oh well, I'm addicted to the series now, nothing can stop me! *crazed, maniacal laughter*

[Neon Knight]

Haha, take that, people whose tastes differ from my own! We showed you, this time. I hope none of the illiterate, mindless little ****s ever read again. Hell, I hope some kill themselves. God, I love my ivory tower. It must be so tragic not to have taste as flawless as my own.

As a preface, I'd like to note that this directed towards all the taste/subjectivity posters, and not just this guy.

You can cry all you want about taste, and it being subjective, and no one's personal preferences trump others peoples, but the fact of the matter is that simply isn't true. If it is, Manos: The Hands of Fate is just as good a film as The Dark Knight.

...

You see how indefensible your position is.

Obviously, art and media aren't totally objective, but they can't be considered completely subjective either.

[Trizap]

yes.

goodbye bad author, we hope you never write again.

[Kaihaku]

I agree entirely. I'm not saying vampires of the Twilight universe are good or even make any sense. I'm just saying that fiddling with the mythical weaknesses/attributes of vampires is pretty standard, especially in modern books/films/games.

True, thanks for the article it was a fun read mostly on media that I'll probably never see.

Aside from there being no one Vampire myth, which is a valid and interesting discussion in and of itself, I think the whole Vampire 'genre' has another serious flaw that began when authors started treating the undead as if they were normal human beings with superpowers and a curse when convenient to plot instead of eerily unnatural. The moment something undead has the same motivations as a normal person I have problems with it. Mimicking the motivations of a normal person is another matter entirely. Now Twilight might take that to a whole new level but emo rock-star princes of the underworld falling in love with living girls without much consequence (having your cake and eating it too) have been around for a lot longer than that. Personally, I'll stick to Bela Lugosi and classical ghastly Asian Vampires.

[Doran_Liadon]

I believe she copied the first few books from an episode of Stargate, even the names. And the 4th from a fan-fiction winner, mostly the quote "...and so the lion fell in love with the lamb." This made me lose any respect for the series.

[Gaelbert]

Basically, yes.

I've always explained Twilight's literary merits as Eragon for girls. Purple prose, occasional idiotic stupidity, high ego author.

Also, I'm pretty sure that I downloaded the first chapter of Midnight Sun from the Meyer website. Hmm.

I agree with Solaris. I suppose that millionares can basically do what they want.

Not true! There's at least 2 or three of us. Out of the 23,000...

I hated Eragon. I really liked Twilight. And Meyer can't be too bad. She likes Muse.


I know that I should hate the books, but I just can't...

...well I only have readed the first though, and I got spoilers from the others who made me think that the series is bad, and like yullian and others point out... why the hell vampires just don't take over the world?

Well... actually that last one could be explained with other magical creatures, but I doubt they could be enough, much less, vampires can multiply at much greater rate than most monster =|


Also. I think the reason why I din't hated the book, was because I imagined Bella being played by Magda Apanowicz

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/Kylexy/images/e/ef/Andy.jpg

Once again, the reason they don't take over the world is mentioned in the fourth. Whether the reason is adequate or not, I don't remember.
And about other magical creatures:
Children of the Moon apparently used to be a major enemy of the vampires. It seems like they are almost extinct now, but apparently they used to rival the power of vampires, one on one. And there apparently are other shapeshifters as well. And there's too many different factions of vampires that can't get along for them to make a concerted effort. The Romanians would probably sabotage any plan to take over the world if they thought it would benefit them.

Vampires don't get along with each other. The only ones that do are the ones who are vegetarian, and those ones don't want to conquer the world because they are good, kind, sweet, loving vampires.

Flamethrowers would kill a vampire. If you could get to one.

[The Neoclassic]

And Meyer can't be too bad. She likes Muse.

Logical fallacy at all there? :smallbiggrin:

I'll be honest; I've never read Twilight nor did I see the movie. I've no desire to ever do either (particularly the movie which I was told was horrendous). The main character sounds like a Mary Sue. That said, if people like them... Whatever. As long as they don't try to convince me that they are realistic, good literature, or worth reading (like, for those of us who aren't really interested), I won't spend a lot of time attacking the series, and certainly won't make any nasty comments about those who read them. The very strong viewpoints on both sides are mildly amusing (OK, and rather exasperating if you read them for too long) though... Crazy what people get into arguments over on the internet, heh.

*Goes back to silently watching the thread*

[kopout]

I hated Eragon. I really liked Twilight. And Meyer can't be too bad. She likes Muse.
.

I loved Eragon. I never saw any problems with it and didn't even realize that there where people who hated it until I stumbled across them on TV tropes.

[Vaynor]

Oh...no...?

[zeratul]

I just noticed another serious flaw in the twilight series that I had never noticed before. Now I know that messing with vamp mythology has become rather common as of late, but isn't it fairly consistently true that vampires have died and are not just some weird race? I mean that's why they are portrayed as sleeping in coffins and all that, they're dead.

[Innis Cabal]

You can't be a pretty vampire if you sleep in a coffin! Thats not sparkly!

[xanaphia]

Not true! There's at least 2 or three of us. Out of the 23,000...

I hated Eragon. I really liked Twilight. And Meyer can't be too bad. She likes Muse.


I agree on the liking Muse part. Then again, maybe she's lying, maybe she simply wants to have a supermassive fan base, like Muse...

Read these posts. Some love them, some hate them. But no-one can argue that vampires sparkle and Shades are pale with RED HAIR.

[Sholos]

One of the things that I've seen said, and that I agree with, is that by becoming as popular as it has, the Twilight series hurts literature on the whole by making people (including upcoming authors) think that it's good writing.

[Foeofthelance]

As I told my brother when he said I should read the books, if I want to read entertaining, yet still somewhat trashy, vampire books I'll go grab one of the Anita Blake stories off my shelves. At least Hamilton can tell the difference between vampires and fae, and lycanthropes and cursed skinwalkers. Still wouldn't call her works literature, but even the newest volumes throw something besides "Oooh, sparklyvampirelove! and people don't like us" at the main characters to deal with.

[FatJose]

I only skimmed the book out of curiosity after seeing the movie so I don't have any comments about it. The movie was....well I laughed throughout it...My friend's snarky quips didn't help either. I don't know if its just the movie but I found the two main characters to be major douche bags and it soured the movie for me. Maybe it was the constant "I smell something icky" expression on their faces. Or maybe the female lead being the most popular girl in school and responding to everyone's kindness with disgust. Also wasn't a fan of that vampire's whining. "Wah Wah Wah, I can live forever and I'm super strong and there no drawbacks to what I am." ....Really? My friend's reaction was yelling out in the theater, "Your big weakness is being even more beautiful in sunlight!?" >.>

I liked the werewolf character though. Me and my friend were constantly whispering to each other "werewolf...werewolf." A quick search online proved our guess correct.

As for Meyer not making a 5th book. What's the loss? She's just rehashing the first book, right? I assure you the only difference would have probably been, "I like blood...but I cant have any" *sad face* interspersed through out the book. I kid. Maybe I would have liked it. Its hard to go wrong when your main character can pick up trees and throw them.

[DraPrime]

This series is being cut off? Hooray! Another victory for good literature.

[WNxHasoroth]

Mmph, I cut off the entire Vampire sub genre off forever. It's just go horrid now. Vampires aren't monsters, they're metrosexuals.

Well, except for Salem's Lot.

[DraPrime]

I'm curious, how much entertainment has vampires that are brutal monsters, not self hating people? Not much nowadays. I mean, you get movies/books such as Twilight, TV shows such as Moonlight, and a never ending supply of these. The "monster that is good but everyone hates" may have been new a couple hundred years ago when Frankenstein was written, but at this point is as imaginative as printing a book on paper.

[chiasaur11]

I'm curious, how much entertainment has vampires that are brutal monsters, not self hating people? Not much nowadays. I mean, you get movies/books such as Twilight, TV shows such as Moonlight, and a never ending supply of these. The "monster that is good but everyone hates" may have been new a couple hundred years ago when Frankenstein was written, but at this point is as imaginative as printing a book on paper.

Well, Mike (Hellboy) Mignola still does.

As I've said many times before, his and Christopher Golden's Baltimore is vampire plague awesomeness.

[Lord Seth]

Lord Seth, you're deriding others for doing the exact same thing that the entire Dominic Deegan thread does every day, yourself included....how in the world are the two anything alike?


I loved Eragon. I never saw any problems with it and didn't even realize that there where people who hated it until I stumbled across them on TV tropes.There are tons of problems with Eragon. It's got the worst prose I've ever read (except for The Eye of Argon), one of the most blatant Gary Stus I've ever seen, it blatantly rips off of far better series, and Eragon's a sociopath and a hypocrite.

I mean, I actually found the prose painful to read. I couldn't even finish the book it was so bad.

[Innis Cabal]

I think what he means is, don't judge other people for doing things similar to yourself. Such as your doing with Eragon in your posts. Those who are posting here are happy to see that bad lit. has taken a loss, and are free to do so. Frankly, I for one think she's shooting herself in the foot, making fans angry, and giving more ammo and truth to the court that hates her work.

The real question is, if you don't agree with whats going on/agree with a thread...why post in the thread at all?

[zeratul]

I'm curious, how much entertainment has vampires that are brutal monsters, not self hating people?

One good example would Be 30 days of night which to me captured what I view as the true spirit of the vampire very well. The vampires in elder scrolls oblivion worked pretty damn well, my bands songs about vampires >_> ect.

It's more common nowadays to have the lame self pitying emopyres(TM), but you can find the cool ones if you look.

[Fan]

One good example would Be 30 days of night which to me captured what I view as the true spirit of the vampire very well. The vampires in elder scrolls oblivion worked pretty damn well, my bands songs about vampires >_> ect.

It's more common nowadays to have the lame self pitying emopyres(TM), but you can find the cool ones if you look.

Emopryes CAN be okay, its just that most of the time they have no damned reason to be anything resembling depressed. If given proper backstory, put into significant siutations that aren't "OMG, other vampires hate mah LAHVS no I has go into corner and cry before going all marty stu!", but more "I just killed the only person in my unlife who has ever attempted to see the man behind the monster that I have become." is A more tolerable reason to have TEMPORARY depression before going off to kill some random person to make you forget.

I for one appulad the end of Twilight on a more on topic discussion.
I find the fact that she misspelled Vampire throughout the entire series to really irk me.. The sparkle just made me nauesous.

[DraPrime]

First of all, yay FF didn't leave while I was gone! Next...


One good example would Be 30 days of night which to me captured what I view as the true spirit of the vampire very well. The vampires in elder scrolls oblivion worked pretty damn well, my bands songs about vampires >_> ect.

It's more common nowadays to have the lame self pitying emopyres(TM), but you can find the cool ones if you look.

Indeed, but I have yet to hear your bands songs to judge how vampirically bad-ass they are.

[TRM]

Hating Twilight because it's bad literature is slightly biased. If you're going to hate Twilight with a burning passion and want to kick the author repeatedly in the head and beat her to death with a crowbar, you have to hate all the other crap too.

It's fine to dislike Twilight because it's bad writing. But you have to at least mention the other reasons (i.e: that it was absurdly popular and treated as great literature, and that the author had difficulty with the whole "modesty" concept).

Peeve over. Go back to your Twilight-bashing.

[Innis Cabal]

That makes no sense what so ever. It is possible to hate parts of something without hating the whole, or other similar things for various reasons. Its also possible to hate something other then it being popular. It really can just be because its poor writing. Really. You can hate the other reasons to, but I doubt many here hate it merely because its popular.

Why do you have to hate the other "crap" to? Anne Rice isn't the Twilight author, VtM is not her work either, so why do you have to hate something because it has some similar things but are clearly different enough to not be copy right infringment?

[TRM]

That makes no sense what so ever. It is possible to hate parts of something without hating the whole, or other similar things for various reasons. Its also possible to hate something other then it being popular. It really can just be because its poor writing. Really. You can hate the other reasons to, but I doubt many here hate it merely because its popular.

Why do you have to hate the other "crap" to? Anne Rice isn't the Twilight author, VtM is not her work either, so why do you have to hate something because it has some similar things but are clearly different enough to not be copy right infringment?
I'm not saying that, but it probably seems like I am (I consider myself famous for being unclear).

It's fine to hate Twilight because it's bad writing—it is bad writing. But it's not the worst writing in the whole damn universe, as many on this forum paint it.

If you don't hate the other bad writing because it's bad, you're being selectively hostile, which is quite unfair to Ms. Meyers. That's why I'm saying the other reasons for the intense antagonism relate to her fame combined with the putridity of her prose.

[Innis Cabal]

I'd imagine that most people who hate her writing hate the other awful writing out there to. Ya she's not the worst author out there, but she is one of the more famous and widely well known ones, and thus she has been put out in the spotlight for us to read/view/revile. Its the price of fame. Do alot of people hate her because she's famous? Maybe, but that dosn't mean that its a huge reason they don't want to admit.

The more in the public eye you are, the more critics you will attract. Its just how the world works. If you are going to say "Well I am clearly a good writer because middle aged girls with no sense of what a real relationship is say so" then expect people to call you on it, and often. Same goes for the Eragon guy. The fact of the matter is, just because your books are popular does not mean they are well written, they are merely entertaining for a target group, and the other groups out there will probably not agree with your self important attitude.

So, alot of people really just do hate her writing because its awful. Alot of people are happy she will not be further expanding on her novels which promote poor writing. Taste is subjective, and alot of us know people who do like the books. From my perspective thats fine. You can like them as much as you want. But frankly, I feel those who do like her writting need to really -look- at what is going on in the books, and look at similar series. I'm not a fan of Rice either, I find the two of them really only use Vampires as an outlet for some ill concived love they either really wish they could have/can have, or that they view love in a different light then an emotionally stable person would.

I myself dislike the Super Vampire Sparkles, the writing, and the focus on destructive and (if in the legal real world) poor relationship that the books advocate. Real love is not like that, and it shouldn't be. I find it insulting to people who have been in violent and dangerous relationships to promote it to young women, making it seem alright. I'd like to think and hope that children arn't shaped by what they see, hear, and read but the real fact of the matter is that its only a somewhat realistic belief. The more popular something is, the more young people seem to shape their lives and feelings around it. The idea of the "role model" promoted by at the very least American School System only makes this worse in their general approch to have young teens grasp to some larger then life sport star/lit figure to shape their lives around. Young women shaping their lives around Bella (Think thats her name) would be...dangerous.

[Alleine]

I find the fact that she misspelled Vampire throughout the entire series to really irk me.

Wait, seriously?
I haven't heard anyone say that before. How did she spell it?

[zeratul]

First of all, yay FF didn't leave while I was gone! Next...



Indeed, but I have yet to hear your bands songs to judge how vampirically bad-ass they are.

You'll see soon enough, gimme a few months. :smallwink:

[Lord Seth]

I think what he means is, don't judge other people for doing things similar to yourself. Such as your doing with Eragon in your posts. Those who are posting here are happy to see that bad lit. has taken a loss, and are free to do so. Frankly, I for one think she's shooting herself in the foot, making fans angry, and giving more ammo and truth to the court that hates her work.As I just said, I'm not saying don't criticize. Eragon, as I mentioned, deserves all the criticism it gets, but I find it strange to hate a book series so much that you'd be glad if it was cancelled. The only reason I brought out Eragon in the first place was to show that as much as I think it's hack writing, I don't hate it to this weird extent that it seems some people hate Twilight.


The real question is, if you don't agree with whats going on/agree with a thread...why post in the thread at all?So, only post in a thread if you agree with it, and never actually say anything contradictory? Be a complete yes-man? What's the point of that?

[Fan]

She spelled it Vampyre which is entirely incorrect even in the way you say it.
I respect that people misspell words, but thats in high school essays, and on chats/forums where you dont have a year and a half for editing purposes, and writing the damned thing.

Also, Vampire lovers such as me, and other certain forum members find it almost insulting that someone would abuse a decent concept such as the Vampire, and turn it into [censored by forums] for the sake of writing [censored by forums] that only appeals to the people who enjoy A: A creepy, and poorly written romance, or B: Pedophila based Vampire erotica.
The first option is opinion entirely while the second is what I believe is Twilight in a nutshell.

[The Neoclassic]

She spelled it Vampyre which is entirely incorrect even in the way you say it.
I respect that people misspell words, but thats in high school essays, and on chats/forums where you dont have a year and a half for editing purposes, and writing the damned thing.

Um.... I could have sworn I read some story from the 1800s where vampire was spelled "vampyre," so even if it is a misspelling, it's not a new one. Ah, this was it. (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6087) Anyway, my Concise Oxford English Dictionary does indeed list only "vampire" and not "vampyre," but I'm just saying that she did not invent the spelling nor was it unprecedented.

Honestly, there are such better things for which to attack her books. :smalltongue:

Oh, whomever was talking about "Well, why post on threads if you disagree with them?" I think the rule of thumb is that it is fine to post if you disagree, as long as you are not purposefully being antagonistic nor purposefully derailing the thread. For example, someone on another part of the forums wanted a way to expand on 3.5 FR because they were not a fan of how 4.0 ones were done. It's entirely fine to say "Well, this idea from 4.0 had merit," but to say "Well, you're wrong and you should like 4.0 FR and go with those" would be pointless and nonconstructive. :smallbiggrin:

[Innis Cabal]

She spelled it Vampyre which is entirely incorrect even in the way you say it.

As mentioned, it was used in the 1800's. Not a misspelling. . Not only that, but is a french word vampyre which was the root word for our present day Vampire.

Not only that, but its pronounced the exact same way no matter which spelling you go with. Its Vam then pyre (like fire, also from the word pyre (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pyre)), or Vam then pire (again like fire).


@Lord Seth

No, but if your just going to complain about how people are complaining, then this is probably not the right way or place to do so. Disagree with the argument against her, don't get mad and complain about people rejoicing in her not writing it.

[Lord_Gareth]

They still drink blood. The family Cullen and their animal feeding aren't the norm.
The humans in Meyerworld don't know about the sparklies and have the usual ideas of what a 'real vampire' is like and would not take kindly ta their type 'round yere.
Having to live in hiding would suck, it's more fun chilling with the humans.

Umm...let's see. Twilight vampires are possessed of the following;

- Redonkulous super strength (a newborn can shatter boulders on accident, vampire sex breaks houses), roughly equivalent super-speed, extremely enhanced senses that they don't need to re-adjust to, often have unique signature powers that may or may not cause real changes in the environment around the vampire and, oh yeah, instantly lethal venom.

- No weaknesses. A vampire who has been dismembered may be lit on fire, but the only other way to kill them would be to literally shove fire down their throat.

- They need blood of any kind to live.

So, my question still stands; how is it that these things don't rule the world with all of humanity as their cattle, unchallenged by any comers? They're immortal, invincible super-humans with a sparkly complex - they have NO REASON to hide from humanity, especially considering that the only option for vampiric mass-destruction is a nuclear holocaust.

In an unrelated point, why do people keep saying that I'll need to circumvent the sunlight weakness? People, there's this time, known as night, when for roughly half of the 24 hour cycle, there's no sun outside.

[Bluelantern]

There are other supernatural creatures who could match a vampire, maybe the vampires hide from them...?

Of course, why those hide from manking is another question...

[Innis Cabal]

In an unrelated point, why do people keep saying that I'll need to circumvent the sunlight weakness? People, there's this time, known as night, when for roughly half of the 24 hour cycle, there's no sun outside.

Or, you know, in the regions near the arctic circle where there is no sun for months at a time. They could rule there far easier and go about at almost any time they wish in those regions. Sure its cold, but their dead.

[Lord_Gareth]

...My vampires don't rule, though. They're killable - hell, hack them into enough pieces and they'll starve to death eventually (if they get reassembled by someone, all bets are off, but that's what fire is for, innit?). I just figured - y'know, logically speaking - that most of the story would take place during the night-time.

And for future reference, my protagonist begins the story human.

[Innis Cabal]

I was adding to your argument, not refuting it.

Meyer Vampire's are vampires in name only. They are really just her way of getting her inner fears, desires, and pains out through literary works. Bella is a Mary Sue, and I am loathe to use that word, but it fits. Any character you describe as yourself when answered what they look like is probably not someone you should write about.

[FoE]

As mentioned, it was used in the 1800's. Not a misspelling. . Not only that, but is a french word vampyre which was the root word for our present day Vampire.


Vampyres are just the same, the only real difference being that they can't spell correctly.

Phantasy Spelling: (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PhantasySpelling) for when your monsters are just so much better than all those other monsters of the same species that they can't be bothered to write their name the normal way.

[Lord_Gareth]

Eh, author avatars are not necessarily bad, but that's along the same lines as the idea that you can have good dictators (Lord Vetinari, anyone?). And that has been my two cents as Devil's Advocate.

[Innis Cabal]

Phantasy Spelling: (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PhantasySpelling) for when your monsters are just so much better than all those other monsters of the same species that they can't be bothered to write their name the normal way.

Even though most of the words used in that link are in fact real ancient or semi-old words that are being reused today. Magik for one is a real word. As is Vampyre, though they point out Vampyre is not a mis-spelling, just another way to spell it.

[MorhgorRB]

Then how have other vampire stories been able to use that convention?

Competent writers. >.>

[zeratul]

...My vampires don't rule, though. They're killable - hell, hack them into enough pieces and they'll starve to death eventually (if they get reassembled by someone, all bets are off, but that's what fire is for, innit?). I just figured - y'know, logically speaking - that most of the story would take place during the night-time.

And for future reference, my protagonist begins the story human.

Just out of curiosity is he going to die before turning into a vampire? (old school) or just turn into one after being bitten without the dying part (new school)

[Lord_Gareth]

Remember back up there when I said creating a vampire was a long, involved process?

- To create a vampire, any given vampire must completely exsanguinate a human (by any means, though feeding is the most common) and allow a funeral to be held by mortals for the victim. The vampires must then dig up the corpse and take it somewhere safe and stand vigil over it for no less than seven nights before filling the mouth with fresh human blood. The new vampire will arise the next night, hungry and more than a little scared and confused.

[Gaelbert]

Fun fact: Twilight was written to promote the virtues of chastity. So says my Rolling Stones magazine from December.

[bluewind95]

Fun fact: Twilight was written to promote the virtues of chastity. So says my Rolling Stones magazine from December.

... Wait... what? But doesn't she have hot vamp sex and get pregnant... before even getting married?

[Recaiden]

Remember back up there when I said creating a vampire was a long, involved process?

- To create a vampire, any given vampire must completely exsanguinate a human (by any means, though feeding is the most common) and allow a funeral to be held by mortals for the victim. The vampires must then dig up the corpse and take it somewhere safe and stand vigil over it for no less than seven nights before filling the mouth with fresh human blood. The new vampire will arise the next night, hungry and more than a little scared and confused.

See, I had thought it was 3 days and vampires blood. But yes, the process is generally complicated.
@^Maybe being turned into a vampire represents being married? Somehow?:smallconfused:

[Lord_Gareth]

I was referring to vampire creation in my story, not in general. For future reference.

[Recaiden]

In general, it is a complicated processs though. It varies wildly, but...I've kind of lost my point.

[Nerd-o-rama]

... Wait... what? But doesn't she have hot vamp sex and get pregnant... before even getting married?

I thought she got married, then pregnant, then gave birth, then finally vampiricized. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm going off of what I remember my girlfriend gushing at me.

Then again, Rolling Stone was probably just making crap up.

[Killersquid]

I thought she got married, then pregnant, then gave birth, then finally vampiricized. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm going off of what I remember my girlfriend gushing at me.

Then again, Rolling Stone was probably just making crap up.

Oh god my brain! It hurts just trying to wrap my mind around it!

[RabbitHoleLost]

She spelled it Vampyre which is entirely incorrect even in the way you say it.
I respect that people misspell words, but thats in high school essays, and on chats/forums where you dont have a year and a half for editing purposes, and writing the damned thing.

Also, Vampire lovers such as me, and other certain forum members find it almost insulting that someone would abuse a decent concept such as the Vampire, and turn it into [censored by forums] for the sake of writing [censored by forums] that only appeals to the people who enjoy A: A creepy, and poorly written romance, or B: Pedophila based Vampire erotica.
The first option is opinion entirely while the second is what I believe is Twilight in a nutshell.
So, if Edward, who is only a hundred or so years older than Bella is pedophelia, what's Turtle/Fan (who's, like, tens of thousands of years older than Turtle? :smalltongue:)
I personally consider myself a vampire fan. I've read any kind of vampire literature I could get my hands on, from the original Dracula, to Midnight Mass, to Twilight, and, an even worse one, Vampire Kisses.
If you think Twilight is horrible and awful, I dare you to read the first chapter of that.
I enjoyed parts of Twilight, ignoring the fourth novel. I think my eyes bled through Vampire Kisses.

Edit: I just researched and there are three sequels to Vampire Kisses, and the y have started planning for the movie.
I can't wait.
You guys will be begging for the mercy of Twilight when that comes 'round :smallamused:

[FoE]

Even though most of the words used in that link are in fact real ancient or semi-old words that are being reused today. Magik for one is a real word. As is Vampyre, though they point out Vampyre is not a mis-spelling, just another way to spell it.

Who cares how the word was spelled a century ago? Languages evolve. Spelling the word as "vampyre" is just a silly attempt to further separate the story's vampires from the conventional kind, ie. ones who don't sparkle.

[Lord_Gareth]

You guys will be begging for the mercy of Twilight when that comes 'round :smallamused:

You seem to misunderstand, Rabbit. We don't hate Twilight because it's garbage - plenty of published books are garbage. We don't hate it because it's popular - a lot of good books have become popular. We hate it because it's a stinking, mile-high pile of refuge and human corpses being worshipped by an alarmingly large population of teenage girls, emo lolcows (nuttymadam, anyone?) and thirty-year-old mothers who are inflicting it upon their children.

[Anteros]

I was adding to your argument, not refuting it.
Bella is a Mary Sue, and I am loathe to use that word, but it fits. Any character you describe as yourself when answered what they look like is probably not someone you should write about.

Umm, you use that word in every literary argument you participate in. I'm not refuting your point in this particular instance, but it does tend to hurt your arguments when you do that.

[KnightDisciple]

Who cares how the word was spelled a century ago? Languages evolve. Spelling the word as "vampyre" is just a silly attempt to further separate the story's vampires from the conventional kind, ie. ones who don't sparkle.

So, wait, the way it "used to be" spelled doesn't matter? So why can't someone decide they're now spelling it "vampyre".
I mean, seriously, it's a one letter difference. There's nothing wrong with archaic spellings; I think it livens a book up.
Not that I've read, or intend to read, Twilight. Ever.

[SilverSheriff]

You and your English teacher may enjoy Dickons, while Tom the Scene kid may enjoy Twilight.

You made a crucial mistake in your choice of words, I have repaired all errors for you. Thank you and have a nice day.

Man, if my friends ever see what you wrote you'd be in big trouble, be thankful that I am in a Teaching sort of mood.

[TRM]

I was adding to your argument, not refuting it.

Meyer Vampire's are vampires in name only. They are really just her way of getting her inner fears, desires, and pains out through literary works. Bella is a Mary Sue, and I am loathe to use that word, but it fits. Any character you describe as yourself when answered what they look like is probably not someone you should write about.
Is that allowed? If she were a skillful writer, we would all be praising her for using vampires in such a subtle, metaphorical way to demonstrate fears, desires, and pains.


You seem to misunderstand, Rabbit. We don't hate Twilight because it's garbage - plenty of published books are garbage. We don't hate it because it's popular - a lot of good books have become popular. We hate it because it's a stinking, mile-high pile of refuge and human corpses being worshipped by an alarmingly large population of teenage girls, emo lolcows (nuttymadam, anyone?) and thirty-year-old mothers who are inflicting it upon their children.
And this was kind of the point I was trying to make... Fortunately Lord Gareth is much more eloquent than I.

[Lord_Gareth]

Aww, Rogue, you're making me blush ^_^

[zeratul]

Your transformation process sounds cool Gareth.

@Rabit: I would only hate it as much as I hate any stupid romance novel if it weren't for the whole "raping the vampire genre" aspect of it.

[comicshorse]

I enjoyed parts of Twilight, ignoring the fourth novel. I think my eyes bled through Vampire Kisses.

I'm filled with horrific curiosity Rabbit. What does this book have that is worse then 'Sparkly' vampires ?

[TRM]

Aww, Rogue, you're making me blush ^_^
To the shipping thread!

I mean, let's put that in my signature...

I mean. *stabs*


Your transformation process sounds cool Gareth.

@Rabit: I would only hate it as much as I hate any stupid romance novel if it weren't for the whole "raping the vampire genre" aspect of it.
Personally, I'm all for the evolution of old myths and their portrayal in new ways. Some of my favorite books and movies are ones that subvert tradition and make it new and fresh. (I can't think of specifics; don't ask me, it will make my argument weaker.)

[Fan]

So, if Edward, who is only a hundred or so years older than Bella is pedophelia, what's Turtle/Fan (who's, like, tens of thousands of years older than Turtle? :smalltongue:)
I personally consider myself a vampire fan. I've read any kind of vampire literature I could get my hands on, from the original Dracula, to Midnight Mass, to Twilight, and, an even worse one, Vampire Kisses.
If you think Twilight is horrible and awful, I dare you to read the first chapter of that.
I enjoyed parts of Twilight, ignoring the fourth novel. I think my eyes bled through Vampire Kisses.

Edit: I just researched and there are three sequels to Vampire Kisses, and the y have started planning for the movie.
I can't wait.
You guys will be begging for the mercy of Twilight when that comes 'round :smallamused:

Thats different as Fanboy isn't actually that old (OOC exposition) Hell, Fanboy isn't even his real name. :smalltongue:
I haz secrets so many secrets! BWAHAHAHAH!
These will be revealed as soon as the next Draken attack happens, and I actually have a chance to use Evil Fan.:smalltongue:
Also, I feel safe posting this here because happy doesn't read this section.:smallamused:

[Gaelbert]

Logical fallacy at all there? :smallbiggrin:

Hitler hated Muse, therefore anyone who likes Muse must be good. Even Stephany Meyer.

And I didn't say that the chastity deal made sense, just that Rolling Stone and another source I can't remember have both said it. I can't see where it is shown in the book at all though.

[Innis Cabal]

One more nail in the coffin I guess.

I mean...they have a baby don't they? How ever that works.

[bluewind95]

One more nail in the coffin I guess.

I mean...they have a baby don't they? How ever that works.

.... That makes the whole thing more disturbing, when I think of it. Was the baby born dead? Or was it half-dead? How would that even work? :smalleek:

..... The more I hear of that story... the less I think it's just a romance novel. It's one of the most horrifying things I've seen. :smalleek:

[RabbitHoleLost]

I'm filled with horrific curiosity Rabbit. What does this book have that is worse then 'Sparkly' vampires ?

Here's the Wikipedia blurb for Vampire kisses:


Vampire Kisses
It has been noted by Ellen on her website that Vampire Kisses has been optioned for a film.

In her small town dubbed "Dullsville," sixteen-year-old Raven--a vampire-crazed goth-girl-is an outcast. But not for long...

The intriguing and rumored-to-be haunted mansion on top of Benson Hill has stood vacant and boarded-up for years. That is, until its mysteriously strange new occupants move in. Who are these creepy people--especially the handsome, dark and elusive Alexander Sterling? Or rather, what are they? Could the town prattle actually ring true? Are they vampires? Raven, who secretly covets a vampire kiss, both at risk of her own mortality and Alexander's loving trust, is dying to uncover the truth.But what happens when Alexander has to leave. a gripping tale of love.

[Innis Cabal]

Don't quote this from me or anything, this part is pure hear say as I stopped reading after about the....5th chapter out of sheer disgust. But Bella becomes a vampire and Ed had to bite her open because vampire skin is as hard as steel.

If thats true, and i'm not 100% as the person who told me said she couldn't remember it fully....then it should be even more scary then originally thought.

Also, Anteros -since there are almost only ever the 2 lit discussions (This and Eragon) its sort of silly to claim I use it every time. Thats some pretty flawed reasoning. There have been plenty where I have argued against using that particular word, as its more or less lost its meaning now.

[The Glyphstone]

Apparently by EATING it out of her or something.

[Innis Cabal]

So its pro-gluttony. I guess that does add credence to her getting a baby. This is what we're letting out children read.

[Nerd-o-rama]

.... That makes the whole thing more disturbing, when I think of it. Was the baby born dead? Or was it half-dead? How would that even work? :smalleek:

..... The more I hear of that story... the less I think it's just a romance novel. It's one of the most horrifying things I've seen. :smalleek:

Dhampir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhampir). She's kinda disturbing, but not conceptually any worse than Blade.

[Lord_Gareth]

The real question is this - how did the 'scientific' Meyerpires (ignoring the fact that they violate just about every law of physics and biology ever written, in addition to being an incorrect usage of the term 'scientific', which actually refers to a method of thought and not a paradigm that excludes the paranormal in favor of the technological) keep sperm in their bodies for ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT YEARS to impregnate Mary Sue?

[Innis Cabal]

By the power of their sparkles. They clearly arn't members of the Undead.

[Lord Seth]

How exactly was "vampyre" used? There's nothing inherently wrong with using archaic spellings, it's just all in how you use it.

[Bluelantern]

By the power of their sparkles. They clearly arn't members of the Undead.

well... Darla dig managed to get pragnant from angel, and both are centuries old vampires... and... and...

...you know what, forget it. The whole thing is just too disturbing >.<

[Innis Cabal]

Maybe vampires have vampire sperm and vampire eggs?

[TRM]

The real question is this - how did the 'scientific' Meyerpires (ignoring the fact that they violate just about every law of physics and biology ever written, in addition to being an incorrect usage of the term 'scientific', which actually refers to a method of thought and not a paradigm that excludes the paranormal in favor of the technological) keep sperm in their bodies for ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT YEARS to impregnate Mary Sue?
(Disclaimer: Your local antagonistic Rogue_Monk hasn't read the Twilight books).

How did he become undead in the first place? How does he maintain super strength; it seems logical that his muscles would atrophy while being dead.

Your question is sound, but it seems too much like splitting hairs; you always suspend disbelief when reading fantasy. (Of course, if Meyers is claiming that they're "scientifically correct" vampyres, please ignore my post—that is an entirely different kettle of reanimated fish.)

[Gaelbert]

Don't quote this from me or anything, this part is pure hear say as I stopped reading after about the....5th chapter out of sheer disgust. But Bella becomes a vampire and Ed had to bite her open because vampire skin is as hard as steel.

If thats true, and i'm not 100% as the person who told me said she couldn't remember it fully....then it should be even more scary then originally thought.

Not exactly how it happens.
The baby matures very fast. When the time for birth comes, it starts to claw its way out of the womb. Bella almost dies due to this. Edward injects her with vampire venom through a needle, and she's turned into a vampire after the birth. The baby is alive, and has 24 chromosomes. It has some special talents of the vampires, i.e. can live forever, can use a form of telepathy, some other things that I can't remember, but also has a heart beat and blood flowing through it.

[Innis Cabal]

Thats...not any better really. Worse actually I think.

[The Glyphstone]

She also has adult intelligence from birth, and ages 17 years in only 7 years just so Bella's former alternate love interest, the werewolf, can fall in love with her instead.

[Fan]

That made it about 27 times worse... I mean I RP a vampire, and I can't even fathom how a dead body could produce sperm cells that would function inside a living womb. In fact I BELIEVE that the body voids itself of all of those fluids UPON dieing.

[Lord_Gareth]

(Disclaimer: Your local antagonistic Rogue_Monk hasn't read the Twilight books).

How did he become undead in the first place? How does he maintain super strength; it seems logical that his muscles would atrophy while being dead.

Your question is sound, but it seems too much like splitting hairs; you always suspend disbelief when reading fantasy. (Of course, if Meyers is claiming that they're "scientifically correct" vampyres, please ignore my post—that is an entirely different kettle of reanimated fish.)

Meyer made the claim that her vampires worked in the currently known laws of physics, breaking none of them. So either she's a lying sack of ****, or she's that stupid.

[comicshorse]

That made it about 27 times worse... I mean I RP a vampire, and I can't even fathom how a dead body could produce sperm cells that would function inside a living womb. In fact I BELIEVE that the body voids itself of all of those fluids UPON dieing.

Yep, makes your Toreador's embrace a whole lot less romantic, don't it.

[Innis Cabal]

So either she's a lying sack of ****, or she's that stupid.

Its possible to be both. I think she is one of those rare instances.

To even claim that they work in the realm of science is to void any and all possible suspense of disbelief it would other wise have.

[Lord_Gareth]

ARG! SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE A REALM, DAMNIT! It's a philosiphy! Science is the idea that everything has an observeable pattern that may be predicted and explained - that does not preclude paranormal events! Vancian magic is scientific, for example.

*Is now peeved*

[The Glyphstone]

Physics and Biology, on the other hand, do. VampMeyers break both, contrary to what the author claims.

[Knaight]

While claiming that the vampires work within the laws of physics observed is totally ridiculous, the writing isn't that bad. Sure, most published work is better, but having recently read one line of a bad fanfiction that one of my friends had one of her friends force her to read (Basically a crap romance, but far enough into that that I made it one line in.) Its bad writing, but it could be dismissed as that and left alongside other bad writing if the writer wasn't so arrogant. Its better than Left Behind for kids for instance.

[Verruckt]

Its possible to be both. I think she is one of those rare instances.

To even claim that they work in the realm of science is to void any and all possible suspense of disbelief it would other wise have.

If you want to see Vampires done in a somewhat realistic clinging to the edges of possibility sort of way I direct you to the I Am Legend book. As for Sparklepuss and Friends being possible...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HA

No...

No... you silly inept "author" woman you. Please by all means continue spewing your drivel, make your books the biggest things in highschool libraries across the nation, melting the minds of the next generation into mush, but don't, DON'T pretend to be actually taking yourself seriously while you do it.

[Sholos]

well... Darla dig managed to get pragnant from angel, and both are centuries old vampires... and... and...

...you know what, forget it. The whole thing is just too disturbing >.<

Of course, it is mentioned that something like that should never have happened...

[evil-frosty]

I have read very few vampire books myself. But i love the way Jim Butcher portrays them. Black Court being like stokers. Red Court being complete monsters. But then he falls short with the White Court who are more like all sparkly. Dhamphir is a great vampire book vampires being destroyed by one of them is sorta ironic to me.

[turkishproverb]

Of course, it is mentioned that something like that should never have happened...

Thank you! Glad someone pointed out that at least ANGEL dealt with the fact it was confusingly not-logical.

[Darkmage]

Even though I already know this, I praise whatever gods exist that this happened.

Yes, I know people can actually like Twilight (And wonder how), but I don't, I read 2 lines of this and felt incredibly stupid, as if my brain cells were murdered by it, I also saw the movie because a friend wanted me to hang out with them and I wanted to hang out with them, it was a crappy movie and a waste of 121 minutes.

The only GOOD thing it did was help me develop my Edward Cullen routine, it is quite amusing for anyone who hears it.

I haven't read that much vampire stuff but I've read and seen enough of it to hate Twilight, not just cause of the "omg, teh sparkliez", but because the book is so terribly written that 2 lines from a random part of the book made me feel stupid, the plot was just pathetic too, the only decent thing of the first book was James, the villain, he was the ONLY one who was at least half well written.

Twilight and it's sequels are like HIV, no one wants them but yet somehow people regretfully get it.

To me anyway.

[SilverSheriff]

Twilight and it's sequels are like HIV, no one wants them but yet somehow people regretfully get it.

To me anyway.

not that I didn't laugh, but that is probably forum inappropriate.

[Wizzardman]

So, wait, the way it "used to be" spelled doesn't matter? So why can't someone decide they're now spelling it "vampyre".
I mean, seriously, it's a one letter difference. There's nothing wrong with archaic spellings; I think it livens a book up.
Not that I've read, or intend to read, Twilight. Ever.

Doubtlessly this has already been covered somewhere in this thread, but I feel the urge to respond, as this particular statement runs straight into a personal irk of mine.

Actually, yes, I'd argue that the way a word like vampire is spelled does matter. Especially if this word is part of a selection of "special" words that use their archaic spellings, and if these special words happen to be used in their archaic form so often by other books of similar make that they can be considered cliche. Vampyre, magick, magik, and similar "archaic spellings" have been used a ridiculously large number of times by pop fantasy fiction.

And the writers of these books rarely give a reason for these changes--you don't see vampires talking about their urge to áetan án huntnað, or dropping into older versions of the language on occasion (even the really old ones), or using other terms besides the conveniently easy-to-interpret vampyre (such as strigoi or even vampir, with nosferatu as an exception originating from a great movie). And honestly, since the change is based so selectively on a single word that is only slightly different from its spelling in modern English, words like "vampyre" and "magik" often come off as cliched attempts to say "our vampires are different."

Not trying to step on anyone's toes here or anything, just pointing this out.

Additionally: of course her vampires violate several scientific laws. She doesn't exactly have a masters in physics or biology here. Its silly for her to claim that they make sense, but, to be fair, she doesn't have any more of a scientific education than the majority of vampire fiction novelists out there.

[MeatShield#236]

I personally don't have a problem with the books themselves. Sure, they're bad, but people have been writing crappy literature ever since books were made.What I DO have a problem with are the HORDES of rabid fangirls and fans comparing it to GOOD works. And that some people might take this as an example of an actuall relationship. If people start marrying obsessive stalkers thinking, "He follows me around and sneaks into my bedroom, he must love me!" And when they get hurt by their 'lovers' they might think "Oh, he's just being rough, but he loves me!"* There will be more abuse in households if that happens.So, to all those who read Twilight, think for yourselves.(And Meyer has some major ego problems.)

[Aergoth]

@Wizzardman
The problem, apparently is that when we get to "our elves are different/our vampires are different" and you say "they're scientifically correct" and they aren't you're opening yourself up to... problems. For instance: The only way you can explain the inhuman durability of vampires is 1. The Second blade movie added a second, tougher layer of bone, between the breast and rib-cage around the Reapers' (vampire-hunting vampires, don't ask.) hearts So there is a logical course of action there. They could still be killed by Snipes so they weren't uber-durable anyways. 2. They have extra-organs, a la banshees from Discworld (I loved the "missed, BOTH my hearts" line) 3. Mad healing powers. This one is interesting. Assuming you could handwave away a few minor problems and stick to the more important part. Energy: Where do they get it. Healing wounds takes time and energy from the body. The reason humans can't reassemble themselves from wounds as fast is because it uses up the energy the body needs to run itself. Add more energy, things go faster, but you'll also need to eat more. Lot's more. 4. Supernatural.

#4 lets you wave away science, no one laughs at you for failing at basic science, biology, chemistry or physics. Supernatural vampires are just as scary as "correct" vampires, moreso usually because they are allowed to be inhumanly fast, strong, durable and similar. They're not normal. Scienc-y vampires have to stay within the realm of science. That means if they have a way to climb up walls with just their feet, they either use tech, or they're barefoot and pulling a spider-man. If they can survive a twenty-foot fall, explain it by increasing the durability of the bone-structure or something. Give them exo-skeletons if you have to. Do not come into the house of Science without knowing the consequences. People who know sciences that have been friends of mine are some of the most critical bastards I know. We don't need hard SF but if you're going to say something: back it the hell up.
I am Legend (cited before) is an excellent example. It allows for a virus that makes the victim feed on blood. The majority of traditional vampire weaknesses are explained away by psychological aversion to things like crosses and holy books.
If you claim to be scientifically "correct" you better do you damned homework.

[Project_Mayhem]

Yep, makes your Toreador's embrace a whole lot less romantic, don't it.

Well, my character being a Gangrel, embraced in a Thames warehouse by someone who had just beaten the crap out of him, I don't think he cares.

Silly Toreador.

[Occasional Sage]

...you don't see vampires talking about their urge to áetan án huntnað...

Not being a centuries-old vampire myself, what does that mean?

[Yulian]

Meyer made the claim that her vampires worked in the currently known laws of physics, breaking none of them. So either she's a lying sack of ****, or she's that stupid.

I've been waiting to use this quote...

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1604226/story.jhtml

"The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn,"
"She's not very good."
"In the case of Stephenie Meyer," "It's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books."
"It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening, because they're not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."

That, my friends...is from Stephen King himself.

The comments under that article are hysterical. The Twitards just aren't "getting" who King is in the modern horror lit hierarchy.

The best ones are the ones accusing him of being jealous of Meyers. Really, that makes them come off as ignorant children.

No, no, seriously, look:
"he's an idiot who cant tell the difference between a good book and a bad book. Stephanie Meyers is one of the most successful authors and she deserves to be one of the most successful writers. He's just jealous"

*Falls over laughing*.

- Yulian

[RabbitHoleLost]

The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer

I would love to argue with this point, but that's an entirely different thread <<

[Innis Cabal]

I would love to argue with this point, but that's an entirely different thread <<

I'm with you >.>

[RMS Oceanic]

I would love to argue with this point, but that's an entirely different thread <<

I'll sum it up, then: When it comes to Rowling's actual writing, Your Milage May Vary. However, I think she's a darn good plot weaver, giving a lot of thought into how the plot progresses. The best example for me would be:
When it's revealed that Draco Malfoy was Master of the Elder Wand, and this allowed Harry to become Master. I was like "bwuh?!" for a second before I realised how it all came together. I thought that was brilliantly planned out. That's just me, however.

Meanwhile, in on-topic land, I reiterate my belief that it's the Fandom, rather than the books themselves, that polarises the view of Twilight.

[Bluelantern]

I'll sum it up, then: When it comes to Rowling's actual writing, Your Milage May Vary. However, I think she's a darn good plot weaver, giving a lot of thought into how the plot progresses. The best example for me would be:
When it's revealed that Draco Malfoy was Master of the Elder Wand, and this allowed Harry to become Master. I was like "bwuh?!" for a second before I realised how it all came together. I thought that was brilliantly planned out. That's just me, however.

Meanwhile, in on-topic land, I reiterate my belief that it's the Fandom, rather than the books themselves, that polarises the view of Twilight.

I was actually a bit tired of all that "plot weaving" in the 7th, but overall I liked it.

Also, don't forget. Sparkles.

[Cristo Meyers]

I've been waiting to use this quote...

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1604226/story.jhtml

"The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn,"
"She's not very good."
"In the case of Stephenie Meyer," "It's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books."
"It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening, because they're not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."

That, my friends...is from Stephen King himself.

The comments under that article are hysterical. The Twitards just aren't "getting" who King is in the modern horror lit hierarchy.

The best ones are the ones accusing him of being jealous of Meyers. Really, that makes them come off as ignorant children.

No, no, seriously, look:
"he's an idiot who cant tell the difference between a good book and a bad book. Stephanie Meyers is one of the most successful authors and she deserves to be one of the most successful writers. He's just jealous"

*Falls over laughing*.

- Yulian

We're talking about a section of fans who likely don't even know who Stephen King is, much less can name more than one book he wrote. It's the real reason behind Meyer's success: she's tapped into a market that will blindly buy just about anything, all you have to do is convince them that it's cool.

[Yulian]

We're talking about a section of fans who likely don't even know who Stephen King is, much less can name more than one book he wrote. It's the real reason behind Meyer's success: she's tapped into a market that will blindly buy just about anything, all you have to do is convince them that it's cool.

That's the saddest part of all, the emphasis on tween culture, particularly female tween culture, to be a target for pure marketing devoid of actual content or standards.

Look at what passes for pop music targeted at that crowd. Say what you will about say...Michael Jackson devolving into an utter freak, but his music, objectively, was well written and his performances were technically adept both in his vocal performance and his dancing.

It's the utter lack of standards that bugs me. We've all liked things that were pretty dumb in retrospect, but currently, a lot of tween-girl-targeted cultural items don't seem to be anything but targeted marketing. There's a complete absence of depth.

Twilight's almost unconscious message about what constitutes a "perfect" relationship does not help matters at all.

- Yulian

[KnightDisciple]

Doubtlessly this has already been covered somewhere in this thread, but I feel the urge to respond, as this particular statement runs straight into a personal irk of mine.

Actually, yes, I'd argue that the way a word like vampire is spelled does matter. Especially if this word is part of a selection of "special" words that use their archaic spellings, and if these special words happen to be used in their archaic form so often by other books of similar make that they can be considered cliche. Vampyre, magick, magik, and similar "archaic spellings" have been used a ridiculously large number of times by pop fantasy fiction.

And the writers of these books rarely give a reason for these changes--you don't see vampires talking about their urge to áetan án huntnað, or dropping into older versions of the language on occasion (even the really old ones), or using other terms besides the conveniently easy-to-interpret vampyre (such as strigoi or even vampir, with nosferatu as an exception originating from a great movie). And honestly, since the change is based so selectively on a single word that is only slightly different from its spelling in modern English, words like "vampyre" and "magik" often come off as cliched attempts to say "our vampires are different."

Not trying to step on anyone's toes here or anything, just pointing this out.

Additionally: of course her vampires violate several scientific laws. She doesn't exactly have a masters in physics or biology here. Its silly for her to claim that they make sense, but, to be fair, she doesn't have any more of a scientific education than the majority of vampire fiction novelists out there.

My counterpoint to this would be pretty simple. Vampires, being fictional beings, are portrayed in a large variety of ways. Most of the differences are subtle. But since they're a fictional being anyways, any changes made to their basic abilities, personalities, motivations, etc. aren't some great insult. (Note: this is completely outside Meyer's plots, ability to write, etc. This is purely a general point; I'm trying to be as clear as I can, but might be failing.)
If she wants to call her completely fictional race "vampyres" instead of "vampires", there's nothing wrong with that. If Meyer had written a fantastic series with well-written characters and plot, would you still be bellyaching about this? Or is it just because of the low quality of the series?
I have no problems with an author spelling a name different (especially by one or two letters) to show the difference of their creatures to another authors.
Also, consider that vampires/vampyres are old. So, perhaps in a self-referential spelling, it would be "vampyre" anyways, and Meyer skipped the "vampire" spelling middleman?
Seriously, there's no crushing issue here. At worst, it's at the level of "straw that broke the bat", if that straw is a few microns wide.

[Satyr]

I must admit that I have neither read the book or seen the movie, but since too many girls around started to become hypnotized by this around me, I dream of a movie where the sparkling vampires are beaten up by Bela Lugosi. Or Max Schreck. Or both.

[bluewind95]

I must admit that I have neither read the book or seen the movie, but since too many girls around started to become hypnotized by this around me, I dream of a movie where the sparkling vampires are beaten up by Bela Lugosi. Or Max Schreck. Or both.

Oh, they couldn't beat the sparkly vampires. They're perfect, don't you know? :smalltongue:

[Trizap]

I feel a bit of an idiot cause everyone else hates Twilight for good reasons, while I just hate it because vampires don't sparkle

I haven't even read one book, and I hate it because vampires don't sparkle.
its against nature..........

vampires just don't sparkle. they just don't.

[Teela-Y]

Wow, really? I had no idea... I mean, I heard it was gonna come out, but now it's not?

How disappointing. The books aren't the best, and the characters are shallow, but I always thought the story line was cute. It doesn't really have a lot to offer, and even if the storyline was poorly structured I did at least enjoy reading all the 4 so far.

Well, I'm gonna go look into this. Thanks for the news! I had no idea!

[chiasaur11]

Oh, they couldn't beat the sparkly vampires. They're perfect, don't you know? :smalltongue:

So, Spike kills them then?

Or Cassidy from Preacher?

The Nazi Vampire army from BPRD 1946?

I'm open to suggestions.

[Nerd-o-rama]

As for the vampyre spelling, I think it irks people just because it's seen as pretentious. I know it does to me, but it's far and away not the biggest problem with this series.

[Quincunx]

Or, heck, just add that entire "etymology of 'wampyr'*" rant from Preacher into the gooey vampire novel of your choice. . .

*Cannot be condensed into a board-appropriate form. Just trust me when I describe it as both hilarious and necessary contrast to gooey vampire ideals.

[KnightDisciple]

I feel a bit of an idiot cause everyone else hates Twilight for good reasons, while I just hate it because vampires don't sparkle

I haven't even read one book, and I hate it because vampires don't sparkle.
its against nature..........

vampires just don't sparkle. they just don't.

Um...I feel that, again, this would be a minor thing. Yes, it's more of a departure than the spelling, but this one thing doesn't break the series.
Also, there is no for/against nature with vamps. 1.)They don't exist, and 2.)Even if they did, they would, by definition, be unnatural. So just by being a vampire from any book, they are "against nature".
Again, yes, it's perhaps a jarring departure, but since at least some of her other stuff lines up with vamps (you know, they're strong, drink blood, kinda sexy, immortal, etc.), sparkly isn't that big of a deal. Her reasoning for it might be off, but "sparkly" in and of itself isn't really that big of a deal.

[chiasaur11]

Um...I feel that, again, this would be a minor thing. Yes, it's more of a departure than the spelling, but this one thing doesn't break the series.
Also, there is no for/against nature with vamps. 1.)They don't exist, and 2.)Even if they did, they would, by definition, be unnatural. So just by being a vampire from any book, they are "against nature".
Again, yes, it's perhaps a jarring departure, but since at least some of her other stuff lines up with vamps (you know, they're strong, drink blood, kinda sexy, immortal, etc.), sparkly isn't that big of a deal. Her reasoning for it might be off, but "sparkly" in and of itself isn't really that big of a deal.

Here's the thing: Sparkling is, inherently, hmm... I'm going for a probably misunderstood Britishism here... Pants. People excuse changes to mythos if they're interesting or cool or similar. Not so here. Even if Twilight was written by, I dunno, Alan Moore at his finest, people would recommend it in terms like "Yeah, it has sparkly vampires, and that is lame, but other than that it's awesome".

[Wizzardman]

My counterpoint to this would be pretty simple. Vampires, being fictional beings, are portrayed in a large variety of ways. Most of the differences are subtle. But since they're a fictional being anyways, any changes made to their basic abilities, personalities, motivations, etc. aren't some great insult. (Note: this is completely outside Meyer's plots, ability to write, etc. This is purely a general point; I'm trying to be as clear as I can, but might be failing.)
If she wants to call her completely fictional race "vampyres" instead of "vampires", there's nothing wrong with that. If Meyer had written a fantastic series with well-written characters and plot, would you still be bellyaching about this? Or is it just because of the low quality of the series?
I have no problems with an author spelling a name different (especially by one or two letters) to show the difference of their creatures to another authors.
Also, consider that vampires/vampyres are old. So, perhaps in a self-referential spelling, it would be "vampyre" anyways, and Meyer skipped the "vampire" spelling middleman?
Seriously, there's no crushing issue here. At worst, it's at the level of "straw that broke the bat", if that straw is a few microns wide.

...You see, unless I'm misinterpreting you, your argument is "she can call them what she wants because they don't follow the traditional vampire rules," right?

Then that really doesn't affect my point. Whether her vampires are traditional or not, she chose to use a name specifically designed to reference pre-existing concepts, and she chose to use a version of that name that is incredibly trite and cliche. She's not creating a "new and special snowflake" species of vampire, she's just rehashing an already overdone spelling error.

She's not violating some strange ruling about how vampire should be spelled, or varying her spelling to make her creatures easier to differentiate. If anything, her choice in spelling makes it harder to differentiate hers from other "vampyres" out there; while vampire is such a general, well-known term that people will easily get the reference as a mere reference, and not a defining term, "vampyre" is used almost exclusively by a specific type of cheesy overly-romantic vampire fiction style, and as such, we immediately associate her stuff with cheesy romance cliches even before we pick up the book.

Its like with the words "robot" and "droid." They both mean pretty much the same thing to the average reader, but when most people think of robots, they think of any of the millions of different robot types out there. When most people think of "droid," they think of the most prominent examples of "droid" being used (i.e. Star Wars), and expect these "droids" to be similar to those examples.

Additionally, as I already said, if "vampyres" are old enough to be using older spellings, why do we never seen any vampires referring to themselves as strigoi or nosferatu? Or using older versions of any other word? Why do they use o-so-perfect modern english on everything except their own species, and then use only a 18th-century version, rather than any others? I mean, they hardly even have accents, for crying out loud.

And yes, I would complain even if she had managed to tell a good story. Cliches are bad, people.


Um...I feel that, again, this would be a minor thing. Yes, it's more of a departure than the spelling, but this one thing doesn't break the series.
Also, there is no for/against nature with vamps. 1.)They don't exist, and 2.)Even if they did, they would, by definition, be unnatural. So just by being a vampire from any book, they are "against nature".
Again, yes, it's perhaps a jarring departure, but since at least some of her other stuff lines up with vamps (you know, they're strong, drink blood, kinda sexy, immortal, etc.), sparkly isn't that big of a deal. Her reasoning for it might be off, but "sparkly" in and of itself isn't really that big of a deal.

You see, the other thing you're missing is that sparkling vampires is a somewhat silly way to remove a primary weakness. I mean, sure, it works for what she wanted, but there's got to be a better way to make your creatures more cheesily attractive/perfect and less monstrous than simply covering them in glitter and saying "go." Hell, just give them an unexplained supernatural attractiveness, and they can be both attractive/perfect AND monstrous (though this, too, is slightly cliche).

And considering that, while vampires don't really exist in real life, they do exist as mythological constructs in society, with a set of fairly specific details about what they should and shouldn't be like, making them sparkle just kind of comes off as turning them from "monstrous nightstalkers" to "not particularly monstrous pretty boys."

Edit: Toned those last two paragraphs down a bit, and clarified them.

[Turcano]

Just on a tangent: Meyer made the Buffalo Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America in 2008 (http://www.buffalobeast.com/134/50mostloathsome2008-p2.html):


31. Stephenie Meyer

Charges: She’s the unforgivably perky Mormon mom who wrote the Twilight Series of books, currently draining IQ points from Western Civilization. This silly wank-off vampire fantasy for teenage girls has been embraced by legions of sad, middle-aged women who fight for access to their daughters’ sticky copies of the books. It’s an embarrassing spectacle for all Americans who aren’t actively participating in it. Meyer admits she can't handle the better class of vampires and has never watched a whole vampire movie, even the more anemic kind: “I've seen little pieces of Interview with a Vampire when it was on TV, but I kind of always go YUCK! I don't watch R-rated movies, so that really cuts down on a lot of the horror. And I think I've seen a couple of pieces of The Lost Boys, which my husband liked, and he wanted me to watch it once, but I was like, ‘It's creepy!’”

Exhibit A: The hit movie version of Twilight, featuring Meyer’s dreary characters, a tiresome teenage girl and the pathetic “vegetarian” vampire who loves her, mooning around on first base for two hours and giving vampires everywhere a bad name.

Sentence: Meyer encounters a non-vegetarian vampire, who kills her immediately and gruesomely in front of an appreciative audience of horror film fans.

[Teela-Y]

I explained to a friend that after watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer years ago, that perhaps vampires have evolved... supposedly, I once either heard in an episode of said show, or read in one of Anne Rice's books, that vampires turn into ash because after you die (vampires ARE dead, let us not forget, because I don't think Stephanie Meyer really mentions that openly) and thus your blood doesn't flow ... well, like humans' blood does. Your skin become pale, and your body becomes cold.

Perhaps the skin became harder, instead of weaker, and instead of absorbing the UV rays like our skin does, reflects it.

That's just my hunch. *Shrug* Thing is, also, it's a fiction book. I'm not trying to stick up for Meyer or anything, but I did kinda enjoy the books. I accept that yes, there are serious glaring flaws, and their relatinship seems to be only skin deep, but I thought it was cute, I really did. I'm not a crazed fan, but it IS a fiction novel. I tried not to analyze things TOO deep.

I pictured it like a puppet show. This is her world, this is the story she has to tell, and because I'm the viewer (reader) I'm just gonna go along with it. Then again, I'm a very light-hearted critic. To me, the books painted a decent picture. There were some holes, but I liked it.

Here, I'll link you all to my review; Just please don't be upset because I differ in opinion compared to your own:

http://nintenkingdom64.com/index.php?topic=4331.0

My boyfriend says that you can't put a numerical value on a complex opinion. This opinion was not meant to be very complex at all, in case someone wanted to critique my critique. x3

I'd be happy to discuss these things. =3 Just not to argue.

[Rogue 7]

I must admit that I have neither read the book or seen the movie, but since too many girls around started to become hypnotized by this around me, I dream of a movie where the sparkling vampires are beaten up by Bela Lugosi. Or Max Schreck. Or both.

I'll see you one better. I like to imagine them being introduced to Negima's Evangeline. Because she'd probably just try and beat the c*** out of them for laughs.

[KnightDisciple]

...You see, unless I'm misinterpreting you, your argument is "she can call them what she wants because they don't follow the traditional vampire rules," right?.....

Not quite. My core argument was "it's her own books, she can spell the name of a completely fictional race however she likes; the spelling has little to nothing to do with the quality of her writing".
And yes, I realize "sparkly vampires" throws things off a bit. My point was that latching on to that as the one and only thing to utterly condemn a series is ridiculous.
I'm not saying her writing's great. I'm not defending her books. I'm pointing out arguments I find have little strength. *Shrugs*

[Jalor]

Huzzah! Let us drink!

You see, I'm a terrible person who is actually happy that so many idiot fangirls will suffer. Weep bitter tears at your dying fandom!

[Zeful]

Huzzah! Let us drink!

You see, I'm a terrible person who is actually happy that so many idiot fangirls will suffer. Weep bitter tears at your dying fandom!

You know I could point out that Terry Prachett's losing battle with alzheimers will do to the fandom...

but that couldn't be the same thing could it? Just some over-hyped writer not writing any more.

[Mr. Scaly]

I never read the books (though my sister wants me too) except for a page or two near the end of the first, but fridge logic waits for no one...

How old is Edward anyway? If he's more than a few decades then...how on Earth does he relate to existing in school with ordinary teenagers?

[Teela-Y]

I never read the books (though my sister wants me too) except for a page or two near the end of the first, but fridge logic waits for no one...

How old is Edward anyway? If he's more than a few decades then...how on Earth does he relate to existing in school with ordinary teenagers?


He is about 17, methinks. He is a vampire, and as such, doesn't age. *shrug*

They're okay books. There are many other things to read, but I enjoyed 'em. They're simple enough, and that's probably their biggest appeal; The simplicity.

[Satyr]

You know I could point out that Terry Prachett's losing battle with alzheimers will do to the fandom...

but that couldn't be the same thing could it? Just some over-hyped writer not writing any more.

Yeah, becaue there is absolutely no difference between an old man struggling against a disease and a more or less young woman who just throws everything down as she is mortally offended.
I wouldn't claim that Pratchett is the greatest author alive, or that his books are milestones of the creative work; and perhaps you are right that Pratchett's fandom is somewhat exagerated (I had the impression that the affection to him has significantly grown since the declarement of his affliction, though).

BUT: There is a such enormous qualitative difference between Pratchet's disease and Meyer's behaviour like a sulking child that even the comparison is already laughable.

[Teela-Y]

I wouldn't call Meyer a disease; that is a little harsh, huh?

I really like Terry Pratchett though as well. >=3 Going Postal and Making Money are my favorites.

[Jalor]

You know I could point out that Terry Prachett's losing battle with alzheimers will do to the fandom...

but that couldn't be the same thing could it? Just some over-hyped writer not writing any more.

Sure, there's no difference between a talented, clever, mature writer who is slowly losing his mind and an airhead who gets hailed as a brilliant writer for spawning some pathetic, bland series for 12 year old girls to fantasize about because they haven't discovered porn yet.

Also, she is continuing to propagate that "true love" myth that has so damaged our culture. I've witnessed several cases where middle and high school girls have ended up in unhealthy relationships and been hurt because they thought it was "love". One ended up pregnant, one was abused, and got married to the scumbag and insists on staying married and miserable, because it's "true love". Because according to Stephanie Meyer, nothing is more loving than getting drunk, stumbling home at 3 AM, and beating up your 16 year old wife.

Terry Pratchett, on the other hand... entertained geeks and inspired other satirist writers. Not to mention his "fandom" is a loose allegiance of people who like his writing. Twilight's fandom is thousands of shallow preteen girls with no direction in life. Keep on crying, kids.

[Wizzardman]

Not quite. My core argument was "it's her own books, she can spell the name of a completely fictional race however she likes; the spelling has little to nothing to do with the quality of her writing".
And yes, I realize "sparkly vampires" throws things off a bit. My point was that latching on to that as the one and only thing to utterly condemn a series is ridiculous.
I'm not saying her writing's great. I'm not defending her books. I'm pointing out arguments I find have little strength. *Shrugs*

Right. She's as welcome to spell her vampires the way she wants as much as I am welcome to complain about how cliche her spelling choice is. I'm not sure how freedom of speech hinders my argument that her spelling is cliche.