I do believe only the biting pear of Salamanca can properly express my feelings about this post.

Twilight for me is a nice bit of teenage slush. It’s fine if you want a soppy, rather ridiculous (sp?) teen fiction, but deserves nothing of the hype it gets, I was a fan of twilight, not an omgeee Edward, glitter, sparkle, wow!!!one1!! Fan girl but I liked the books: then however the film brought the ridiculous teen cult with their


And it made me re-read the nonsense a bit more cynically, making me realise how shallow the book was(i still stand by however that it's a good bit of slush). Seriously I don’t know what sort of mind control Meyer has on the tweens of the world but it’s made us all look like a group of mindless sheep.

1. Yes, he's definitely abusive. He's possessive, he subtly belittles her, and come on, he has got major issues. And the whole sex thing is the epitome of the abuse - the fact that she seems to be able to talk him into doing it again and he's all game despite the damage he causes to her is another part of the whole repetitive abuse thing. Okay, he's a guy, he likes sex, so what? If it's that hurtful, he should have the good sense to hold off, regardless of how much of a masochist she is. And the breaking and entering to watch someone sleep, it's nice when people go "You looked so cute, I didn't want to wake you", but the what he does is downright stalkerish. Considering that her daddy's a policeman, it's not advisable either.

2. Oh, yes! Bella... well, from the get go, she's a clear idiot; it's not only spatial awareness that she lacks. I mean, for one, you find out someone's a vampire, you get careful around them, instead, it's a case of "I'm gonna confront him!" and yeah... given Victoria and James, that might not go so well all the time. Edward's just chronically depressed. He's pretty much a monk. When it boils down to it, it's a love story between an idiot and a monk.... not much room for depth in that. Though, it is interesting that Meyer wrote it such that the guy waited a century to get laid, rather than the whole "men are allowed to play the field, women should remain chaste". Then again, the franchise might not have worked out so well if it was a 100 year old sex-starved vampiress seducing a 16 year old boy.

3. I think that might have a little to do with Meyer's own conceptions of love and relationships. She seems to think that someone restraining themselves from eating you is a sign of attraction... okay, I kid. But to be honest, I'd class the relationship between Bella and Edward as intense infatuation than anything else. Maybe she is his soulmate, but that doesn't mean that they fall head over heels in love in a few moments, get married, have a child and don't stop to think whether this is a little too fast. But it fits for fictional writing... after all, this is to encourage girls to wait for the fairytale and once it hits home, everything works out magically at the speed of an aeroplane in flight.

At the risk of sounding incredibly conceited, I'm writing a novel right now that I believe to be better.

The thing I've noticed about Twilight is that Meyer crosses a boundary that no fiction author should dare foot- she is absolutely and obviously in love with Edward. What's worse is that it shows; it's not simply Bella fantasizing about her vampire, but the entire series is essentially a long-winded digression from Meyer about her perfect man and her fantasy romance. As someone who doesn't write much romance (and when I do, it's timeless love, not teenage fancy), I suppose I have no basis to judge, but I do think that Meyer's infatuation with her character knocks down the value of her writing a few more notches.

I've read all four books and saw the movie.

I really thought the series was pretty good. Not wonderful, not OH EM GEE I LOVED IT..just pretty good. I thought they described the characters fairly well..at least Bella anyway.If you wanted to see Edward's character more clearly go read Midnight Sun! And finally the pace: I don't see why you think the pace is too fast.. I found that it was just right. The time I spent reading these was a time well spent and not a waste of time as some people like to put it ( not any of you but some friends I have :P)

Anyways I really loved this series and I still read them again every once in a while..
I think this was well written and if you don't like it, I don't see why you have to go to extremes to express how much you hate these books.. :P

Ok so I have been reading this topic on my blackberry through out the day, and I agree with alot of you guys on alot of things. I personally find twilight the creation of the devil... It's horrible the way she writ it and I can stand the effects it has on people! Especially the girls from my school... I dont know how bad it is in other states but here in rural MN girls have gone crazy, the book brainwashes them and assumes their life.. There has not been a single day I have seen or even heard with out twilight from shirts to the horrible screamming conversations about edward!
When I read the first book I was already set against the book series because I have girls compare real men to Edward Cullen and be "oh your not Edward Cullen your not good enough!" and I have known people who's relationship has almost ended because of this fact. A lot of people get pulled in to the book and seriously change. Half of my friends don't really seam to realize this is fiction. I read 3/4 of the first book all skeptical and well to be truthful I sorta liked it. It has a great plot but the rest of the book is horrid! Bad writing style! And there is nothing romantic about Edward and Bella! He's a freaking stalker! Bella is a freaking idiot as most people have already mentioned and from what I heard from friends and ect who are consumed by this series, to me it seems to get out of hand with baby and Jacob WTF!!
But yeah I know that this topic was suppose to be more about the book but I find the effects of the book much worse then the book it's self! Their is some weird psychological matters at play when studying the average teen girl after she has read the book...

Ah, she's a Mormon. That may explain a lot.

My take:

First, the movie is pretty good. The director of that movie is in a different league than Stephenie Meyer. Stephenie Meyer's book reads like a bunch of preadolescent twitters. All the endless, "Oh my God, did you see who he/she sat with at lunch!" garbage. And even that could have been entertaining if it was done with a little wit, but not in the book.

The theme of the series, at least as presented much more interestingly in the film, was what Doddibot said: parallel between vampire bloodlust and teenage hormones. The very creepy way that Edward looks at her in the film as if he really does feel tempted to kill her doesn't come across in the book series, where he is just a goody-two-shoes. He is ultimately reduced to a teen romance fantasy of a boy that is both threatening (bloodlust) and non-threatening (self-control).

So, the film was good but not fantastic. The first book was really awful, and the remaining books actually got better as the story went along. After the first book, there was less of the boring teen girl mall shopping jabber.

The theory of Questioning and the theory of Thinking obviously has not phased you.
I like the book, the thought behind the book, the movie the book produces, must I keep listing?

I have not read the pages 400+ page book, but I have grazed the text.

Now, possibly was that Pear facing you?


Take context clues. Humans, that refers to a general group -not- one person.

Since no one else is interested in defending Twilight, I guess I'll have a go...(no throwing things at me, please!)

I actually studied this book in a college American Civilization course last semester and a fair number of my fellow students had the same reaction I see in this thread. I even agree with some of the points. However, I love the series. I have reread it several times, and own the movie. Before the grumbling starts about my taste in books though, hear me out.

The writing isn't spectacular (and by that I mean Meyer uses 10 sentences where one will do, and was clearly using the thesaurus liberally). There is something intangible that draws the reader in...how else would the book be such a pop culture phenomenom? I am a voracious reader and have found that the books that gain the most popularity are not always the best written. My professor refers to these as "low literature." Despite Meyer's wordiness and shallow characterizations, there is something that appeals to millions of readers--emotion.

Whatever you may think of the plot or the characters, the emotion of the series comes through in each installation. No, she's no JK Rowling. These books are not plot driven. They are driven by feeling. I get caught up in the drama of it all, so much so that I forget how unrealistic and unfeminist it is of Bella to feel this way. It has the risk of Romeo and Juliet, the doomed romance of Catherine and Heathcliff. I know many girls (myself included) who occasionally long for the kind of romance that overcomes all obstacles and knocks you head over heels. Is it unrealistic? Sure. I don't think that anyone would actually like Edward and Bella's relationship were they given the opportunity to try it.

To specifically address the points raised earlier: I don't believe their relationship is abusive. Edward needs Bella as much as she professes to need him. He tells her she is his life. There is no dominant figure insofar as their romance (I suppose being able to snap her in two gives him the upper hand physically). There is little depth to the characters, but when reading for escapist fantasy and romance, I don't like my heroes flawed. I have enough flawed men in my life. I want the nondescript girl to turn out to have superpowers (her exceptional willpower) and have the hottest guy in school fall for her. It is a classic fantasy and yet no one here is attacking historical romances or Meg Cabot for using the same formula (although they might now). The truth is, fantasy is a genre popular for its disconnect from our reality.

Ultimately, I would never defend Twilight as being extraordinarily well written. It's not. It does have that indefinable something though, and in this poster's humble opinion, that makes it worth reading.

If you made it to my final thoughts go get a cookie, you definitely deserve it after listening to me ramble on...

You mentioned that you don't like your heroes flawed, but the previous paragraph mentions Romeo and Juliet and Catherine and Heathcliff. Do you actually like the play, and book Wuthering Heights or were they just brought up to show a point? I'm curious because while they do have many obstacles in each relationship there, they're also intrinsically doomed and both ultimately fail. This automatically makes it differ from Edward and Bella because they don't ultimately fail and nor is it flawed in the same sense as the two above couples mentioned. For a start, Bella survives and Edward's being undead doesn't appear to affect it.

Another point is that Heathcliff and Romeo are both incredibly flawed characters, and you mentioned that you don't like your heroes flawed. As an example Romeo has a temper, as seen in fight with Tybalt, is rash and impetuous and falls in and out of love extraordinarily quickly with the switching from Roselind and Juliet as the beginning of the play.

But I digress, we are talking about Twilight - I just wanted a few points clarified in your post, if that's alright.

I haven't read the Twilight books yet, and as such I won't comment on those books quite yet. I wanted to be able to critique the chapters based on my own knowledge and not just on heresay and other people's opinions so I have acquired the books themselves and will be providing my thoughts in due course.

Usually when people seem to either love or hate something it means that at least there's something interesting there. Twilight was just so...bland to me though.

Okay, I have read the first three chapters of the first book so far and will be commenting on what I thought of those chapters only. Bear in mind that, because I haven't read any further than that just yet I'm not aware of any further character development in subsequent chapters. As I stated in my last post, I have previously only heard opinions from other people on what happens later on in the book(s), but until I reach that point myself future character development, if any, will not be commented on.


Chapter One

The very, very first paragraph does not draw me in in the slightest. When I read a book I want to think: "Wow! I really have to carry on reading this...this character is damned interesting!" Instead I had the bland feeling of: "Oh. Driving." Obviously this isn't a good start. I would have been nice to have a brief description, however fleeting. Something like. "Hello, my name is Bella. Right now I'm riding shotgun in my mother's car...and somehow I can't help thinking blah, blah, blah."

I get the feeling after reading the first few pages, SM (oh dear, that's an unfortunate name abbreviation for a Mormom) has not found Bella's "voice" yet. She alternates between sounding like a typical "book and movie" teenager to speaking like a ninteenth century man. While this can be excused by the fact that it's the first book, and more than that - it's the first few pages - incorrect or at odds "voicing" could have been corrected in a second or third draft, and it hasn't. A minor quibble that I have, and it is incredibly minor, is that SM has Bella seeing her mother with wide, childlike eyes and that's vaguely discomforting coming from an eighteen-year-old, who acts like Bella does.

In the same way there are moments where internal thought Bella switches between "dad" and "Charlie" without any emotional thought of, I always thought of him as Charlie, simply because we never really developed the "father-daughter bond. But spending more time with him here, I can't help feeling a dad vibe start to grow..." dad/Charlie seem to be interchangeable, regardless of current thought.

Other contradictory moments include Bella stating that she doesn't really know anything about cars, and yet she asks very pointed questions about cars of Charlie when he gives her the truck. Indeed, later on she is able to provide not only makes, but models of cars - even when only sparing them a quick glance, as in the future scene with the Toyota. This lends crendence to the possibility of SM being unsure of how to voice a character in first person, give them a mild disadvantage in a subject - and then not use writer knowledge later on, and maintaining the disadvantage.

Character-wise, in the first long conversation - between Charlie and Bella, she comes across as a very ungrateful child. This man who is as awkward around her as she is around him, has gifted her with a truck and she responds by interrogating him. A page later she see's the truck and loves it - yet throughout the next several pages, continues to show her disdain. By page 6 we still haven't even got an idea of what Bella looks like - I know more about her room, than about the voice of the book. Again this stops any possibility of aiding me in identifying with Bella. The discription, albeit a short one, comes eventually - but it begin with saying how she should be tan, sporty and blonde. Do all people from Phoenix look like this? Even then, she isn't from Phoenix - it's stated earlier than she was born in Forks and moved with her mother at five months old. This, to me, makes her not only from Forks but an old citizen moving back and not the absolute outsider she tries to make out. Particularly since it's already stated that she had visited Forks for the last several years, for a month at a time. If the town is as small as she makes out, surely she isn't that much of a novelty.

We find out in a few sentences what she isn't which, in my opinion instead of coming across as anticapatory, is annoying. I don't care enough about Bella at this point to want to know what she isn't - I want to know who she is so that I can start caring. We are provided with these points: she is ivory skinned, slender and clear skinned - why is she complaining?

Of course then Bella adds that her skin is transluscent looking. Bella love, if your skin is transluscent you need to get to a hospital, because something is medically wrong with you. To clarify this point my fiance's sister developed pneumonia and her skin became transluscent looking...this is because she was dying at the time (just to add, she's now fit and well). I don't think the description of transluscent means what SM thinks it means. She adds also that her skin could be pretty but it all depended on colour, and that there is no colour there. So...what? She wants to be more Ethnic looking? There's no explanation and it makes her sound silly.

There is also the constant comments of (paraphrasing), "hope that I'd have fun at school was wasted," and "I have exiled myself to Forks". While I think SM may be trying to create a sense of: Ooooh! I really want to know why! The actual explanation later comes far too later - by then she's already succeeded in making Bella seem like a whiny brat who is creating problems for herself by being ridiculously negative. (Another example is her communication with Charlie. It's very awkward and lacklustre and she continually seems to think that this is horrible - she put herself in that situation, knowing what to expect. I don't feel any sympathy whatsoever).

There is one sentence that sticks out:



There has been no explanation thus far, for the break-up and no explanation as to why she feels so uncomfortable with Charlie continuing to love his previous wife. I'd like to know why she feels uncomfortable, particularly since so far Charlie hasn't gone into in-depth conversation about the mother and his feelings.

Skipping forward a little to how she acts with people: Bella has previously said, in brief, that she does not relate well to people of her own age. Or anyone for that matter! When people start talking to her (Jessica, Eric, Mike), she appears to view them with an attitude of, "why are you talking to me?!" And when Mike is being very friendly toward this awkward, unsure new girl, on the second day her internal thoughts start to view him a dog. Not even a faithful dog - more one she wants to get rid of. She even goes so far as to think that she must let him down gently. It seems incredibly egotistical of Bella - so far he's behaved like a friendly, ever so vaguely flirtatious teenage boy. It appears that she is of the opinion that friendly = wants to date me. Bella seems to view herself as an outsider but people at the Forks high school have been nothing but friendly, congenial and helpful toward her - her subsequent attitude in her thoughts, frankly, makes her sound like a bitch. She isn't different - she's another teenager whose apparently obsessed with herself. Harsh perhaps, but in my opinion, this is how Bella seems. There are also continued comments of trips being arranged and Bella's internal thought of: "How can I get out of this?" Again this is incredibly ungrateful, when these people are allowing this new girl to join their "group". Something which is difficult for most teenagers.

It sounds like the problems Bella has are of her own creation, and made up in her own head. Bella simultaneously seems to believe she's the average looking kid, with the makings of someone in the "out crowd" while being a "spessul wittle flower". Several people are trying to make friends with her, therein making her part of a "circle of friends".

Also, as an aside - what the heck is it with her and the continued mention of oh no! Not the rain! Yes, I understand that she came from a sunny city previously, but my goodness the girl is obsessed, to an incredibly stupid extent. And then when it stops raining in order to snow - she finds reason to also dislike that. It's her first sight of snow and she recoils like a witch with water. Does she melt when it rains and snows? It's incredibly annoying reading this, particularly since I have met several people who have never seen snow before and come from a hot climate and tend to be overjoyed when witnessing snow in person, for the first time.

Okay... *deep breath*... onto the actual Meeting of the Vampires! Dun, dun duuuuuun!

Some of the description, from where Bella is sitting in relation to the Group, should not be there yet. She is sitting on the opposite side of the cafeteria, and they're sitting down. How can she see with much accuracy the type of "Sports Illustrated" figure that one of them has? I general when someone is sitting down, with a table in front of them, their curves are obscured. Does Bella, in addition to the miraculous genuis SM claims she has, also come with X-Ray vision? If it does then I want that! Though the melting in the snow may pose a problem. It sounds again, like writer knowledge, intruding in logic and accurate characterisation. One comment that made me frown was this:



Genetics doesn't work how SM thinks it does. My fiance for example, has very dark hair, his eyes however a pale greeny/grey/browny colour. His sister has the same eyes but blonde hair. Specific eye colours don't neatly match up with specific hair colours. A similar comment is made when Bella is looking in the bathroom mirror -



Back to the description of the vampires - again, with the distance away that Bella is from their table - how is she able to detect something as minute as shadows under eyes? She should be a test subject for Science, because that's one heck of a vision she has.

Onto SM's attempt at describing walking. Somehow she manages to do this with difficulty. The same girl has at the same time a quick, graceful lope that belonged on a runway, has a dancers step, and then glides through the door.

Now, when I think of a lope I envision for example, Bigfoots walk on TS2. A model on a runway does not lope, therein a lope does not belong on a runway...unless they are showing the fashions of the moderm caveman. Along the same vein a dancer and a dancers step is not like a model walk - it would be more fluid. And at the same time the girl can also glide. No wonder people stare at her - she's a freak of nature! So, in conclusion, while there is description, it makes little sense. Instead of focusing on all these different types of walk, this could have been when Bella studied the girls figure.


Okay! I'm going to stop there for now, because this is becoming far, far longer than I intended. I'll add more a little later on.

First and foremost, I would like to comment on the thread title. I am somewhere in the middle, so I swing neither to horrible nor perfection. I understand the ploy, but I just want to say that I didn't think it was perfect, but I also didn't think it was terrible.

Okay, I hope you guys are seriously ready for a long post. If you don't read it, you haven't missed a thing. If you do read it; I'm sorry for my drabble.

I'm going to get the bad stuff out of the way so I can go on to the good stuff. BTW, I'm not here to change your opinion, because that is what is so fantastic about fiction, everyone here has an opinion on each and every book they have ever read. (Love it, hate it, blah blah blah) Oh noes, this goes against the debate theme though!! Oh well, I'm just here to fuel the fodder.

THE BAD!!:
Twilight (and the books thereafter) are horribly written. The dialogue is choppy, the word usage is gratuitous, and you are correct in that at first glance, the characters have no depth. I will explain that in just a moment.

Stephenie Meyer is a housewife: a Mormon housewife. That may seem like an insignificant detail, but alas, it is not. Those two facts greatly impose her ideals on this book. There was even a point in the first book where Edward alluded that he believed in a god. That was put in there purely for Stephenie Meyer's conscious; she felt that as a proper Mormon girl, she shouldn't be writing fiction about vampires and the underlying sexual tension.

I will gripe that she has no idea how a teenage girl talks anymore. Not saying I'm the be-all-end-all on that subject, but no one I know uses "infinitesimally" to describe someone turning their head a fraction. Ugh. Anyhow...

The GOOD:

Okay. You're more than welcome to throw stones at me for liking this book, owning the movie, and yes, rhapsodizing over Rob P. (I don't care if he stinks, if he speaks in his British accent to me, I'm all his). I did love the book, clearly not for the sparkling (pun!!) wit of the characters, but rather another love story told.

I will have to give all of you some background on me as to why I am a hopeless romantic, and hopefully that will clear up why so many other females (of all ages) like this book. I never had a boyfriend (or significant other) until I was 17. I had never been kissed until I was 17. I didn't have ideals about what a boy should be like, but when one has felt like a miserable failure in the romance department for 5 years, one tends to yearn for a romance. It's true, I lost myself in those stupid romances about how the down-trodden girl gets a prince/hawt guy/wonderful guy/etc. I'm not saying that every other girl has gone through exactly the same thing, but a lot of the feelings were there. This is why I loved Twilight, because of a retelling of the classic love story device. Homely girl gets the guy, and hell, they are "perfect" in every way.

Now, as to the characters having no depth: That is Stephenie Meyer's fault for not being able to get outside her bad writing. She does actually try to give them depth. We, the readers, are supposed to wade through her muck and sort out why they are flawed. One of Edward's flaws is that he doesn't have any idea how to compromise. In the end, he'll do whatever Bella tells him to do. As for her forcing him to continue having sex with her... hahaha.

Yeah, okay. I think, once again, her being Mormon plays into this. If it were my book (and luckily it's not) they would have been rabbits from the plane, to the island, back to that dumpy town, Forks. In that, Stephenie is trying to show that Edward is a failure at doing anything opposing Bella after his "mistake" in New Moon.

Forgive me for being scattered here, but also, the whole stalkerish behavior of Edward isn't easily explained to someone who already believes him to be a stalker. The reason that works is because Stephenie, as you've said before, loves her own characters (Believe it or not, most authors love their own characters). Stephenie, in her mind, believes this not to be a stalker worthy thing rather than some sweet, romantic gesture that shows the depth of his passion for his lady love. Edward is not perfect, but yes he has flaws. Tiny though they are, they are there.

Bella
Bella is static. She "put back the feminist movement" for everyone. I know, I get it. As a feminist myself, I wasn't happy with how Bella handled this, but one cannot control his or her feelings. I don't think Stephenie really thought so much about how this would impact her tween audience, so much as she thought about how she would react if this happened to her.

You know what guys/gals? This is a perfectly normal (not healthy) reaction. A rejection can sting, and people deal with it in so many ways. I'm not saying her depression should have spanned months, and her parents (in the book) should have done something about her being lackluster for months, but I know so many people who take things horribly. Not everyone can be the staunch feminist, stand up, wipe her hands and scream to the heavens, "I don't need a insert noun here!" I acted like this when my dog died. It sucks, I stayed in bed, and I decided not to go to school. Stupid reaction, but that was my reaction.

On to the last thing and I'll wrap up my post:

Everything moved too fast:

Oh man. Yes, it did, didn't it? I tell that to people who are engaged now (at 21) who are having children (at 21) who have only been with their boyfriend for 2 years. Moving fast isn't just in this book, it's an epidemic that sweeps through the nation. Look at celebrities dating for 6 weeks, jumping into marriage, and then falling out of marriage. I'm not saying I condone this behavior, but moving fast happens whenever there is a lot of passion involved. I'm a snail when it comes to these things; I believe time will have all the answers, so moving fast would be extremely out of the ordinary with me. However, for some people, it works. In here, the pace is fast for you, but not fast for other readers. For readers who see only the romance in the story, and get that tingly feeling in their belly, this pace is too slow. They want, more than anything, for Edward and Bella to be together. Stephenie Meyer wants more than anything for Edward and Bella to be together. This pace probably isn't fast for her at all, she's in her late 20's early 30's and has three children. They are older children attending school. So, to her, this pace is probably right on track with how she feels.

In conclusion to my drabble, I don't think the Twilight series is amazing or "perfect", but nor do I think it to be an abomination to all mankind. People who usually read weighty tomes with flowery detail, wonderful imagery, and that to-die-for prose will not enjoy Twilight. No. But if you happen to read novels for easy reads, summer reads, or what have you, then you'll probably enjoy Twilight if you don't plan to get anything other than a "d'oh, of course that would happen!" out of it. I will ready absolutely anything, which is why I wouldn't be a good book critic, because I like to give all writers the benefit of a doubt.

That is my (long) two cents. I hope it gave you who oppose Twilight something to think about.

Also, as a die hard HP fan, I really do not appreciate Twilight and Harry Potter being compared. (I do it, too, so I'm not harping about that!) I will defend HP to the death, because I grew up with that series and it was a form of escapism. Which, so is Twilight. A form of escapism: but isn't any book?

So, once again, I'm sorry to those of you who read this.

Cheers!
Lesse

Like TRIriana said about Heathcliff and Romeo, the essence of a literary hero is one who overcomes his flaws to save another character or become a better person. While Edward may exhibit the occasional heroic quality, he is not a hero- he has yet to overcome his insecurity as to his abilities and is unfailingly cautious, sometimes at his or Bella's own expense. He does not deserve a place alongside epic heroes such as Odysseus or Jason because he performs no good deeds, and he is not a tragic hero like Jay Gatsby or Achilles because he does not bring about his own death, nor does he die. There is nothing heroic or redeeming about Edward other than his unconditional devotion, which seems to, more often than not, be something of a detrimental, double-edged sword.

Bella is not a damsel in distress, either, but rather an enabler. If she so pleased, she is fully capable of extricating herself from this abusive relationship, yet she does nothing. I don't see how anyone can pity her character when Edward is upsetting her, seeing as she got herself into this situation and makes no effort to get herself out. What really rubs me the wrong way about the series is how direct it is; I suppose SM is simply pandering to her audience, but there is no subtlety or mystery whatsoever. The wacky events of book four notwithstanding, I predicted everything that came down the pike. Every poorly-described emotion of the characters is laid bare, and it could be just a matter of taste, but I don't like that. I read voraciously, and I both read and write books in which the author uses wordy exposition to set the scene, but allows the characters' actions to speak volumes of their emotions. Meyer doesn't do this- she's too direct, too simple, as are her characters.

I've read all of the twilight books, I had no books to read, so I thought I'd give them a go.
I read very odd books for my age. I've read your classic Harry Potter, but I also read books like Memoirs of A geisha, The Memoirs of Cleopatra, Lovely Bones, etc. I don't read as many teenage love slushes as I used to. My books aren't really big adult books, but there not things any of my friends have even attempted reading.
When I read twilight, at the time, I felt there was nothing wrong with the book. I figured it would be good, it was getting a lot of hype. All my friends were gossiping about this new amazing book, Twilight. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, so I went ahead and read it.
I didn't find anything spectacular about Twilight. I thought it was pretty much a book written for tweens/teens, which I'm sure it is. I didn't (Like a lot of you), feel the characters were very well developed, yes, things moved to fast, and some of my favorite characters where severely forgotten about at points in the story. Jacob, my favorite character, was given barely any dialog near the end of Breaking Dawn. When I finished all books, I didn't think anything of it. Just another book finished. But when I went to look back on it, I did realize that I can't ..relate, to some of the characters such as I can with other books I read, because their not thought into well enough.

So overall, I see nothing wrong with this book, MAJORLY, but there were small things that put it off being a very good book.

Edward acting like a stalker is actually one of the better traits, I think. After all, he is a vampire. Being creepy is what they should do best!

What's the point in caring if it sucked? I mean their has been other books by many other authors that are horrific, but people are constantly talking about the Twilight Saga. In my opinion I enjoyed the books, I read the first three before the movie came out and before it became so popular. The movie is what I didn't like and then all of the Obsessed Twilight girls came along and just took the fun out of the book entirely. I'm really just tired of hearing about it altogether. From major fans of the book and the one's who are constantly talking crap about it.

true true doddibot. he is a vampire. he should be creepy.

I only read book1 because it was supposed to be "similar to Harry Potter" which is something that still cracks me up. Despite all the magical creatures in HP not a single one of them was a vampire and the only magical creature in Twilight is a *perfect-does-not-burn-in-sunlight-but-sparkles-instead* vampire (and his "family"). The only part that was remotly interesting was when Bella was being hunted...which was also the shortest bit in the whole plot.
The conversation between Bella and Ed was like watching 2 people play 20 questions, why they fall in love isn't explored they just are in love (being super handsome and having tasty smelling blood doesn't count), and the biggest mystery of all...why the h*ll did SM make Bella so clumsy?? What was the point, she fell when there was nothing in her way, she fell when she wasn't even moving, she fell when she wasn't even standing.
Everything else has been said and I agree with it, Twilight was one of the most boring books I've ever read and I really felt like I was an alien once I finished it because so many people were telling me that it is similar to Harry Potter, and was fantastic ect ect.

Dreamydre15, for every humongous, creepy, obsessive tween fan base or group, there will be a group just as large but with more reason against that fanbase. EX: Hannah Montana.

Note I said obsessive.

Heck, not to sound self-absorbed, but I agree that (almost) anyone can write a better book than Twilight. Not so sure how well my Mosquatlon mythology will sell, given that it's partially a parody of Underworld, but even that would bring about more depth than Steph-Mey's capable of.

And the film? Fast guy + bloodthirsty monster-of-the-week + teenie-bop hype + ditzy damsel in distress + high school misfits + small town setting = SMALLVILLE!

It felt like an over-long Smallville episode; or worse, a Buffy-Smallville crossover!

I agree with all of the points made by people about the reasons why Twilight is bad. I personally would give the book a 4/10, because I thought the plot was interesting, and because it made me laugh - not its intention. Since I feel that the points of why it's terrible have all been made, I'm only going to talk about the author. I agree that Stephenie Meyer is completely in love with Edward. Which is a bad thing for an author to do, like Rabid said I believe. I think she made her Bella character a model of herself- clumsy, mildly attractive, shy, etc. Then she makes most of the young male characters of the first novel fall for Bella. Why on earth would so many guys like Edward, Jacob, and Mike (not to mention tracker vampire James) want someone so dull and non-special? Especially "perfect" Edward? It seems like Meyer's little fantasy world - ordinary girl moves to small town where everyone falls in love with her and tries to kill each other to win her love!

Ugh just writing this makes me annoyed. I dislike all the hype that Twilight has gotten, and I don't think it deserves any of it. The fangirls who are obsessed (different from people who just enjoy the book, and take it for what it is- entertaining but not great) are so... useless.

Mildly off-topic, but I like this comparison: Twilight vs. Harry Potter is like Eragon vs. Lord of the Rings. Badly written books by young authors sell millions of copies, and get compared to the great fantasy stories, written by talented, creative adults, just because they sell so well. I know that the Harry Potter books aren't the greatest novels of all time, but they are well-written, fascinating, and have enormous amounts of thought and planning put into them, unlike Twilight. Reading Eragon is like reading bad fan-fiction about Lord of the Rings, in my opinion.

And I thought the Twilight movie was abysmal. Putting Meyer into a cameo, where her name is said?! How... trashy. I know, I know, "off topic", but I don't think it is- the movie has gotten as much press as the book, and the fangirls love their RPattz.

Again, I love the great comments (including the OP). You all sure have a lot of good, respectful, and educated thoughts to say on the subject that is forced in my face every day.

Ouch, uncalled for on the Eragon side =p It's all good. Eragon is definitely no LotR, but even Twilight isn't on par with it. I see some effort, and for Twilight, well, it just looks sloppy, reads sloppy, and is just dull. The characters a bland Mary Sues and Gary Stues.
In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is not infallible. She is naive, yes, but she suffers consequences for her actions proving she is personable. That is what makes a good character.
Bella, through her utter stupidity, cries for a whole book, leads on guys, gets knocked up by a guy with supposedly venom for bodily fluids, has a sparkle baby and turns into a vampire to live happily forever. She doesn't even have to go through motherhood because her baby is so "uber smartz". There is no consistency, at all. It's predictable in a very bad way.

Never read it or watched the movies, but everyone I even halfway respect hates it, therefore I think it's worthless. I guess I should consider reading it myself..

I wouldn't say it's fair to compare Harry Potter and Twilight at all. They're not the same genre. Twilight vs. Underworld, however, would be a fairer comparison. While Edward can sparkle motion his way through the day, once night falls, the the Death Dealers would rip him to shreds without a second thought. And Lucian vs. Jacob? Is there even a contest who would win? Or to go for the "overkillz," William vs. Jacob?

Or...Renesemee vs. Markus...

James vs. Viktor...

Alice vs. Selene...

You get my point.