Oh. No, not really. It's like imprinting in animals. It's basically an instinctual tie, as I recall. Not falling in love. I read the books with my daughter when she was 13. Wasn't my cup of tea.
He doesn't fall in love with her. He bonds with her on a level of him being the protector of her, not a sexual partner/relationship. It's explained as a connection that all wolves have but its one they can't control. They can decide who or what will be the object of their protection until it happens. Different thing altogether.
I get that vampires, werewolves, whatever age totally different to mere mortals but, so long as everyone involved in anything sexual are of adult/age of consent, then I'm really not bothered. You could have an 18 year old male and a 249 year old lady vampire and it wouldn't make much difference to me. The problem, as far as I'm concerned, is when you start with the object of someone's sexual desires being under 18. That, for me, is a big problem.
Seems a bit culturally informed to me - I mean, the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, I believe in some places it's 14 (Spain and Japan, I think). Go back in time a few hundred years, and it'd be surprising if most girls weren't married by the age of about 13... ....so why should it be surprising that someone who is centuries old, who likely grew up during time periods where that was the normal age at which a person got married, might have vestigial sexual attractions? Since when does the (current) law dictate how problematic that is?
In Twilight, Bella and Edward don't have sex until she's a legal adult and they're also married. Probably written that way due to Meyer's Mormon beliefs. This idea doesn't bother me generally, though. It has to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. 18 is an arbitrary age, to some degree, that we use as a society because we have to be able to draw a bright line under the law. Fiction writers don't have such constraints. Does it bother me that within the context of the stories, Buffy is 17 rather than 18 when she and Angel get together? No. And in her case, she has literally just turned 17.
Yes. I think we're both of the view that the specific age is at least in part arbitrary. It's more important how the character is portrayed in the fiction, in my view.
Harry bleeping Potter. In the end of ends I dislike him. Hermione is annoying, but she's got the whole muggle thing to overcome. Ron is daft, but he's got being a Weasley to contend with. Harry's got his damage as well, but his damage makes him a messiah? (when he's up to the challenge, of course, his choice) Fuck him. ETA: I can hear strings of pearls being clutched dramatically to uncounted necks. I enjoyed the books, but Harry is a git. Sorry. Speaking of characters people dislike....
I said it was a problem for me. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm saying I wouldn't enjoy reading it and I certainly won't be writing it. Anything to do with sex is saved for adults in my world. Anyone else can do what they like in their world.
They have sex on her 17th birthday. Which is also the major plot point for Season 2 of the show. She's 16 when they "get together."
@Wreybies - I absolutely hated Joffrey in the book. Just couldn't wait for someone to kill him. Jack Gleeson, though, seems like a decent sort:
Jinkies. That was like watching Joffrey channel the spirit of someone whom I would actually buy a pint. Didn't know he was Irish, and it's alway a bit surprising/jarring to hear an actor speak in their true natural accent as opposed to the one you've learned to think of as theirs.
I don't even want to make a strict distinction between the two. What the hell is great art? OK, there's art you enjoy and art you don't, but (objectively) great art? How would anyone even define that in an unbiased, unpompous way? I write to express and to invoke reactions. Even if my pieces will never be considered 'great art', or if my work never gets published, I'd want to know how to create the type of reactions I want. I think studying popular works can help me with that. What's the bigger lesson here? To play on common fantasies? And haven't lots of people tried writing with the formula you described, why didn't they succeed?
I agree with you - it IS biased and pompous to try to objectively define great art. That doesn't mean people don't try to do it! You're right - I've read teen girl falls for gorgeous vampire before Twilight, so it's not like the idea is completely original. I think there's definitely an element of 'catching the Zeitgeist', definitely an element of luck, but is there something more as well? There was a thread on this somewhere - why do bad books sell so good, or something, but I don't seem to be able to find it...
In the UK, 16 is the legal minimum age to have sex so there's nothing wrong with that. It's weird, the legal age for sex being 16 but most, books/games/videos/magazines that feature sex in any way, shape or form, have an 18 restriction on them. I don't like the idea of anyone under 18 reading what I write, but maybe that's because the sex in my books is explicitly described, it's not a case of "mc and mc made love".
This may seem out of place but I love writing/seeing characters who have snappy comebacks to every remark, then somewhere along the line *BAM* suddenly they're left speechless and I can do nothing but laugh at the thought of their shocked/horrified face XD
I liked Joffrey in GOT. Well I liked the fact the character was so well written I actually have a deep hatred for him.
I used to watch GOT with a good friend who always cheered for the noblest characters. I used to wind him up by laughing hysterically at Joffrey's evil antics and I started getting genuinely happy whenever he was on screen. I thought he was delightful in the end. Definitely spiced everything up!
Not sure if I mentioned it yet: The evil/selfish/self-centered ruler of a village/kingdom/empire. So over-done and cliched. I get it, riches can make one a jerk but c'mon, really? It feels like drama for the sake of drama to have that character archetype. Especially if he/she is just doing it for the evulz.
James Bond actually makes mistakes and has a more pronounced dark side in the better versions. For example, Timothy Dalton's portrayal where he pushed for that very idea of him being a bit flawed.
Any antagonist that is mostly characterised by their villainy. For example: Ernst Stavro Blofeld the head of Spectre seems to me to be a pretty simple character. Same goes for many Bond villains. How much do we really see from them in terms of emotional range and traits? I just don't like that kind of writing personally. It's good for what it is, but I'm not a huge fan of what it is.
I actually struggle to write stupid characters. I have trouble not making my characters either respectable or reaching towards genius. Even a little dumb I have to force myself to do it.