Actually, in regards to Jacob, it's very clearly stated that he has no physical attraction to the baby. That his current status is more along the lines of guardian. You're putting words in her mouth that aren't there. And actually some of them were initially creeped out by it, but their fears were allayed by the fact that it was blatantly apparent he was NOT a pedophile. Did you read the book? Maybe she does think Edward and Bella's relationship is perfect. She's allowed to be as messed up as the rest of us. I certainly don't live in any glass house (Or errrr... I do. That's one of those annoying things I always say wrong ). The main thing is, we have brains and freedom of will. It's not gospel, it's fiction, and should be treated as such.
Well first off Twilight is terrible and id rather watch dry ink dry then to read that trash. Harry Potter is amazing, and is very magical for readers. J.K Rowling can write, Stephanie Meyer can't. It's that simple.
And while a lot of people agree with you, there are tons who don't. The fact is, it DOES come down to opinions. While I may classify Twilight as junk food for the brain, and agree with you that her writing is not the most brilliant in the world, she DID convey a story in a meaningful enough way that we're bothering to have a discussion about it. You can't deny that.
Well, I've never read Twilight, but I have read the Harry Potter series. And my friends have read Twilight, they've told me about it too. I never saw the TL films, and I never plan to either. Okay, to me, Twilight seems rather dull and very ... sappy. Is there any humour in it? It seems very dark and suicidal :O If I read it, I say I'd get depressed or something, that's why I'm not going to. But Harry Potter ... wow it's amazing. JK throws us into a world we have never seen or known of before. I find it astonishing to believe that one person could make up something so detailed and so incredibly beautiful.. I know it may seem that I'm taking HP over TL because I've read HP, but even if I didn't it would still appeal to me. I'm not doubting TL is written horrendously or anything, the plot just doesn't interest me in the slightest. Personally, I think a good book has to be well-written, obviously, but I think it also has to be Happy, Sad, Funny and full of Action at the same time. Nothing like a book when you can laugh at the characters and then cry when they die . Harry Potter ticks all those boxes for me, but by just looking at the Twilight cover, it has a lot of sad and death in it. Tell me, does that book have any happy or humorous parts? I actually doubt it. Just my views.
See, my point keeps making itself You're right, of course, Trish. And not only did she accomplish putting together a story that resonates with more readers than the vast majority of writers will ever even get close to, she sold a first novel for $750K to an editor who also apparently saw the same thing in the story. Out of all the similar stuff out there and being submitted, before a single copy was even printed or sold or any marketing began, this publisher forked over 3/4 of a million dollars. That should tell you something in and of itself, I would think. And the fact that the publisher was right about it tells you even more. But pointing it out simply tends to make people dig in their heels.
Many of Twilight's readers haven't got completely developed brains yet, but that doesn't make them idiots. Even if the interpretation that you are arguing against can be legitimately argued (or has been), it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with reading the book. Girls receive a lot of mixed messages about sex and relationships from peers and media. You really can't shelter them by keeping them away from popular media. But talking about it with them can help them learn to analyze character's actions (like your daughter did) or other messages that might be implied by the story. There are many conflicting ways that books can be analyzed and read. It sounds, to me, like the argument that Twilight glamorizes an unhealthy relationship has some foundation. It can still be read and enjoyed in other ways, though.
I've not read anything of either but get the impression - from reader responses - that there's something in this. Is there a perhaps wholesome/perhaps innocent/ perhaps edifying aspect to Harry Potter which is absent in Twilight? I bought Twilight for my niece and the cover, and the first few words, and all else I know about it suggest it's rather cheap and shallow and pathetically sleazy. Not that those things can't be entertaining or well written about, naturally.
This is a good point as well. And I suspect most of the people making this argument would fine, if they looked, that not all of the media they were subject to as teens (whether we're talking books, games, music, art, etc.) was 100% wholesome and positive in every regard. Again I see this stuff more as a red herring on the Twilight issue, because it is prevalent across all forms of media for that age group and Twilight is singled out because it is the most popular and (in the words of the Offspring) "it's cool to hate."
Edit: Responding to the Stephen King quote: Well, I think one of the problems with comparing Harry Potter to Twilight is that they are totally different. Twilight, I am confident, is a romance. Harry Potter has very little romance. There is a section on marriage at the end, and Snape's feelings for Lilly are important to the plot, but there is very little romance overall.
WOWZA so many posts! Anywho, the whole potter-is-not-that-well-written-thing, does not take into account that it is on purpose. The names are so silly and it doesn't really take itself seriously, but it is supposed to be different making us seem weird. But I think what makes it great is just how inter-connected everything is, J.K. Rowling took years to flesh out a plan and it just works. It almost doesn't but you realize, she really believes in this world so I will too.
I wouldn't say sleazy. I read it before letting my daughter have it because I was worried it might be. It's not, in my view. Shallow entertainment, yes. Then again, in addition to more serious literature that I like, I read gaming-related novels, and most of those are pretty shallow as well. But they're a lot of fun and they're easy, quick reads.
Of course, of course. ...Son, here's your remote controlled car. I've tested it for a year and can confirm it's in perfect working order...
Heh. A remote controlled car I would have played with. Unfortunately, the first Twilight didn't interest me enough to read the rest of them. But it wasn't terrible (contrary to the gnashing of teeth you see on writing sites). It just wasn't my cup of tea. I haven't read many books that fall into the "romance" genre that I liked. An exception, I suppose, is Outlander, by Diana Gabaldon. And another one was Warprize, by Elizabeth Vaughn. But on the whole, romance novels just don't interest me. Which is not to say there is anything wrong with them - I do believe they constitute the biggest selling genre in fiction.
<insert witty and related comment here> But on a better note I don't even think King books and Harry Potter are similar enough to compare.
I have been thinking about the character names in Harry Potter. They are so easy to make fun of--I wonder if she did that on purpose? Especially Neville Longbottom. I read the story of Berenger Longbottom in my Medieval Literature class. It's about a housewife who dresses as a knight and beats up her husband. Then she pulls down her pants and makes him kiss her "bottom." He notices it is very "long" because she is a woman, so she tells him her name is "Longbottom." Sorry, the story is a bit crude, to that's how they were back then. I doubt Rowling was thinking of the medieval tale. I just wonder about how "Harry Potter" isn't a particularly desirable name. I wonder how she decided on it. It was obviously a great idea--I never would have come up with that name though.
Well I made it clear I didn't read it except for the first half of twilight. But even so there's subtext there whether it was intentional or not. And as I've said there is a lot of things that irk me more.
I had to call attention to this post because I just found it silly. Thomas Pynchon has a character in The Crying of Lot 49 called Dr. Hilarious, and that's an amazingly well written book. Just saying it does not take itself seriously does not excuse it in any way from bad writing.
my apologies if that is what you thought I meant, I should've wrote it better. I meant that is why it is well written, that is part of the style. It has a silly yet serious way of writing that, I think, is pulled off magnificently. 200th post YAY!
Why do people think Meyer can't write? If you know the English language and know someone who can edit, you can tell a story. After all, the story is boss, right? The more and more I learn about writing fiction is that it's less about being wity, using purple prose and making a statement and more about just telling a good story. Like it or not, Meyer wrote a good story. Not my cup of tea really, but other people seem to think so. Who are we to judge?
That is part of the battle yes. But if you, for example, tell two people to write the same book(as in concept and characters/plot) they would be very different and one would be much better. If a books style is bad no one will give a piece of money dung about the plot. That is a matter of opinion, personally I enjoy witty books, and plot wholes don't always bother me much. They can almost have a positive effect. "So bad it's good" type of thing. Writers And thanks for the congratz.
Personally, I think the Harry Potter series is amazing. I know a lot of people consider the books to be poorly written, but I would actually completely disagree with that. Yes, they aren't the lexical masterpieces that Shakespeare wrote, but the way in which Rowling created and described this fantasy world was fantastic. Considering novels such as Shelley's Frankenstein are considered 'classic literature', and that book as extremely poorly written imo, I don't see why Harry Potter can't be judged on the same standards, even if it was intended as children's fiction. Even ignoring the standard of writing, the Harry Potter novels are just brilliant. Yes, there are faults here and there, as with any novel if you look hard enough, but on the whole I love them, so much so I am currently re-reading the series again, for about the 7th time. I like the morals behind them, childish as they may appear, the morals of good versus evil, and of fighting for your relationships and friendships, and of standing up in the face of discrimination and racism, and even (if you read deeper) the connotations of having a child who is not the norm (comparative perhaps to the worries one may feel about having a disabled child) are all important and something which gives them value. As for Twilight, well, I read them all through and they were ok as far as wanting something for casual reading goes, but I wouldn't bother reading them again, and I wouldn't personally describe them as being very good books. The narrator is irritatingly pathetic, and I don't like the way the novels place this ridiculous emphasis on needing your boyfriend at 17. I think a lot of girls will get unhealthy messages from these novels, and I know from experience, a lot of girls my age seem to expect this romanticised, perfect vampire-like man to sweep them off their feet and it will be true love forever. Meyer's main message is a stupid one, in real life people fall in and out of love all the time, and it is unrealistic to assume that because you love someone at 17, you will love them forever (literally). This is an issue I have with many romance novels though, not just Twilight. Sorry, essay over now
