spartan231490 said:
I used that for the heading cuz I knew it would attract attention, and prolly hatred as well. That said, almost everyone I know hates twilight because the vampires are sparkly. I like the fact that Stephanie Meyer didn't just rewrite dracula, but decided to reinterperit the legends. Why does everyone jump on the fact that she did this? Nobody complains that the book Peeps changed the myths. Nobody complains that the Mercedes Thompson series and Alpha and omega series changed the werewolve myths. Is it just that these people are looking for some reason for thier hatred of the series?
Many people also complain about the books because they are "poorly written". This is not true. What she did, is she had a specific target audience: teenage females. Knowing this, she didnt waste her time trying to write with language or themes or dialogue they wouldn't understand. I have seen soooo many books with a good premise ruined because the author set their sights too high and was unable to write well enough to do what they tried to do. For these reasons, I respect Stephanie Meyers for being innovative, and for not trying to write a book in a way she was unable to accomplish.
I thought, hmm, this person must be different from all the other twilight idiots, why else would they be posting in the escapist, under the name "spartan". Then, you had to use 'prolly' on me, in the first sentence. That one word re-established my hatred, and I read the rest of the post in such.
Stephanie Meyer didn't recreate vampires, a recreation would be if she used scientific terms to explain long-held vampire lore, or if she added new lore, like say, dogs always freak out around vampires! (it's a crude example, but bear with me). What Meyer did, was
butcher vampires, mixing and matching the parts she wanted. I once dreamt that I was a vampire, there was an explanation that the vampirism changed peoples blood patterns, in that vampires can't produce their own blood and so must drink others whenever possible, and that they lose any 'blood types' as their body converts any blood into a special 'vampire blood'. This blood is incredibly more efficient at pumping around the body compared to normal blood, and as a result, Vampires can run and jump and fight faster and higher and better then any normal people. That, was in a dream, when I was asleep, when my brain's logic centre was turned
off, Meyer came no-where near that detail.
Immortality?
Yes, so he can always look an Adonis (that word's out of the book)
Blood-feeding?
Yes, but he can control his most basic instincts for survival
Can only feed on blood?
No way! that'd be icky! They're vegetarians!
Dies in sunlight?
No way, he becomes even cuter! tee-hee.
There are other books, targeted at teenagers. Catcher In The Rye, being hailed as a fantastically written book about alcoholism, rebellion and prostitutes for good measure. Just because you have a teenagers as a target audience, doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down. I'm only 17 and I've read such texts as Fight Club (which is actually incredibly theological), To Kill A Mockingbird and hell, I've even read a book over 1000 pages (it got terribly repetitive).
You say that she 'dumbed it down for a teenage audience', but teenagers aren't that stupid, hell, kids aren't that stupid! Dr Seuss piled in themes and ideas that the reader picked up subconsciously. Subconscious reading, for 4 year olds, whereas in Twilight the reader gets told everything they need to know, lead along, pulled by the hand of Meyer, using such examples like "He was dreamy" or "He was an Adonis". Now, I'm not sure these are direct quotes, but they're uncreative enough to almost guarantee that Meyer used them.
