If you even want to call those strange creatures vampires. I consider it more of a mutation of Emo-ness.
Twilight Author Bored With Vampires
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
hah, she got tired of her books too, it's a shame it took her 3 more books then it did the rest of us.
Some people unfortunately.. take much, much longer than the rest of us to see the train-wreck coming. She may be filthy rich now, but she got to that point in the most terrible way possible..Aylaine said:
..Spamming horrible cliche's!
LOLXD!!!Dr. wonderful said:Oh sweet lord the Irony.
These guys will sum up my reaction:
But seriously, let's be grateful that she's pulling the plug on the whole thing.
My initial reaction when seeing the name of this thread was: Good so are all of us. Though anyone who likes a decent horror novel and doesn't mind vampires who like to tear shit up should read Let the Right One In.
Well, isn't that the problem? Announced, but not delivered? The Edward-centric version of the story, for instance?Pyode said:
No, they're not. But they need to recognize that, when they switch genres, they're basically going to be starting over with the fans. Beethoven wrote symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas... he tried to branch out into opera, wrote one, and it sucked. It really, really sucked. History didn't "give him a pass" on it, and we're talking about Beethoven here.
The problem isn't that Meyer wants to switch. The problem is her attitude about it. Her FANS (ie, the people who will buy her stuff) are asking for something. And she doesn't FEEL like writing about it. This means she is in THE major conflict of the artist--as soon as you accept money for your art, things change. How and when you write changes. It means that sometimes you write, even when it feels like a chore. Even when it feels like homework.
For absolutely no artist remembered by history was the craft always "fun." It didn't always feel like fingerpainting in heaven or writing dirty limericks with friends. That was PART of it, but the rest was hard work--drudgery, even. I mean, geez, read their journals.
The other thing you're forgetting about today is that the market is VERY different. How many other composers do we remember from Mozart's days in Vienna? Not many. But there were THOUSANDS of them--never discovered, never remembered.
With the speed of information these days, nearly ANYONE can get their goods to market now. What that means is that EACH PROJECT you put out there is going to be judge on its own merit--no one gets a free ride because they did such a great job with Book X. That might sell the first few hundred copies, but the sequel won't move. And to change from one niche to another, when you likely won't bring all of your fans with you, you've got to really WORK and CRAFT--the "inspiration" part just won't carry you a second time.
Nothing Meyer writes is in the same ballpark as Tolkien... or heck, even Rowling. They pour time and work and research into what they did, even on the days it wasn't fun. They found NEW things to say with the OLD ideas... rather than just abandoning them when the freshness faded.
Meyer has gotten a rare chance for authors these days--widespread name recognition, specifically regarding her teen/tween vampire junk. She'd be wise to run with it, rather than bite the hand that feeds her.
If she ruins mummies, then I'll mummify her. How does that sound for irony, Meyer?The_root_of_all_evil said:CoverYourHead said:
The sooner this useless cretin shreds her lungs with a garden strimmer the happier I'll be. The woman is little more than a proselytising Mormon with the literary talent of the kid who ate glue at nursery. Dreadful bloody hack.
I think the most amusing thing about this whole thread is the vehement and repetitive insistence that she never wrote about vampires.
The only true defining characteristics of vampires is their insatiable need for blood and the whole "living dead" thing, though that is up in the air in some takes.
The concept of a vampire has been around for hundreds of years, but it wasn't until the film Nosferatu (1920's) that vampires were even killed by the sun. Dracula, the Ur Example of a vampire, was only mildly inconvenienced by the sun. He was also as ugly as sin and had the palms and backs of his hands reversed. He can shapeshift into a wolf, a bat, a cloud of mist...
And the whole "Cannot be seen in mirrors" thing? That was added by the author of Dracula. The original vampyre mythos was of a terrifying, nigh-unstoppable creature that lusted after your blood. Everything else was left up to the storyteller's head.
Concepts change. People try a different take on something. It doesn't always work and it doesn't always catch on (I guarantee the sparkles won't) but the purists should get over themselves and realise that, unfortunately, the sparklers were, in fact, vampires. They were unstoppable by humans. They were undead. They lusted for blood.
They were vampires. Whether you thought it was a good take on the vampire mythos or not is up to you, but the fact remains that they were as much vampires as any other case, given they had only three criteria to fill.
However... compelling and engaging characters, they were not.
The only true defining characteristics of vampires is their insatiable need for blood and the whole "living dead" thing, though that is up in the air in some takes.
The concept of a vampire has been around for hundreds of years, but it wasn't until the film Nosferatu (1920's) that vampires were even killed by the sun. Dracula, the Ur Example of a vampire, was only mildly inconvenienced by the sun. He was also as ugly as sin and had the palms and backs of his hands reversed. He can shapeshift into a wolf, a bat, a cloud of mist...
And the whole "Cannot be seen in mirrors" thing? That was added by the author of Dracula. The original vampyre mythos was of a terrifying, nigh-unstoppable creature that lusted after your blood. Everything else was left up to the storyteller's head.
Concepts change. People try a different take on something. It doesn't always work and it doesn't always catch on (I guarantee the sparkles won't) but the purists should get over themselves and realise that, unfortunately, the sparklers were, in fact, vampires. They were unstoppable by humans. They were undead. They lusted for blood.
They were vampires. Whether you thought it was a good take on the vampire mythos or not is up to you, but the fact remains that they were as much vampires as any other case, given they had only three criteria to fill.
However... compelling and engaging characters, they were not.
Seriously?
The woman wrote the books. She made her saga famous for the words she wrote.
You can hate her all you like but now she's done with it, still some of you can't be happy because your peers are probably loving it while you get none.
Vampires are fictional. They have no true basis and no true definition. So her version of a vampire should not offend the majority as much as it appears to.
Write your own vampire novel. Get famous. How about that? lol
I admit, I don't like the stories that much and her litarary style will not be going down in history, I don't like the films, but a lot of all the hate seems to be related to other people loving Twilight while you have enough sense not to enjoy it.
You probably don't hate Twilight as much as you think.
The woman wrote the books. She made her saga famous for the words she wrote.
You can hate her all you like but now she's done with it, still some of you can't be happy because your peers are probably loving it while you get none.
Vampires are fictional. They have no true basis and no true definition. So her version of a vampire should not offend the majority as much as it appears to.
Write your own vampire novel. Get famous. How about that? lol
I admit, I don't like the stories that much and her litarary style will not be going down in history, I don't like the films, but a lot of all the hate seems to be related to other people loving Twilight while you have enough sense not to enjoy it.
You probably don't hate Twilight as much as you think.
Nope. Im fairly sure i do. People ENJOY twilight?! Is there a method? Some sort of secret technique to allow the enjoyment of a terrible cliche collection.deus-ex-machina said:
"Oh edward my love for you is a loving sparkly pile of loving lovey love"
Her writing is terrible. The story appeals to sad lonely girls who try to fill bella's shoes to pretend they can fly away from reality with a gay vampire just like stephanie mayer did in high school after the football captain insulted her for the millionth time during recess. Lets be honest twilight is escapism for girls just like it was for stephanie when she was younger, girls wishing they were like bella. Shes made to be popular, globally loved, fought over and have a guy who is "perfect". Its role displacement at an obscene level. The fact people have not noticed this is quite honestly terrifying.
People want to be like bella, its why she has no personality in the book and tends to dislike everything. These sad girls also tend to dislike everything in an attempt to be "cool", their parents, their school mates, EVEN THE FRIKKIN WEATHER (twilight makes so references to how much bella doesnt like the weather). We learn so little about bella every girl can fill her role like that. Aparently her favourite colour "changes every day". Again, stephanie is exploiting people looking for escapism and making them become whiny annoying bellas with a dislike for everything. She has little personality so girls can fill her shoes more easily.
THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED MYTHOLOGY OF VAMPIRES has nothing to do with sparkling or any of the crap edward does. Edward is more akin to a fairy than a vampire. He lives in a forest, he sparkles, and he doesnt drink human blood. Fairy. All the interesting parts of vampire mythology have been removed "ie everything vampire related at all". Edwards only vampire trait we see is his weird reaction to sunlight. He never shows a lust for blood, he has some weird reaction so sunlight that stephanie tries to make look important but fails, it has NO effect other than looks. Theres no reason edward cant live like a normal person.
Its like me writing a book about a boy who grows slightly pointer ears every full moon and calling him a warewolf. The relation is pretty weak.
Don't worry she'll probably touch Frankenstein and mummies next, make Frankenstein a gay fashion model or something and the mummy just some dude in a comma who all the girls swoone over.katsumoto03 said: