Twilight: Bella is SUPPOSED to be a flat character.

[sir.rutthed]

As a Creative Writer that has both read extensively on the subject and taught on the subject, I can say that is only an excuse and, even if it was intentional, it is simply lazy writing. If Meyer really wanted to have the reader put themselves in the shoes of the main character, she would have had to write the story in 2nd person (and that can be done). However, the problem is (yes, I have read Twilight) that she doesn't really decide on perspective. Sometimes she wants to be in 3rd person omni, sometimes 3rd person limited (camera very close to Bella so we can only see what she is thinking), and sometimes it is 3rd person "fly-on-the-wall" which gives emotional distance and breaks tension.

For more fun information on this, I would like to point out that the ACA/PCA Conference in San Antonio is going to have an entire academic panel on the modern vampire stories (Twilight and Tru Blood), so if you are a college student and really want to look deep into this, shoot them a paper and you might be the academic expert on the matter.

You know, you're one of the first people I've come across who bothers to intellectually deconstruct anything that's wrong with Twilight rather than just flame it away. My hat is off to you sir/madam, for giving me intellectual justification to continue staying away from those books/movies.

A flat character, intentional or not, is dull and the sign of a bad writer. I'm not honestly interested in how much a Mormon wants me to love her fake vampire character. She's not supposed to be the one who decides FOR ME how I feel about HER characters. It's poor writing, plain and simple. The days of having the author tell you who to love and who to hate passed over a hundred years ago.

Not entirely true. Flat characters aren't in their selves a bad thing, they just don't develop over time like we expect a main character to. It could be argued that the Emperor from the original Star Wars trilogy was a flat character, but that didn't change how menacing he was. Rounded characters are all well and good, but if that's all you have you tend to lose focus on the story and just meander around for a long time and lose your viewers (I'm looking at you, George Martin).

 

[drummond13]

So, you think Twilight is successful for the same reason as Japanese Dating Sims?

 

[ZombieGenesis]

So, you think Twilight is successful for the same reason as Japanese Dating Sims?

Somehow I don't think creepy middle aged men and sweaty teenage boys are reading Twilight in a dark room right now... or maybe they are. Either way it's still disturbing.

 

[DanDeFool]

Okay, so I get that the "bland character = your personality here" thing is pretty well universally accepted.

Naturally, that isn't the ONLY reason Twilight is a bad series of novels/series of movies.

Still, I'm finding it interesting that there's a lot more academic interest in Twilight than I'd originally suspected. I've been spending most of my time on the flame threads and not enough time on the intellectual ones.

 

[Kitteh]

shes also supposed to be flat...chested. hehehe

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I'm pretty sure it's just due to terrible writing and Kristen Stewart as an actress. Go watch another movie she's in. She's the same character every time.

Yes, she is quite vacant of emotion.

I read every book of the series, I never intended to by the way. Some girl told me it was good after I had just finished bashing it and challenged me to read it and then rant again. Well, I read it. I had even more reason to bash it.

 

[Okysho]

See, where your theory fails is that they don't make Japanese dating sims into movies (I hope)(Hentai doesn't count).

But before the films, sure!
Why not!

CLANNAD

but that's not really a dating sim... it's considered a visual novel... and yes, H material doesn't count

 

[Sindaine]

I'm pretty sure she's written that way because Smeyer doesn't know shit about writing.

 

[Cheesus333]

This is a very likely theory, and would explain the popularity of Twilight among love-starved girls/women who need a man, fictitious or otherwise (not that this is the only group in Meyer's fanbase, of course), but I don't think that excuses it. A first-person novel like Twilight is through the eyes of its central protagonist, and since this is the person we'll be spending our time in the book with then the narrator must be an engaging and interesting character. A bland, dull, unlikeable stock character might pass for a momentary extra character in the book, but have one as your protagonist and no-one's going to want to keep reading their thoughts.

Incidentally, I started reading Twilight. I got three chapters in and realised there was no good reason to force that experience upon myself anymore.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Then how about I publish a book consisting of nothing but blank pages?

Then the audience can project as much as they want... It's genius!

As long as I get to write the sequel. The Book 2 : Subtitle Here!

 

[Sindaine]

So you're saying.......that the movies should've been shot in a first person perspective like FPS games? that....would be so ****ing creepy!

Goddamnit, now you're making me want to go to film school to learn how (and if) this can be done.

 

[wickermole]

up

 

[Atmos Duality]

Oh, I heard this explanation before.
And here is why it doesn't work: Role-playing a character with variable emotions, but static continuity (that is, Bella is always going to fall for Edward) is doomed to failure.

Why? Because projecting your persona into a pre-defined role is bound to cause contradictory behavior. It's like being forced to act a script for a role that you don't fit into; you can technically blurt out your lines and slog through it, but nobody (least of all yourself) is going to find it believable (unless they're gullible, of course).

Ironically, this is the very same reason why the books, and especially the movies, are so unintentionally hilarious, because this is exactly the sort of logic you would use to create a parody or comedy.

A lack of characterization is still weak characterization, no matter how you try to rationalize it, because at the end of the series Bella Swan is still a useless, boring, submissive emo *****.

 

[CleverCover]

But I didn't like the rest of the characters in the first book, so if it really was me, I would have just tried to finish high school. Or not treated my Dad like crap.

And I would have gone shopping with those girls BTW Ms. Meyer.

 

[Dexiro]

I'm pretty sure every other aspect of the book was badly written to match, so that excuse doesn't stop it from sucking.

 

[Baneat]

Might fulfill that function

Doesn't mean it was intended.

 

[Oscar Bjorklund]

The good way to make a character that you are supposed to project yourself into, is to make one that's very alike the target audience, making a character boring just so that you can think of yourself as the person is just a way to make the character interaction very bland.

 

[Therumancer]

I've always thought that the issue is that if Bella had more of a personality and was more reactive it would ruin the rest of the storyline. A personality would mandate some kind of sensible reaction to being stalked non-stop by supernatural weirdos, and especilly early on any kind of realistic reaction to the situation would have ruined the entire story. Any real personality that could be made to react according to the needs of the plotline would come accross as being totally dysfunctional to the point of making projection by the reader impossible.

There have been tons of things written about how creepy a lot of Edward's behaviors are, and yet nobody notices. By this I don't mean the vampire "creepy" bits, I mean the kinds of behavior that even for a non-Vampire would warrent a restraining order even if the guy was Adonis.

-

That said, I think the whole thing being so weak in implausible to any rational thought is why it was chosen by the powers that be in Hollywood and so on to be face of "Paranormal Romance" that they were going to promote. The entire work is objectively terrible and impossible to take seriously.

Now loon back at situations with similar kinds of material like the "Vampire The Masquerade" RPG, or other, better constructed universes and lore systems that acheived fanatical followings. A concern being people taking it too seriously, or being manipulated through obsession, which would generate the wrong kind of contreversy and bring their long-term franchise potential to a premature end.

Think of situations like

http://roswell.fortunecity.com/seance/500/killers/family.html
http://www.karisable.com/ymvamp.htm

There was also a case when "Vampire: The Masquerade" was newer where, there was a (non murderous) teenage sex scandal involving teachers at a school manipulating students through the RPG group and the like.

The bottom line here is that "Twilight" just doesn't have the kind of mythology behind it where Hollywood would expect it to create the kind of obessesive detachment from reality that has hurt other franchises, and with the somewhat touchy history of fantasy vampire lore, exploiting the fad was probably akin to walking a tightrope, because with time you could dig out a bunch of stories about wierd Vampire fans (RPG and otherwise). Heck, "Something Awful" even did articles mocking sites where people who allegedly think they are real Vampires go to hang out and talk about Vampire stuff.

"Twilight", "True Blood", and similar franchises all share the simple trait in common that they are impossible to take seriously. Notice that just between those two series Bella and Sookie have a lot in common.... both being complete morons in reaction to what's going on. What's more neither is remotely believable, in one universe we've got Vampires who sparkle (and truthfully in "Twilight" I don't really 'get' the downside of being a Vampire, and why they wouldn't turn someone they care about), in "True Blood" we're supposed to believe that the authorities let Vampires kick around publically, doing whatever the heck they want, up to and including maintaining their own seperate justice system. One would think that as part of such acceptance would have been the development of squads in law enforcement trained to exploit their weaknesses when they step out of line (in that universe at least the Vampires do have signifigant weaknesses). Of course the whole mystique would be ruined if some Vampire Sheriff/Crime Lord wound up getting slammed into the back of a keyboard on "Cops: The Redneck South" to the tune of "Bad Boys" and then chained up with silver permanantly inside of a cell with his new buddy "Bubba".

All of the big vampire franchises right now have "not making one bit of sense when you think about them" in common, and I think it's internaionally set up that way by the people producing them.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I just thought it was because women weren't allowed to have personalities in Mormonism..

(this is a joke.. sort of)

 

[VegetaPrinceofSaiyans]

i dont buy that bs, it gives meyer too much credit.

she cant write for fuck and its a miracle that shit storm of a book was even made into a movie.

there are so many other books that would make excellent movies, such as the song of ice and fire series, but no we get this shite.

While I agree with your love for GRRM's masterpiece series, I disagree on the fact that it would make a good movie. Those books contain so many simultaneous subplots that much would have to be cut out in order to make the movie of an acceptable length. I think they went the proper route with the HBO TV series. IMO, it gives them a much better opportunity to examine the depth of the series in a way that I doubt a movie/movie series could.

OT: *insert obligatory Twilight hate statement here, as well as snarky comment about how all Twitards should be forced to watch the entire Hellsing Ultimate series then reevaluate their perspective on vampires.*