Twilight and what I think about it. Yes, I read the first book last night. Even though my right eye was having issues with an allergic reaction of some kind (I think with the window open and the quick moving blustering storm, something must have blown into it). Ever try to read with an eye distraction? Not pleasant. But, I wanted to finish reading this book. And, I did, a little after 2am.
Quick assessment: It took about the first 200 pages to get Edward and Bella "together". I realize in the first book, the author has the daunting task to make sure we "get" her idea of vampire legend. She did okay, but I think she could have brought us all up to speed a lot faster than 200 or so pages. I did not like all the references to Edward being angelic or singing like an archangel. I think god also came into some kind of descriptions of him. Let's just say, the author knows how to reveal a teenage girls bottomless, foolish love for a guy who is all wrong for her, even when she knows it. Girls, don't we always know when a guy is all wrong for us?
Something I find all too common in our contemporary books today: They promise us a thrill with 500-plus pages and get us hooked at somewhere between 1-200 pages (depending upon how great a writer they are) and, we find ourselves really liking the story, maybe sympathizing with the characters . . . the closer we get to the end of the book . . . well, it's like this: you are running uphill - and it's starting to beat you, but you are getting closer to the prize, but when you get there the prize is not there; just a brief rush that most of the questions are answered and now you have to jump off the cliff 'cos there is no going back; book 2 is awaiting you and it's a long way down. Why such a long way down? Because you fear it's going to dump your arse over another hill after you trudge (and maybe enjoy) through the next 500 pages. Not only that, but we have to be reminded constantly in book two what happened in book one . . . a never ending message from the writer/publisher that they think I'm a cognitive-less, dumdum. Thanks!
The series books tend to do that. They never end the story so there's always another book to bother with. But, you like the characters . . . . and they have unrequited love and other novel bits of reader hooks and snares that keep you interested just enough . . .
So, I get that Edward is enticing - but I don't really get it. He's a damn vampire. There is nothing to love. What is the attraction? Most women want to be loved like that by the men in their lives (well, perhaps to a certain extent, 'cos I don't think Chief can lift a car off of me if I happen to be in its path). What is real about the story, though, (and is all to creepy in its reality) is the extent to how far some girls will go when loving a boy that is all wrong for them . . . and endangering their family in the process, because they are too self-absorbed to think their actions through BEFORE they act.
Something I did enjoy about the book (and what initially drew me in): it is based in my home state. I stomped through Forks and Port Angeles. We also would go to other places that were rumored to be 'haunted' . . . the vampire and ghost stories are quite appealing when you're a teenager. When I was a teenager, I chose to read Anne Rice's vampire novels. I loved them, rich as they are in history and such. I did not care for Queen of the Damned so much, but I can't remember why. The point mentioning this? They are a lot better than this series already!
On a purely fantasy level for reading: I give this book a B. Do I let Teenie read it? I'd prefer she wait until she's in high school. As of now, she still enjoys the Potter books, which I give an A to for many reasons (well-written, engaging 100% of the time, I never feel like I have to buy the next book in a panic to finish the story). If she can stay away from mindless reading like this, I don't care if she reads Potter into her twenties. I guess, I just wish writers today would put out one really good book in one volume - stop wasting my time and my money. I think after I read book two, I may feel the same. But, I'll letcha all know. I keep telling Teenie that when she wants to read a real romance novel, read Pride and Prejudice.
In the mean time, I have to say that it does not help that Hollywood decided to make films of these books using an attractive (to some, not me; I don't like his eyebrows), young gent to play Edward . . . oh, yeah. And, he's English and that accent is la-la-la ding-dong-la delish! Give me a break. Do you know what an English dude said to me when I gushed like a horny idiot into a phone how I loved his accent? "We ALL sound like this over here, love." Yup, they sure do, and they all don't look like Edward, I know! I fancied Orlando Bloom for a while before I realized that I was drooling like a teenager when I was supposed to be a-drooling only for my Chief. I have my head (and heart) on straight these days, thank God.
All this gushing over Edward is unhealthy on so many levels. The poor actor is being sexualized and abused in many a woman/teens mind. He is being used. Keep that in mind when you think Edward (you are probably visualizing the actor at this point). Sick cycle. I can't tell (100% of the time) if they are talking about the actor or Edward - know what I mean? It is like the two have become one. No distinctions.
I think Orlando Bloom is a B actor. He was brilliant as Leggy, but his other films he just . . . I don't believe him. You know? Many people have blogged and said that this films acting was not that great . . . but because they read the books and are ga-ga over Edward they forgive it. I see a pattern here: take a so-so story, make it a film, make lots of money without any effort. Use good looking passable actors. Millions! No one can make Edward be anyone other than that actor now . . . and everyone wants to read the books . . .
How come I caved? Because so many bloggers I read and come across blog about it. And, I hear about it from so many folks I finally caved. I admit I had a thing for vampires in my youth. I watched "Lost Boys" more often than I can count. I still think Kiefer Sutherland is handsome! And, really, "Lost Boys" is still a better film, I'll bet, than "Twilight".
If I come away from New Moon feeling any differently, I'll blog about it. For now, don't count on another review. I mean, I hate to eat my words, but I'm usually a pretty good judge about this sort of thing. The story is okay. I'll bet Meyer could have put the story into one thick bound book. If Margaret George can cram Cleopatra into the massive volume she did (and she did it with King Henry VIII, too), the same can be done for Bella and Edward. Just think about being able to read their story in one concise volume without all the "reminders" of what happened previously.
The utter idea!
P.S. my terlits still await Mr. Clean (I mean, me). Really, reading was more fun that doing that, but I really need to clean them today. New Moon is going to have to wait. Really. I think after reading volume one, I can hold back on volume two.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I said I would never read the books, and then my niece begged me. Her older sisters were away at college and she wanted someone here to have read them...I read the entire series in less than 2 weeks...Having read them all, I agree with having Teenie wait...
I don't think you'll find it improving with New Moon. I'm sorry I let my daughter (14yo) read books i,2, and 3. I hear 4 is more sexual so I told her no. (After I had read 1,2, and 3). I found the story intriguing, but kind of creepy. Sympathizing with a girl who's falling for a dangerous guy raises issues. Still, I was drawn in to the story.
I think what girls find appealing about Edward is the strength and the protectiveness. (Never mind he's always tempted to kill her. LOL)
Tried to explain to my daughter that I don't think Bella is very well-loved by her parents and maybe that's why she is falling for Edward. I don't think she got it.
Still, while the story is awfully sensual in parts I was glad they don't get very far. Thanks for sharing your views. I agree Pride and Prejudice is the BEST.
I was a vampire-phile in my youth, too! Lost Boys and Anne Rice were my absolute favs. I will continue to resist the Twilight series though. I feel my attachment to Anne Rice's works was unhealthy and I would never head down that road again.
Give me a good Elizabeth Gaskall or Jane Austen work, any day!
I love your honesty, and I'm really glad you read them. It's the thought of a man being so romantic & protective that is appealing, even though we know it's completely unrealistic. But it's fantasy and that's why it's fun to read, for me. It's a fad that will fade over time. Just like my NKOTB obession :)
Edward is British but in the movie he loses his English accent. How do they do that!?! I was impressed that he was able to switch like that - I think that would be hard to do. I can't fake an accent to save my life. I know that's what he gets paid to do, but come on...it's pretty cool.
I have always said from day one that the movie is not that good. The acting is mediocre at best. But I do think Rob P. is attractive (weird eyebrows and all :) and think he played the roll pretty perfect. He got the whole creepy vamprie vibe down to a science. I liked having the visual when I read the rest of the series.
The book captures the obsessive teenage love pretty well. And I never thought I'd be able to get past the 'vampire' thing, because I was never into that sort of stuff. I've never read Anne Rice books. But it was definitely the love story that kept my attention.
And you are right on about how much she could have left out. Each book could have been about 200 pages less and we still would have gotten the point. That's the only thing I didn't like - they are SO long! But easy enought to read that I flew through. But you read it way faster then me!
Thanks for your review. I'm happy you tried it ;)
Maybe it's just me but I liked it when vampires were bad and people were good. I like clear battle lines.
Vampires are now made like they're good people just suffering from this unfortunate blood addiction.
THEY'RE UNDEAD. SO we have one responsbility here. Make the dead. Dead dead.
(However, I must admit I was a Buffy The Vampire Slayer fan but at least they explained "Angel" in that he was given his soul back.)
But I'll take Dracula any day. Clear battle lines.
Matthew, I could not agree more!
Sarah, *thank you* so much for sharing this. I read it, then had Blossom read it too - as yet we've not read any of the Twilight series, but she'll be starting this week. It has certainly sparked conversation of what makes a good book, especially as she wants to be an author. She decided that JK Rowling's books sold the movie, but perhaps with Twilight the movie sold the book. She'd like to be as good an author as Rowling and have her books sell the movie. ;-)
PFP - I pray she studies well and puts out some really time-tested, wonderful, stand alone stuff, then. Our world needs writers that can inject real love, humility and other virtues w/out being preachy - just the reader having a story that they will always be fond of. I would be embarrassed to recommend the Twilight series, honestly, and I would not give them as a gift either - even if it were requested of me. I give books as gifts frequently, too. I think Blossom is right in that the film sold more of these books . . . quite right there.
Post a Comment