First, who the hell is Bree Tanner in the greater expanse of the Twitrocity? Is she one of the rogue vampires in the third book? Why the hell was a novella dedicated to such a speck of a character?
Anyway, it appears that while selling 350,000 copies in the first two days is nothing to snuff at, The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner is proving a parasite for indie bookstores. Outside of the big online retailers and the fact that the story is up for free on one of SMeyer's websites until July, it certainly doesn't help those smaller bookstores any who had no help in the promotions department when it came to getting the word out about this newest addition to the hysteria.
With smaller retailers selling only low-end single digit copies of the books, they're not going to be left with many options when it's time to rotate the book out. Mark this shill 11,000 for SMeyer but down 1 for the indies.
I'm just going to cut and paste this from my writing blog since I'd be saying the same thing twice. This is my unsent letter to Stephenie Meyer. This is what happens when you piss off a *real* vampire girl. *twitch*
Dear Ms. Meyer,
It fills me with chagrin (a word I’m sure you’re familiar with) to address you with such a title but I’m trying to be cordial here. Major emphasis on the word trying. I just might fail. You have been warned.
In an Examiner.com article dated July 31st, 2009, with excerpts quoted from Entertainment Weekly, you proceed to call the 1994 movie, Interview with the Vampire, based off of Anne Rice’s wildly popular book of the same name, “yuck” and the 1987 teen horror movie, The Lost Boys, whose cult status has, thus far, transcended 22 years, “creepy.” You then proceed to refer to yourself as a “vampire girl.” For this I am deeply troubled.
You see, when writers worthy of their salt write in a given genre, they do this little thing called research. A foreign concept to you, I know, but you should Google it. The very act will give you a definition. The thing is, with this research garners information and information garners knowledge. If a writer is unfamiliar with a particular genre, they research it thoroughly in order to accurately portray whatever it is they’re writing about.
In that same vein, in order to distort a popular element within a genre, one needs to understand what that element consists of in order to distort it properly. Kind of a strange concept to distort something properly, I know, but if you don’t know all the proper elements of wood, and the techniques required in order to shape it properly into something worthy of its base parts, you’re just going to get a big ol’ mess. When writers fail to do the proper research required of a particular genre, what they end up writing is a big ol’ mess of drift wood lit ablaze.
That’s where you come in, Ms. Meyer. Your research on vampires consisted of ten minutes scanning Google links so you could add some offhanded remarks about particular types of vampires in your books in order to further legitimize it as a “vampire” book. But you did not do the real research. You hid behind your religion, claiming that it didn’t allow you to view movies with an R-rating, thus saving you from the monstrosities in the likes of Interview with the Vampire and The Lost Boys, movies with true to form vampires. You’ve also commented in various interviews as having never read any other vampire books, not even Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which any writer with a solitary functioning brain cell writing in the realm of vampires would read.
Please tell me, if you’re going to write mysteries, how are you going to how know to write one without having read them? If you’re going to write an historical fiction, how are you going to understand the tropes and cliches of that genre without having read any other books? How are you going to write horror without having read anything else in that genre?
You’re not. If you try, you will fail. And you failed. You may have convinced your legions of Twitards whose first foray into the “vampire” world happened to be your books, but for the rest of us, who are real vampire girls and boys, aren’t fooled. In fact, we’re disgusted.
You hide behind your religion, using it as one of many excuses as to why you didn’t research but proceeded to write about the occult. Does your religion not frown upon meandering into the world of the occult? Because that’s where vampires are, if you are so adamant to call your glitter pixies vampires. Or is it because they’re so watered down and not actually vampires that it’s ok? Please help me, for I am confused.
Let me give you a very brief rundown on what vampires actually are. In folklore (that’s another thing you would have come across should you have actually bothered to research anything), vampires are corpses reanimated by being possessed by a demon or devil who survives by feeding off of the blood of others because blood is a life force. They are soulless creatures that are doomed to wander the earth forever in the shadows. Of course, over the years vampires have undergone pretty radical transformations but they’ve never deviated too far from that base concept of what a vampire is.
Vampires are supposed to be “yuck” and “creepy.” Their facade is merely human, thus they can resemble the heart throb or the hobo as a means of survival. But they need one thing to survive. Blood. I find it wholly ironic that you find the likes of Louis and Lestat “yuck” when you have pedophile Jacob Black falling in love with a newborn at the age of 17 and the vampires of The Lost Boys “creepy” when your perfect Edward breaks and enters into his beloved’s room without her permission to watch her sleep, kidnaps her, and disables her car engine in order to prevent her from seeing her friends. Is this the Mormonism talking or are you just that deluded?
Vampires, pretty much across the board, have only a couple of things in common; most of the time fangs and blood. The ONLY vampires, to my knowledge, that don’t have fangs but are still worthy of the title are those from the 80s movie, Near Dark. Oh how I would love for you to watch that and get a dose of real vampires in action. But it’s rated R so your religion won’t allow you to. But it allows you to romanticize pedophilia and abusive relationships. And people wonder why I’m against mainstream religions.
What bothers me the most is that you’ve passed judgment on a book/movie and a movie that have stood the test of time as belonging in the vampire world without having bore witness to either of them. Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire was first released in the 70s and it’s still going strong, with the movie having been released in 1994. The Lost Boys was released in 1987 and is still held as a cult classic to this day with new fans being born every year. Your books have been around since 2005. How about you keep your mouth shut and see where they stand in 2010 at the earliest before you go spouting off on other CLASSIC vampire literature.
Having never been exposed to any vampire classics (except your own works, which I’m sure you consider classics), and adamantly refuse to watch other vampire movies or read other vampire books, your opinion on the subject matter is invalid and worthless. Keep it to yourself. Do the leg work that the rest of the writers do and then maybe your opinion will hold some merit. Until then, shut it. Your opinion means nothing.
The difference between you and me, I’ve read your books and boy can I pass judgment on them. I’ve been a vampire fan since 1993, which is a solid 10 years BEFORE you had that sparkly dream of yours and even considered the thought of delving into the vampire world. You are in my world sweetheart, and you don’t belong. Aside from your pixies not having fangs, vampires don’t glitter. “The skin of a monster” and “glitter” are as oxymoronic as “jumbo shrimp.” If that’s a monster in your sheltered world, please pick up a Stephen King book. Please. And seeing as how you can’t accurately explain how the science in your Twiworld works, your entire world is invalidated. It’s called worldbuilding, which you’ve failed to do. Otherwise you’d know the answers to such questions as, “how can sperm survive 100 years?” and “why didn’t Edward flip out every time Bella went on the rag if he was so obsessed over the scent of her blood?” instead of passing off half-assed answers like, “only some fluids turn to venom” and “gross.”
And please answer me this, if your glitter pixies consider themselves “vegetarian vampires” because they only feed off of animals instead of humans, then if I stop eating red meat and just stick to poultry and fish, can I call myself a vegetarian? I think PETA would disagree, as would the Oxford English Dictionary.
You are a failure and a disgrace to every writer out there who actually does the work required of the job. Sure, you may think your offshore bank account says otherwise, but money does not equal talent. Just look at Britney Spears. Stop referring to yourself as a “vampire girl” when you know nothing of vampires. Stop criticizing other vampire works when you haven’t even so much as laid eyes on them. Stop writing in genres you know nothing about. If you insist on continuing, be a real writer and do the work required. That means research and reading. Fuck your religion. If you can write about the occult, pedophiles and stalkers, you can watch a real vampire movie and read a real vampire book. Stop being a hypocrite. It’s unbecoming.
And please, for everyone’s benefit, grab a thesaurus. There are other ways to describe skin color than “russet” and “granite,” among many, many, MANY other things. I’d also recommend Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Dave King and Renni Browne. You do know what self-editing is, right? Because I really don’t think you do.
If I didn’t think your guard troll of a webmaster brother would cockblock (cock is slang for penis, FYI, and the term “cockblock” is a pseudo-sexual reference to someone getting in the way of another’s sexual conquests but can be used in non-sexual blocking contexts, as I’m sure, because of your religion, you’d be unfamiliar with the term) this letter because your eyes are only deserving of seeing the praise (because, I’m convinced, you’ve got your head shoved to far up your ass that you wouldn’t understand where any criticism is coming from because your work, according to you, is perfect), I’d actually send it. Alas, I must suffice with posting it on my blogs. Maybe you’ll see it, maybe you won’t but all I can hope for is that your sales numbers eventually catch up with your writing “talent.” Which I’m sure won’t be until the final movie is released which isn’t that much time since the studios want to milk this cash cow quickly because, I believe, they have a good eye into the future of this whore of a franchise as well.
To be irrevocably in love with a vampire is both fantasy and nightmare woven into a dangerously heightened reality for Bella Swan. Pulled in one direction by her intense passion for Edward Cullen, and in another by her profound connection to werewolf Jacob Black, she has endured a tumultuous year of temptation, loss, and strife to reach the ultimate turning point. Her imminent choice to either join the dark but seductive world of immortals or pursue a fully human life has become the thread from which the fate of two tribes hangs.
Now that Bella has made her decision, a startling chain of unprecedented events is about to unfold with potentially devastating and unfathomable consequences. Just when the frayed strands of Bella's life--first discovered in Twilight, then scattered and torn in New Moon and Eclipse--seem ready to heal and knit together, could they be destroyed . . . forever?
O_o
And then there was, um . . .
O_o
Please, someone tell my my brain wasn't the only one that went here for the spawn's birth--
If you couldn't tell already, I'm not going to be nice here. If you don't want to read me peeling the skin off of this disgusting piece of literature and frapee-ing it in a blender, navigate away now.
. . .
What the fuck is wrong with this woman? Seriously. What the fuck?
And I'm not talking about the writing. In all honestly, I thought it was slightly better than the other three. Slightly. Considering the other three were pure, unadulterated lessons in how not to write, that's not saying very much. She kept the word 'granite' to an unnoticeable minimum, as was 'russet.' Thank god. Because, in Meyer's world, there's no other way to describe such texture and color.
Yeah, I'm done with this "writers need to be nice to other writers" bullshit with this woman. She doesn't deserve it. Anyone that tries to shade over rampant pedophilia as romantic and loving is sick and doesn't deserve a modicum of respect. But I'll get back to that in a minute.
First let's talk about Bella and the epic fail of the mother she is. Sure, she's still insufferable as ever but considering she puts Edtard over her own daughter, she's shit. Jacob let's her hold Renesmee. WTF? Let? She's your fucking daughter, whoretard. There's no let. And just the notion that she keeps spewing about not being able to live without Edward, that if he died, she'd kill herself to be with him . . . maybe she should have aborted when she had the chance because she's obviously way too self-involved in her own feelings to have a daughter. If that's how you feel, don't have children because you're too childish to have them. When you sprout spawns, they become your first priority. Not your husband, not you. Your children. You do anything you can possibly do to save them and that does not include putting them into the hands of baby fuckers and following your lover on a suicide roller coaster ride. To say that is horrible parenting is being way too nice. But, it's good in Meyerworld.
Then there's the massive deux ex machina that is Bella. Oh she comes in to save the day at the blue balls ending. How anticlimatic that was. I've heard about it since it came out but damn, that was horrible. And not only is she a walking talking DEM, she's the ultimate Mary Sue, as if we didn't know that already. But per amazing perfection and vampire aptitude, as commented by everyone with eyes, including herself, multiple times, is a testament to the Sueism. Yak. Masturbatory work if I ever saw it.
Then there are the more technical aspects, like being in Jacob's head yet Meyer couldn't seem to get out of Bella's. I highly doubt Jacob would have noticed Edward's skin as granite. What did I say before about a thesaurus? No one listens to me. Bella kept peaking through Jacob's voice, thus proving that Meyer doesn't know her characters enough to shift from one to another. Or her writing just isn't good enough. Or both.
Then there's chagrin, which I'm convinced Meyer doesn't know how to use properly in a sentence, as evidenced in her writing. And irrevocably. Just stop it. Find some different words already.
There's also the massive character shifts that went on throughout, like Alice up and leaving and bringing back a deux ex machina piece of evidence to save the day or Rosalie all of a sudden liking Bella. As if her mortal enemy doing something she couldn't wouldn't make her more resentful, right? And Edward lying flat on his back so Bella can walk all over him, along with every other character in the book bending to Bella's will. Self-serving much?
At least Meyer acknowledged the fact that Jacob & Co. weren't actually werewolves but shape shifters even though Jacob was all like, "Dude, I'm so, like werewolf, and junk." Now if she could just come to terms with the fact that the glittering pixies in her books aren't actually vampires, the world might be a slightly better place.
Now I think it's time to go back to that pedophilia thing. Yeah. Fucking sickness. What the fuck was she thinking attempting to make this a feasible romantic plotline? A man of legal age of consent in all fifty states imprints/falls in love with/finds his soulmate in a newborn . . . O_o Then there's his friend with the three year old. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
And all the Twihards will say, but he's like a big brother or an uncle and will take care of her until she's old enough where they can take their relationship to the next level." Mkay. Yeah, because what I want to do when I get all growed up is fuck my uncle. So it's pedophilia with a side of incest now, is it? There is absolutely no way anyone can explain this to me to make it be anything other than pedophilia. None. Why? Because the intent of Jacob's relationship with Loch Ness and his friend with that toddler is to tap that sweet, sweet baby ass in order to further the werewolf line. They said it themselves. The purpose of imprinting is to ensure the survival of the Quileute lineage. That involves fucking. Grown men. And children. NAMBLA's having a field day with this (and I will not link that sick site, if you want to know what it is, Google it yourself and keep a vomit bucket handy).
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children
a sexual attraction to children
from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" + philos "loving."
sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
So tell me how that DOESN'T pertain to Jacob and his buddy there in any shape or form and I'll not think their sick relationships pedophilic. I am so thoroughly disgusted by this book and Meyer herself. It was bad enough to blanket a controlling, manipulative stalker as the ultimate romantic boyfriend but to shade pedophilia under the romance shroud? For shame. It makes me want to light this book on fire, literally, and watch it burn a slow death. It's only deserving. What could have possessed her to think this was a good idea to write is beyond me.
To be slightly fair, I'm of the understanding that the concept of imprinting comes from a Mormon belief in being thusly attracted to your soul mate. That's all well and good and really cute when a couple of six-year-olds or ten-year-olds do it but an adult and a child is just illegal and renders Jacob at the bottom of the butt-fucking prison totem pole.
I've read better Suethorfanfiction than this. And at least that's fanfiction. It gets buried in with the rest of it and if you don't want to find it, you won't. But this . . . this is Ebola escaped into the world that's making our insides liquefy. You couldn't escape this monstrosity if you tried. This is literary masturbation of a whole different variety. The author isn't spooging her literary prowess on the page. *snerk* She's spooging herself in her ultimate fantasy all over the place for everyone to see while at the same time promoting abusive relationships and pedophilia. Yeah. Awesome.
This book is leaving my house tomorrow. I can deal with the first three. They're not so bad to read and can actually be somewhat enjoyable if I beat my brain into submission. But my home needs to be exorcised of this evil. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. Before, I could somewhat understand the appeal of Edward and Bella and their whining but now, after this last one, it doesn't surprise me that even prior diehard fans are going, WTF?
As Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and a malicious vampire continues her quest for revenge, Bella once again finds herself surrounded by danger. In the midst of it all, she is forced to choose between her love for Edward and her friendship with Jacob - knowing her decision has the potential to ignite the ageless struggle between vampire and werewolf. With her graduation quickly approaching, Bella has one more decision to make: life or death. But which is which? (book flap blurb)
At this point I’m finding it hard to not be redundant in my reviews of this series. Everything that I’ve said regarding characters and personalities and plot all stand except everything’s magnified, amplified, blown up and whatever other synonym you want to use.
Bella is perpetually helpless, perpetually under attack and perpetually self-deprecating. Edward is perpetually helpful, perpetually there to save the day and perpetually reassuring. It must be all those years of vampiric patience. I wonder how many centuries it’ll take for the “you’re better than me” putz Bella is constantly spewing out to wear thin. Will love survive such endless, backwards-hair-rubbing cycles? I’m hard-pressed to think she’ll get over it any time soon. That is unless she becomes “OMG beautiful!” once she becomes a vampire like she hopes to. Why? So she can stand next to Edward and feel like she belongs there. Three f*^$^%( books of this so far. He’s stuck around this long but obviously that’s not enough. Neither is the drippy goo love. I think sacrificial goats are in order for Edward to start proving himself since she’s obviously not getting it.
And now Jacob is persistently and stalkerly vying for Bella’s attention. He even comes thisclose to a werewolf rapist. Any guy that confuses the “get the hell away from me” face and subsequent actions for “OMG ravage me you big burly wolf” needs to be kept as far away from the opposite sex as humanly (har) possible. The kicker, when Charlie realizes that Bella broke her hand when punching Jacob for forcing the kiss, he laughs. Yeah, laughs and starts making fun of her. I don’t think Jacob realizes that if that were me, losing his lips would be at the lightest end of the spectrum for what would be coming to him. What father, in his right mind, would laugh and take sides with the forceful schmuck that tried to manhandle his daughter? Oh sure, he comes back over the fact how many chapters later, “but seriously, honey” she shouldn’t allow that. Oh bite me. My dad would have torn him apart with his bare hands for even considering the thought let alone for me breaking my hand trying to get away from him. Are you serious? I so hope he doesn’t own a “#1 Dad” mug. If he does, someone should break it.
I don’t know what’s worse: that or Carlisle actually recommending to Edward that they dope Bella with morphine so they can have sex without her being in pain. Seriously? He damn near recommends Edward date-rape her? Really? And girls are swooning? O_o
I don’t get it. I really don’t. These books aren’t deep enough to “read deeply” into. All this is right there on the surface but OMG glittery Edward takes precedence, apparently. Befuddled would be a good adjective for me right now. So would spork. Lots and lot of spork. Or for those not familiar with the newer term, the older one would be MST3000 or Mystery Science Theater 3000. For now I have things like this. I couldn’t find the original on the Head Trip site. But there’s this as well even though I haven’t read the last book yet. Still giggles-worthy.
I will say one thing good about this book - Bella finally mentions something she likes about Edward other than his looks. It was something along the lines of 'he's a nice guy.' It was only the one time but it's there . . . and right back to "I love him because he's beautiful" again. So he loves her because she smells like heroin and she loves him because he's hard as a rock (O_o) and is the most gorgeous thing on the planet. True love, huh? I think I can find something deeper on Rock of Love.
I really don't think it's surprising that I've waited this long to finish the series. I don't know about you but uterus-noshing isn't too high up on my things to read. It'll get read, when I get around to it. For now the spine is staring at me like a big, looming chess piece of doom. Check.
I knew we were both in mortal danger. Still, in that instant, I felt well. Whole. I could feel my hear racing in my chest, the blood pulsing hot and fast through my veins again. My lungs filled deep with the sweet scent that came off his skin. It was like there had never been any hole in my chest. I was perfect - not healed, but as if there had never been a wound in the first place.(book back blurb)
Everything that I’ve said previously about these characters and their personalities still stands. The most compelling characters are those that are tucked in the background, somewhere behind Bella and Edward’s single dimensions. Only now we get to see more of Jacob Black whose mood swings and grumpy tantrums (which would be quite normal in a 16 year old boy) are explained away by the fact that he turns into a werewolf. See, I like the whole werewolf/chick getting her period thing of the movie Ginger Snaps. The parallel made there was awesome and eerily accurate. The teenage boy thing, though, it just seems a little too easy. Perhaps because it was done with little to no oomph and the parallel was made to interact with family history instead of hormone changes. The latter might have been purely coincidental.
Aside from the fact that Bella only defines herself by Edward, the way she attempts to get over him is by falling into the arms of yet another boy. Because that’s healthy. Because she’s been on the verge of a catatonic depression for months so the only way to get herself out of it is to distract herself by getting into an equally unhealthy rebound relationship with someone else. Someone needs a psychiatrist.
And on top of all of that, Bella actually becomes delusional and risks her life in order to trigger these delusions. It’s the only way to hear Edward’s voice. It’s always good to “cheat” on your werewolf pseudo-boyfriend with the boy that now exists only in your head. Again, healthy.
Meyer is quick to defend Bella and claim that none of this is misogynistic, that she really is a strong character. This is what she has to say, from her website–
(Side note: there are those who think Bella is a wuss. There are those who think my stories are misogynistic—the damsel in distress must be rescued by strong hero.
To the first accusation, I can only say that we all handle grief in our own way. Bella’s way is no less valid than any other to my mind. Detractors of her reaction don’t always take into account that I’m talking about true love here, rather than high school infatuation.
I emphatically reject the second accusation. I am all about girl power—look at Alice and Jane if you doubt that. I am not anti-female, I am anti-human. I wrote this story from the perspective of a female human because that came most naturally, as you might imagine. But if the narrator had been a male human, it would not have changed the events. When a human being is totally surrounded by creatures with supernatural strength, speed, senses, and various other uncanny powers, he or she is not going to be able to hold his or her own. Sorry. That’s just the way it is. We can’t all be slayers. Bella does pretty well I think, all things considered. She saves Edward, after all. Side note/rant over. Back to the story.)
Ok, so this is “true love” instead of a high school infatuation. Can the two not be synonymous? Are these stories not one and the same? To say Bella isn’t infatuated with Edward is a bit of a stretch on the best of days.
Do I think Bella is a wuss? No, I just don’t think she’s much of a character. She doesn’t flinch at running off to Italy to save Edward. A wuss wouldn’t have done that. Unfortunately, the definition of Bella is Edward so she was only saving herself. There isn’t a line between the two characters. They are one and the same so it would only be natural for one to save the other if that’s how they define each other. Really, is it so much to try and save yourself?
I think where Meyer misses the point on people objecting to Bella is that very definition of “true love.” In the Twilight world, to truly love another is to completely forfeit your own self. You as an individual no longer exist and are thus only defined by your life mate. I think having the story from Bella’s point of view only magnifies the misogynistic tendencies of the stories because we have a girl whose self-worth is rooted in her boyfriend. We see her not giving a damn about anything else except Edward. And when she isn’t with him, she’s longing for him. Bella is not Bella without Edward. You can say you’re for girl power all you want but when you have a girl whose life revolves around a boy and exists only for him (and occasionally her parents), you’re going to be hard pressed to prove otherwise. I have no doubt it’s entirely possible to truly and fully love someone without forfeiting your individuality and sense of self. This book obviously doesn’t show that.
When Edward leaves, a hole is torn in Bella’s chest. Oh how often she goes back to that image. It’s not occupied and filled again by close friends or family but by yet another boy whom she tries so hard to convince herself is just a friend but, even towards the end of the book, knows she’s not fooling herself. According to Bella, the only way to fill one hole torn in her psyche by a boy is to fill it with another. Isn’t that slightly oxymoronic to the whole girl power message? I understand the whole “we grieve differently” mantra but showcasing this very notion of defining yourself by the boy you date is not something young girls should be reading about.
Another spot where Meyer misses the boat in her own defense was the human actions among inhuman beings. I don’t question that. When you’re around things that can crush your head like a piece of Styrofoam, I have no doubt the intimidation level would be pretty high. And no, not all characters can be slayers. Not everyone is Buffy. But at least Buffy, despite everything else, had a sense of who she was. Bella does not. Meyer is thinking of only extremes in this respect. Bella doesn’t have to be a slayer but if she had a mind of her own, I’m sure her ability to hold her own would have been a little stronger. Unfortunately she no longer sees herself as a person but as Bedward. Bella’s reliance on outside sources for salvation makes her the chick that Buffy would be constantly saving and getting tired of. She doesn’t take responsibility for herself. If she can’t do that, of course she’s not going to be able to stand up to anything. It also helps to be a whole person without the aid of the opposite sex to complete you as well.
Remember, Xander and Willow and Giles were not slayers. They were quite human and quite capable of handling situations on their own. Of course Buffy was able to do it better but they had enough sense of self to not be wholly dependent on her. Even Pike from the original Buffy movie took it upon himself to throw a few stakes even though he knew he was way over his head. He didn’t depend on Buffy to get him out of trouble and while Buffy didn’t require his help and tried to talk him out of helping, she would allow it nonetheless.
I guess what it all really boils down to is the whole dependency issue and how a person defines themselves. I take serious issue with girls that insist on defining themselves according to the guys they’re dating and I’ll be hard-pressed to be convinced it’s true love. Maybe that’s why I’m having such a hard time comprehending all this they live for each other and thus define each other stuff in the books. Have I loved? I am human. Yes, I have, quite deeply and quite painfully and while, with hindsight, I may have gotten in too deep at times, I didn’t lose the sense of who I was. It was always me with a boyfriend, not just a portion of myself while the rest of “me” was at work. I know the concept of “other half” and “better half” and all of that but it does really involve giving up who you are in order to remold the definition of you?
To be fair, I am a very independent person and weakness, especially in the self worth and self recognition departments, frustrates me because you don’t need to have another person in your life to complete the definition of you. They can complete your life, they can fill in a piece of your soul that was missing but they aren’t the essence of your being, the definition of your existence. If I had to interact with Bella, I’d have multiple ulcers.
Meyer makes it OK to love fully and shunt out everyone around you because all you need is love. Bella ostracizing her friends when Edward is around and then even further when he leaves is brushed off because they’re “not the greatest people” to be friends with. They leave a bit to be desired in the personality department. With that I won’t argue but it doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t make it healthy.
Love, love until your heart explodes but keep some semblance of a sense of self. It definitely won’t hurt.
This is a sad story and not in the star-cross’d lovers category. It’s sad in that we have a teenage girl whose only source of existence is her boyfriend. The whole of her self worth is buried in her boyfriend. The reason for her existence is her boyfriend. Nothing else matters except the moments spent together. Perhaps I’m made of stone and I should see the love in that relationship. When I’m reading, I do. But when it sinks in it depresses me. There are a lot of young, impressionable girls reading these books and it makes me sad to think what they’re going to take away from this. I’d like to say they’ll get that true love really does exist but I’m afraid the magnification they’re going to give it, the romantic levels they’re going to take it to are going to surpass any sense of reality that they should have. It’s OK to put your head in the clouds so long as your feet are on the ground. I can only hope.
And yes, I’m still reading them. I don’t read for Edward and Bella. I read for Alice and Ro and Carlisle and the Volturi. Pretty much everything else except Edward and Bella and now Jacob Black. This book, though, was my least favorite. Take some Prozac already, Bella.
Second, there was a part of him - and I didn't know how dominant that part might be - that thirsted for my blood.
And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.(book cover blurb)
Initially when I picked this book up off of a table in Barnes and Noble, I read that blurb and put the book right back down. Not interested. I only finally picked it up to read because my mom was borrowing it from my cousin and it was in the house. Why not? I wanted to see what all the hype was about. I plowed through it in a matter of days. Nice to know I can still read at warp speed. Granted it helped that the book was as dense as air.
This is one of the most thoroughly superficial books I’ve ever read. Is Twilight written as good as Harry Potter, since people are so inclined to make that comparison? I don’t think so. HP had depth right from the beginning. The world, both real and magical, were much more solid and right from the beginning the characters were deeper than puddles. I automatically sympathized with Harry because he was treated so horribly by the very people that were his family and it was done for no other reason than because he was the son of Petunia’s sister.
Twilight? Bella’s mooing about moving to Forks from Arizona and I don’t find out why she actually imposed the move on herself until, is it the second or third chapter, when Edward asks her why she moved. I was six pages in and calling my mom who’d already read it, making her explain to me why she was forcing this move on herself when she obviously didn’t want to make it. It bothered me that much.
Bella has a tendency to pity herself a lot, she doesn’t have much by the way of self-esteem and I swear if I read that she’s clumsy one more time I’m going to scream. She also has a tendency of characterizing people by their looks, especially Edward. Is everyone else that lacking in personality that it’s the only way to recognize people?
Her friends are as one dimensional as the broad side of a piece of paper. Their problems and bickering arguments are as petty, boring, asinine and overdone as fishing for belly button lint. And holy crap is Bella just one of the weakest characters you’ve ever met? Can she do nothing for herself except cook? If she’s not crying, pining over Edward or noting how clumsy she is, she’s being rescued by any number of phallus-swinging humans fawning after her. And it’s amazing how how plain she seems to be yet she has all those guys flocking to her. Are people in Forks inbred or something?
And then there’s Edward whose, at this point, only redeeming quality is his gorgeousness. He’s hot, beautiful and any other number of synonymous adjectives you can come up with. Aside from that, he’s commanding with Bella, ordering her around when he’s not sneering at her or moving vehicles out of her way or laughing at her. Oh yes! Where can I get twelve just like him? Is there a store? He’s an ass and yet she just can’t get enough of his looks. It seems to be the only thing she’s attracted to since it’s the only thing she mentions when he’s not around her (and even when he is). Maybe if Bella actually sat and thought about how he was treating her, you know, using her head for something other than air storage, she’d see just how he’s freakin’ treating her! But I guess looks overpower all. Good message to send.
By the end of the book both Edward and Bella are as one dimensional as they can be as characters, and I think that’s giving them too much credit. I didn’t care about them in the slightest. I wanted more information on Alice, who had no idea what her human life was like until she watched a short video on Bella’s beating. Or Jasper who’s the newest member of their group and has the hardest time controlling his hunger. There’s conflict, there’s unknown, there’s at least a second wall to the makeshift cube. Carlisle, Rosalie and her obvious conflict, Alice and Jasper, were far more interesting than Edward and Bella ever hoped to be.
I’ll give Meyer credit in giving the vampires something new to pine over and some new characteristics. I liked the skin in the sunlight idea even though it was a little too floofy for me. The whole “vegetarian” (in a fish-eating sort of way) concept, while isn’t new, is front and center so points for that even though I’m much more interested in drawing the beast out of Edward instead of watching him pine his way through 3 more books. But that’s just me.
The writing itself was nothing to write home about. Very mediocre and elementary, words in their simplest forms to portray characters in their simplest sketches.
What really bothered me about this book was the overwhelming lack of individuality and identity that Bella adopted once Edward was in her life. It’s downright scary, not romantic, to watch even a fictional teenager profess her undying and eternal love for a boy and claim that she only lives for him. Every moment away from him is pure agony. It takes what I’m sure many teenage girls feel when they think they’re in love (I know I was in that group a few times), exaggerates it and makes it ok. It’s scarily unhealthy to be that engrossed when you’re an adult, letting the other aspects of your life fall by the wayside to be replaced by a love interest but to watch a teenager do it, who's much more impressionable, is terrifying. The last thing any girl of any age should do is define herself by the boy or man she’s dating.
Yes, I understand this is a romance. Obviously. But really, is it impossible to have a romance, and a good one, where the female has a sense of self?
And Bella is just downright stupid. Edward obviously knows what he’s talking about. He’s been alive for 100 years. He’d be dead already if he were walking around with his head up his butt. Bella doesn’t listen to a damn thing he tells her, convinces herself of the exact opposite, doesn’t think things through clearly, is entirely irrational in the extreme and is constantly sacrificing herself for “his good” when he’s ready to put his head (and possibly hers) through a wall constantly telling her the contrary. I feel frustrated for him. I wanted to put my hand through the pages and backhand the twit for actually believing that the tracker had her mother, for only one example. Duh.
Yet, despite all of this, I couldn’t stop reading. I finished the book, including the preface and first chapter of New Moon in a couple of days. I still haven’t figured out what was compelling me to keep reading. Maybe it was hope that Bella adopted a sense of self although I highly doubt that will ever happen, even in the final book. Maybe it was purely for the cheese factor that I know is coming up. I have no idea but I've cranked through them and have one more to go (that I'm procrastinating on).
Maybe I see it as one disastrous train wreck and I just can’t take my eyes away from it. That might work.
I have to say, the movie is better if for the only reason being that we're no longer constantly in Bella's head. No more insufferable inner-monologue. So much more tolerable although Rob Pattinson's dead wombat hair was pretty distracting.
My next three reviews will be for Twilight, New Moon and Eclipse (I haven't read Breaking Dawn yet but it's haunting me in my TBR pile). They are, um, not flattering. If you've been reading my reviews, you know I don't hold very much back. Stephenie Meyer is no exception. And no, I'm not reading too deep into anything. Every book that I've reviewed has only been read once. Everything that I pick up is from a single pass and I don't go in thinking "how can I pick this apart?" I just don't have that kind of energy. Being a rabid reader didn't take me to this level. Immersing myself for years in writing and editing did. It's good and bad. Some of the joy in reading kind of faded but I can definitely still read for fun. I can pick up a lot off of a single pass. But two is when I start diving deeper. The Twilight books only got a single pass each so everything in the reviews is at first glance. I don't know anyone that can "read too deeply" into something off of a single reading, especially considering, statistically speaking, you're only capable of remembering 70% of what you see on a first look anyway.
So, needless to say, I didn't like them. I'll leave the reviews for more detailed reasons. I liked Alice, Jasper, Emmet, Rosalie, Carlisle, at times Esme (she wasn't really around much, was she?) and the Volturi. To an extent. They were good starts. Edward, Bella and Jacob, well, yeah. No.
I'm also not a fan of Stephenie Meyer either. I don't know her as a person but I've seen her interviews, read her responses and heard/read about how she composes herself as an author, especially as an author in the face of adversity and I have to say, I just don't like it. To not even acknowledge people asking legitimate questions about her work is just wrong (the infamous period question comes to mind, or how the laws of science seem to evade Forks and its surrounding areas, I know it's fantasy but even the rules within the fantasy need to make sense and remain consistent, there was also the petition that fans, fans, wanted to send Meyer asking for explanations on her writing which was blocked by her brother and then slandered as cruel, unthoughtful and a variety of other not nice words by him).
I could go on, but I won't. The Twilight series is an extraordinarily guilty pleasure (think 25 to life without the chance of parole, guilty) for me. I've never read a book where I so absolutely despised the main characters and read only for the instances of secondary characters. And I'm convinced the pages are laced with crack. It's the only way I can logically explain why I kept reading. But beyond that, I just didn't like it and I just really disagree with how Meyer holds herself in the author pool. I'll give her credit to the fact that she did something right with these books but I have no idea what it is. If she didn't do anything right, they would have flopped. That's only logical.
So consider yourself warned. Feel free to disagree with me intelligently but please don't be a Twihard (and I don't mean a fan of Twilight, I have nothing against Twilight fans,I mean the rabid Twichos that tear at their skin when they meet Rob Pattinson so they can bleed for him or the putzes that can't come up with any semi-intelligent means to defend the series other than with innane 'omgur so jelusstefanymiar is teh best ryter in teh world you so stoopid' or just downright nasty vitriol. Save it. I welcome discussion and even arguments, so long as they're done intelligently but I have an industrial strength fire extinguisher for the flamers.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
Now onto the kindred spirit. I bet you're wondering who it is. Now, I don't know why the movie people made Rob Pattinson emulate this guy. I think they liked his ultra-fantastic cheekbones but I just don't know how smart the move actually was. It's eerie, though. As if Edward and his twin spirit were separated at birth. Perhaps Carlisle has more children than he's letting on. Or Edward's really a coal-miner's son that decided to stay out of the limelight. What do you think?
I mean, it's eerie, isn't it? And look, they even share the same expressions!
Spooky!
Now, aside from the fact that I so *heart* Photoshop, if you're a fan of Edward, you might think I'm being mean, especially with the good looking quote. I've heard people say there's more to Edward than looks but I'm still trying to figure out what. Is "stalker" a good quality? Anyway, just so you know I'm not making it up, here's Mr. Zoolander himself expressing that very line--
And you know James is Edward's arch nemesis, just as Hansel is to Derek. Perhaps this should have been Edward and James's final epic battle--
If you're still not getting the joke, for the love of god go rent Zoolander. No, just go buy it. It's probably on the $10 rack at Target. It'll be the best money you've ever spent. And just to keep the funny note going, a little *snerk* to send you off with--
Just a few tidbits for you today. First I have a first look at Suzanne Collins's cover art for the second book in her Hunger Games trilogy. It's not exclusive or anything but I saw it and I knew just how popular that first book is. I haven't read it yet but it is on my paper TBR (as opposed to my actual TBR of doom) and if Stephen King says good things about it then I will gladly take a look! He is one of my gods, after all. The image is courtesy of Publisher's Weekly and you can read a short article about the secrecy surrounding this book here.
Next on the list is a short snippet from the upcoming Henry Selick/Neil Gaiman movie Coraline. Another book I've heard wonderful things about. I'm a burgeoning Neil Gaiman fan and I think his writing is wonderful so of course I plan on reading this one as well. And Nightmare Before Christmas was awesome! I have the underwear! Uh, maybe that was TMI . . . But how could this go wrong? Enjoy the clip! Let me know if you have problems viewing it. It's a MySpace snippet thing.
Last but not least, some New Moon movie news. Now, I'll say this right now, Twilight, for me, is nothing more than a very guilty pleasure. I couldn't stand Edward, Bella or Jacob but I did enjoy the snippets of life from the secondary characters, so long as they remained secondary characters. And I won't even start on the writing.
But the movie wasn't half bad. I actually found it rather enjoyable, mainly because I didn't have to listen to that insufferable twit for the entire two hours. I much prefer just being behind her eyes than I did actually being in her head. While it was roomy, what was in there wasn't really worth the gray matter it was printed on.
Anyway, New Moon news. Dakota Fanning is in the works to play Jane, among other unnamed actresses. I think it's very obvious the movie people really want her in this part. The girl has amazing range as an actress and has done so much and she's only 14 but in all honesty, I never thought of Jane as being a teenager. I always figured she was an adult. It's been a while since I read the book but I can't remember if it's said how old she is. The article has a snippet of her description from the book and I think Dakota fits it pretty nicely, but it doesn't say anything about age. It she's cast in the role, I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing her in the part. That's some real acting talent right there.
And before I go, click my eggs, dammit! They'll die if you don't! Do you want dragon egg deaths on your conscience?
I don't give books star ratings; I give them bite ratings. This is a bite. A book can get up to five of these evil-looking chompers, including half bites.
You can attribute your own wording to the ratings. Five's the best, three's decent, one and under isn't worth the gas to go to the library. I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks.
First, who the hell is Bree Tanner in the greater expanse of the Twitrocity? Is she one of the rogue vampires in the third book? Why the hell was a novella dedicated to such a speck of a character?
