The Biggest and Most Prominent Reason I Hate Twilight: Or Why as I Feel Cheated as a Writer. - Comments

@Elderberry
"It’s okay if an author just tells a story. There doesn’t have to be anything more than that"

No, there doesn't have to be anymore than just that. The world won't stop and the end of times won't begin just because someone wrote something I don't like. However, as a writer and a creative artist--it pisses me off that someone can write something so completely devoid of substance, talent, and art while insulting a long tradition of supernatural gothic fiction and make more money doing it than I could ever hope to wipe my butt with. The point of this is that even if I didn't like Twilight on a personal taste level (much in the same way I am not a fan of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) I can't even find one redeeming quality to it in terms of what it has added to the genre, the effort put forth, or anything like that.

"You’re blaming Twilight for something it never had any intention of doing."

In the same way I blame the driver who accidentally hit someone crossing the street. Just because they didn't mean to do something, doesn't make it any less of a careless, thoughtless, and fucked up move on their part.

As far as it being considered gothic fiction, it pains me to say it, but I with my own definition, have to add it to the genre due to the undeniable themes of gloom, grotesqueness, sex, alienation, and good vs evil. Not to mention the supernatural elements. It sucks, but that's part of the problem of having definitions, even things you don't like have to be applicable to the criteria of the things you do like.

From what I’ve read here (and I apologize if I completely missed the point of what you were saying).

You’re blaming Twilight for something it never had any intention of doing.

Stephanie Meyer’s had a dream and turned it into a story. She had no reason to believe that it would be published, become a bestselling book series and become a billion dollar movie franchise. It’s a typical YA fiction book aimed at young teenage girls. Her intention was not to ‘show up on the scene of gothic fiction, and proceeded to laugh and poop on the works that even allowed it to exist.’ I was never even aware that it was considered gothic fiction.

“Twilight tried its hardest to be unique--which in and of itself is no crime--but that uniqueness came at the expense of a plot, a logical world, and as something to be admired or help the next generation.”

It’s okay if an author just tells a story. There doesn’t have to be anything more than that.

@Chasingstars
I adore Mark Reads Twilight. ^_^

If you like Reasoning with Vampires, Google 'Mark Reads Twilight' and go through the whole thing. It's incredible, seriously.

Also, I do hate Twilight a whole lot. So much anger about those books.

@Ladyschrei
"In real life no, absolutely not, but in a novel? I don't see why not."
Because no matter how wild, crazy, imaginitive, or physics-defying something is, there should be logic behind why it happens. If there is no logic whatsoever it fails at keeping up the suspension of disbelief.

And I find so much boring about Twilight I can't even begin to describe. If you took out all the passages about how beautiful Edward is, you would be left with maybe one book. And that's being generous. I sort-of see your point about the age-group thing, but not really. I think if that were the case no teen would ever be interested in Harry Potter (just throwing this out as an often compared work against Twilight.) A lot of wizarding culture was developed in Harry Potter, and obviously by the sales and demographics preteens to teens ate it up. Another body of work I could compare it to would be Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones (I honestly don't read much "teen" stuff, particularly not series...I never really did. *shrug* ) But again, I'll have to agree to disagree with you.

And I forgot to add into that comment that I think it's fine to reject or abuse what's been written before. Unless you meant that and I read it wrong in that paragraph that you wrote.

I mean, looking at Twilight, the vampires are different, unique, special, and/or interesting, but still keep some same material? Do they hate the sun? Yup. Do they drink blood? Yup. Are they immortal? Yup. Can they die? Yup. (Older vampires = stake to heart. Twilight vampires = head ripped off and body parts burned.) Is that not taking what's already been written, and giving it it's own twist to make it different, without rejecting the original idea of a vampire as a whole?

v; "For instance, no matter how cool an airplane is I can't call it a submarine and treat it as such just because I want to."
"By your logic, if I was to walk outside into the sun and my head fell off, that is enough of an explanation as to why that happened."
In real life no, absolutely not, but in a novel? I don't see why not.

And that's why I said before that I wasn't sure if you had read it or not. From the questions you asked me, I didn't believe you had.

With the mating thing, the Wolfs had their imprinting, yes, but from what I recall, Edward chose (choose? I always confuse the two) Bella because her blood smelled different, sweeter, than the other's. Her mind also couldn't be read. And she didn't give up on her liking of him, even after being warned by others to stay away. I guess he picked her because she wouldn't give up like all the other girls did.

How the other vampires mated, though, I can't recall. They never much explained James and Victoria's relationship. Esme and Carlisle were together because Carlisle bit her and they ran away together. Alice found Jasper kinda wandeirng around or whatever it was, I just remember that she was the one who brought Jasper to the Cullens. Emmett and Rosalie, I don't remember their story.

From your paragraph, I will agree that their culture - marriage, beliefs, etc., aren't really explained. You have to look at the age Twilight was aiming for; teens through young adults. Do they really want to sit there and read about the Cullens bickering about whether God exists, or their belief on certain marriages, or whatever? Not really. They want action. And a bunch of different clans standing around chatting about morals (Breaking Dawn)? No. BOOOOORING. That's just how I see it.

@Ladyschrei
I have read four of the five books pretty damn thoroughly (meaning Twilight thru Breaking Dawn--leaving out Bree Tanner), and I occasionally pick up Breaking Dawn to read/torture my boyfriend with it. I have to agree to disagree with you on the idea that something can be so completely off definition and still be called that something. For instance, no matter how cool an airplane is I can't call it a submarine and treat it as such just because I want to. That's just my opinion.

"Not everyone wants to read the same old bullcrap every time they pick up a vampire fic, or whatever." <--I agree with your point here whole heartedly. That is why it is an artist's job to add something to make it different, unique, special, and/or interesting and not just reject and/or abuse what has already been done.

Sparkling never is explained. By which I mean, no character ever in Twilight explained how in their knowledge of vampirism that sparkling was supposed to occur. Is it because they are evil? I dunno. Is it because they are good? I dunno. By your logic, if I was to walk outside into the sun and my head fell off, that is enough of an explanation as to why that happened. Cause and effect is not a substitution for an explanation.

Culture as defined from dictionary.com is: "the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group". I have no idea if there is any commonalities among vampires whatsoever in terms of what they believe about their existence, morals, experiences, or even their practices in terms of mating situations/marriage, which if you think about it logically there should be. Immortal people would be able to find other immortal people and do immortal people things together, one would think. The Cullens have a somewhat interesting family dynamic, by which I mean there is obvious Christian influence in terms of what they believe/morals and experiences. However...I also find it lazy as it is also typical of pretty much every other vampire that ever appeared in the series/ it's never talked about with anyone that may have a wildly different culture. (Such as in Breaking Dawn and there were vampires hanging out at the Cullen's from all around the world.)

How do you know when you find your mate? Twilight never explains this. At least with Wolf-imprinting there was some (albeit shitty) explanation. The mating-for-life thing felt like it was created for convenience rather than any kind of logical or cultural backing. Meyer needed a reason why Bella was in danger, ergo mating for life/one true love. I mean I don't understand why Bella and Edward are in love anyway beyond Edward is pretty and Bella's mind can't be read. They rarely converse about anything significant, or really do anything other than play kissy-face and proclaim their undying love. *shrug* I read the books, understand the material, I just don't find any appeal, logic, skill, or taste in it.

v; "what if I was to create a vampire, but it could only eat broccoli, lived under the sea, and had three heads. Could I call it a vampire? No, it makes no sense."

It's fiction, it doesn't have to make sense. If you wrote a story and called that a vampire, damn well I'd walk around and tell everyone it's a vampire. I don't believe books should have to conform to what everyone else thinks is right and wrong. People think sparkling, vegetarian vampires are wrong. Do I just because others think that, whether they be professionals or not? Nope.

I don't believe it to be an insult, I believe it to be creative. And you have to step on others to get where you want to get. If that includes what they think is right and turning it into something ridiculous, but what you believe is right, then do it. Not everyone wants to read the same old bullcrap every time they pick up a vampire fic, or whatever.

I'm explaining all of this because of the questions you asked in your comment:

I don't recall if sparkling was every explained - I read Twilight when I was in middle school going into high school - but I just remember it happens when they go into the sun. I don't see why it has to be explained though. It's all pretty clear to me: sun = sparkling.

Can you describe their culture a bit more? What exactly do you mean when you say their culture is never explained?

Their covens and families, from what I remember from the books and not the movies, are very simple really. The Cullen coven was all brought together by Carlisle, or someone that was already with their group.

Other covens were all really the same nationalty and such. The Voltari (if I spelled that right) were all Italians, I believe. In Breaking Dawn, the different covens that come to defend the Cullens from the Voltari all were the same nationality in their covens, which, to me, makes me understand they all knew each other before being turned, or stumbled upon each other after being turned, turned each other, something like that.

Yes, they mate for life. That's why Victoria goes after Edward and Bella when James is killed. They were mates. They know someone is for them by the smell of their blood, I believe.

You're so quick to judge it, if you knew the material, you'd understand better I believe. Now I'm not sure if you've read Twilight or not, but that's that.

@ladyschrei
I mentioned 50 Shades of Grey more as a joke than anything. I do see your point, fiction shouldn't have to borrow from other fiction, and I agree with that. Being unique and independent is probably one of the most important things an author can do. However, realize that art is essentially repeatedly stolen or borrowed concepts, ideas, etc over time. When someone writes a vampiric character for instance, the reader typically has some expectation as to the nature of that character. Namely, it needs blood of some kind, has a creation involving forces of good and evil, things like that. These expectations, while a little unfair, are important because what if I was to create a vampire, but it could only eat broccoli, lived under the sea, and had three heads. Could I call it a vampire? No, it makes no sense. It's so far off of what the definition of "vampire" that to call it a vampire is an insult to the people who have developed that mythos over literally hundreds of years. Twilight hasn't added to the vampiric mythos, it just rejected most of it, save for immortality and the consuming of blood. This wouldn't be a crime, except it adds nothing that makes sense to the mythos. Sparkling is never explained, their culture is never talked about, and really does anyone know how their coven/families/mating thing works? Do they mate for life? How do they "know" someone is the one for them? Do Vamp-Meyers ever have break ups?

Does that illustrate my point any better?

I won't lie, you're blog is very... advanced in it's writing. And some of it confused me a bit, so I'll act like I caught up.

I glanced through that Tumblr to see if it gave your blog any background, but I closed it out after reading a few posts because honestly, it bored me to tears. Not your blog, but the one you posted the link to.

Anyway, back to the point. You talk about authors such as Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, and Poppy Z. Brite. I think I only know who Anne Rice is. I'm not even sure. So I'm not going to agree with you that Twilight was... backed by these works, to put it.

The only reason 50 Shades of Grey built on Twilight's concepts was because it started as a Twilight fanfiction, that's it.

I don't think books should have to build on one another, though. Not their "mythos, concepts, or ideas". An author shouldn't build by what was brought in previously. I'm not saying don't use some ideas you've read previously, but if you read Twilight, don't go and make your vampires sparkly just because. Or make them vegetarians just because. Do what you feel is right.

And there are a LOT of people in this world who won't agree Twilight had no substance.

I don't think so, considering that gothic is a very loaded word with a lot of opinions around it and the quoted sentence you used is me stating my definition for the word. I am labeling a genre I feel is pretty broad and unique and using my definition of "gothic" as an adjective. I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your definition, but that isn't my problem.

"a term I am using to describe dark supernatural fiction dealing with themes of death, sexuality, and the occult"

That's not what gothic means at all, aside from the dark part.... It's a bit ironic to criticize Twilight for it's literary shortcomings and mislabel an entire, well respected genre of fiction, don't you think?