When I got off my mission, I was excited to watch some of the movies that I'd been missing. One of the movies I watched was the new Twilight movie that had came out a few months previous. At the time, I didn't think it was that horrible. After all, I hadn't seen movies in a year and a half, so it seemed okay to me. However, since then, I've come to realize that the movies are really not quality entertainment. This post actually isn't about the movies, but about the books themselves. The movies have some pretty horrible acting, and the characters all look like they need more sleep. I'm not going to address the movies, but the quality of the books.
This may be an interesting post for me to write, especially after last month's Harry Potter spiel. After all, the Harry Potter books are much better than the Twilight ones, right? Probably.
However, today I'm standing up in defense of books that I don't really like, just because they've gotten a lot worse publicity than they actually deserve.
My sister really like Twilight when it first came out. She told me that I needed to read the books, because they were fantastic! Reluctantly I agreed. Understand, I'm not a big fan of romance books. However, even though all the teen-angst and drama was wearying to me, I still had a hard time putting down the book. Especially after I got halfway through it. Suddenly, the action kicked in, and I had a really hard time putting it down. I ended up finishing it in just a few hours. Still, I was reluctant to admit that I liked it because it was such a 'girly' book.
I read the second one eventually as well. I haven't read the other two, but maybe someday I will. Here's the thing. Stephanie Meyers isn't a bad writer. In fact, if a book is difficult to put down, it means that the person is an excellent writer. I don't even like romance, and I had a difficult time disengaging from it.
Stephanie Meyer was trying to introduce a different kind of vampire. Vampires have almost always been allusions of sexual desire. I've never read Anne Rice, but I hear that she capitalizes on that as well. Stephanie Meyer wanted to show that acting upon our desires is always a matter of choice. In the vampires in her books' case, there were several kind of desires that the characters were managing. I appreciate what she was trying to do with her books. I agree with her.
Some people didn't like the non-traditional version of vampires that were in her books. They claim that they were 'unvampirelike.' What does that even mean? Vampires are fictional. They have been around for centuries, but every author whose every written about them has changed them to suit their own needs. There is not a set parameter on what vampires should look like. If Stephanie Meyers wants to make her vampires sparkle in sunlight instead of turning to dust, who am I to argue. We might make fun of it, but it is still legal.
Stephanie Meyer came up with a concept that was supremely successful. A lot of less successful authors criticize her works and her writing style. However, she succeeded in capturing the hearts of a lot of young people. Doesn't that speak for itself? Writing is as much a gamble as anything. You never know if your book is going to be successful. However, she won the gamble. (And yes, J.K. Rowling did as well. Maybe I'm just jealous.)
If you haven't read her first book and you are an acute hater of Twilight and her other creations, try to read it before you say you hate it. Yes, the movies were pretty awful, but like all movies, they didn't really follow along with all the aspects of the books. The books described the vampires in a way that did kind of make you want to meet them. Even if they did sparkle.
Like I said, I haven't finished reading the series, but from what I've read, it's okay. She was trying to portray her morals into a concept that has long been the opposite. For that, she has received quite a bit of gruff. I take my hat off to her for trying though. She's been quite successful.
So, that's why I think Twilight's not so bad. Tell me what you think.
