Someone once noted that many Twilight fans tend to misremember the books, and posisted that they were more important for the feelings they engender then the actual text, which is frequently not remembered correctly. I think this is true of pretty much all romance novels. However I also think it just happens to work very strongly in Twilight's favor to read it through rose-colored glasses.
There are, of course, many objectionable things about Twilight. I'm not going to bother with Stalker Edward, Creepy Edward, Motherfraking Guanoeating Insane Edward (thank you, Robert Pattison, for canonizing this one), or any of the other standard interpretations, though they all have considerable merit.
FAIR WARNING: THE REST OF THIS POST MAY TRIGGER YOUR SQUICK FACTOR OR JUST GENERALLY CREEP YOU OUT. IF SO, I RECOMMEND LEAVING THE INTERNET FOREVER. /B/ AND /D/ WILL COME FOR YOU EVENTUALLY AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT. POST NOT SUITABLE FOR THOSE UNDER 16. DO NOT EXPOSE POST TO FACE WITHOUT EYE PROTECTION.
Twilight is softcore lifestyle BDSM fantasy. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. (If I broke anyone's brains by saying either of those things...enjoy your paradigm shifting without a clutch, suckers. I find lifestyle intensely distasteful anyways...but then, I would, demanding equality from a relationship as a precondition.) The problem comes in that it does not admit it's softcore lifestyle BDSM fantasy.
You think I'm joking, yes? Examine, then. Bella is clearly the submissive in the relationship. She has no power at all. Edward could kill her about as quickly as it took to form the thought and she has no defense. He frequently talks about doing so no less. And he is The Guy You Can Never Leave. Edward has all the power and can basically do anything he likes to Bella on a whim and she has no recourse. Now because it's fantasy there are no safewords or outs. (There are other reasons for no safewords or outs but I've broken enough brains for the evening.) Edward will never actually go too far because it's fantasy and he has mindreading magical powers so he knows exactly what the sub wants. Bella proves invaluable and special and unique and the only one who can satisify the dominant because that's what every sub wants to be.
And like any form of communication, it has power to influence the communicated with. But literature is a more subtle, and therefore more effective, method of doing so then most. This is okay, if you know what you're getting into. But Twilight lies about itself and says it's romance. It's no more romance than any of the more kinked scenes from the Kushiel's series or Sword of Truth.
So we haven't had a Twilight topic, which I'm pretty sure would unify the board in its complaints. Maybe that's why we haven't had one. (You wankers enjoy arguing too much.)
But here, I present my theory of what Twilight is really about. Let's hear yours.Quotesnip
Depends on whether you like going here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage).
And it was a refreshing contrast to the more depressing stories I usually watch.
It's just your average self-insertion Mary Sue. No need to go thinking there's anything else there. I don't hear a single thing about the Twilight series that hasn't already been extensively done in Mary Sue fanfiction. People who don't know how to deal with actual human interaction love that ****.
...Wait. What the hell did I just say? :blah:
And no, it is definitely not a BDSM fantasy. That isn't even a creative or deep-reading interpretation - it's just plain stupid. No offense to you personally. Did you read the four books?
How many of the commentators here have actually read all four novels? I only ask because I actually have, and there are a great many points worthy of discussion,
I did warn you it's softcore, right? Right? You didn't actually read what I was saying, did you? Or are you just not familar with the subject material? Admittedly I don't have an abnormal pyschology degree or anything, but with all the weirdos I hang out with in the dark corners of the internet who freely admit their weirdoness and will explain it at length, I think I'm at least a tiny bit qualified here. What's your source for how such people think, Ryan?
Of course I did. Legally. Without paying for them. I wouldn't rag on them if I hadn't read them. Did you? Because I'm not talking about the movies; bad though they are, they're better than the books (talk about your damn with faint praise).
I don't know who she is but I wouldn't mind sharing if you don't . . . .
Bella loves Edward, as neurotic and ill-advised as it is. Circumstances alone do not provide sufficient evidence for any kind of contrived reasoning like that.
Well. I've never read the books or watched the show, but it sounds like an attempt to break into the Goth and Furry markets simultaneously...
Well. I've never read the books or watched the show, but it sounds like an attempt to break into the Goth and Furry markets simultaneously...:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I think you were describing Laruell K. Hamiliton's Anita Blake books, only she wouldn't be stopped by mere parts problems. My sister was terminally weirded out when I pointed out Anita makes reference to "enjoying extra bits" while sleeping with a werecat. What extra bits do cats have?
Barbs.
first of all i never really liked vampires (or warewolves for that matter). i was always been a zombie and frankenstein kinda guy. the reason i dont like vampires is because the historical figure whom the dracula character is based on is far more interesting than any vampire movie ive ever seen. vlad the impaler was just a total brutal badass, vampires never impaled anyone in the ass with a rather large timber, theyre immortal so no threats to their existance. and they arent always being attacked by turks (and then impaling them).
but twilight isnt even a real vampire movie. its a lame ass attempt to capitalize on the ignorance of teenagers who wouldnt know a good story if it bit em in the balls (or the place where those balls would inevitably grow if only they would stop being a whiney emo kid). its a movie for teenagers and i dont really see the point of wasting a couple hours watching it.
That out of the way, the Twilight series of novels really isn't that bad, considering the audience it's written for. I'm not really surprised the majority of comments around here are negative - it's not written for males in general, teens or otherwise. Hell, I read it purely out of literary interest to see what all the fuss was about, and while I generally found the books enjoyable (excepting New Moon) you can tell throughout exactly who the target audience is, and the books are written solely for them.
So is there any vampire fiction out there that isn't for teenage girls or females in general?
Kate in black leather is hardly dreadful. lolOh, of course. Sexualizing vampire dudes is trashy, but if they're women it's par for the course. :rolleyes:
Blade, I suppose, and perhaps the UK version of Ultraviolet are the most recent "serious" takes on unsexualized vampires.
Oh, of course. Sexualizing vampire dudes is trashy, but if they're women it's par for the course. :rolleyes:I love how that works. When it speaks to your own childish fantasies or fetishistic imagination, it's awesome. When it appeals to someone else's-- say, a 13-year-old girl-- suddenly it has poor characterization and shoddy research and just generally makes a mockery of its genre and medium.
I can appreciate an attractive woman as well as anyone, but man, you guys should listen to yourselves.
So is there any vampire fiction out there that isn't for teenage girls or females in general?I think "True Blood" is pretty popular across demographic lines.
If you're counting Ultraviolet, then Underworld probably also counts. Though both of those are pretty dreadful in their own charming ways.
Has nothing to do with fantasies or fetishes, they're simply BAMFs (Badass mother****er), even Blade has a BAMF main character, and that appeals to us. Sparkly faiery vampires aren't going to appeal to us. For the audience of the opposite sex typically, this will be vice-versa.Oh, of course. Sexualizing vampire dudes is trashy, but if they're women it's par for the course. :rolleyes:I love how that works. When it speaks to your own childish fantasies or fetishistic imagination, it's awesome. When it appeals to someone else's-- say, a 13-year-old girl-- suddenly it has poor characterization and shoddy research and just generally makes a mockery of its genre and medium.
I can appreciate an attractive woman as well as anyone, but man, you guys should listen to yourselves.
Sparkly faiery vampires aren't going to appeal to us. For the audience of the opposite sex typically, this will be vice-versa.
Has nothing to do with fantasies or fetishes, they're simply BAMFs (Badass mother****er), even Blade has a BAMF main character, and that appeals to us.They need not be sexual to be fantasies. The appeal of violence is just as much a vicarious thrill as the appeal of sex.
Sparkly faiery vampires aren't going to appeal to us. For the audience of the opposite sex typically, this will be vice-versa.While I wouldn't make this particular generalization, as I know many girls who enjoy violence as much as I do, this is essentially my point. We all have our own equivalent of Twilight. There's nothing wrong with entertainment that satisfies our taste for junk. I probably see more ****ty movies in the theater than good ones. What I take issue with is people holding certain junk films to the standards of serious films because they're someone else's junk. I know it's cool to have contempt for adolescents, but they're entitled to their fun as much as anyone else.
Vampires are lame no matter how you play them. What's the word? Oh yeah, overdone.
...if a vampire were little different from a human in terms of needs/wants/desires/concerns, would you still call for their annihilation?If there were an undersociety of souless bloodsuckers who viewed humanity as little more than cattle for slaking they're various lusts? Yes, burn them all.
I agree with that line of questioning. My thought in all of this goes back to "Why do call them evil?" or "why do some of us call them evil?"
(Now, the gender politics that Twilight describes are problematic on their own, but that's not generally what the scorn is focused on.)It's amusing that, at least according to the folks who read it, the leaked draft of the book that was basically retelling book 1 from Edward's perspective actually had him acknowledge that he's a scary ****ing stalker. I do wish Meyers hadn't gotten pissed and decided not to write those, as it would have been interesting to see how self aware she actually is, or perhaps is willing to let her characters be.
Put quite simply, Evil is that which works at odds to the Creators design.I thought your version of the creator's design was supposed to be unknowable. How could you determine what is at odds with a certain design without seeing the entire universe anyway?
Remember when vampires (the original Central European legends) actually killed people by drinking their blood?
Put quite simply, Evil is that which works at odds to the Creators design.
There are certain behaviors and actions that have been shown over and over again to be evil or at the very least negative in the long run for the participants willing or not. But it's certainly just as evil to ignore such behaviors.
There's actually some sort of genetic defect (I believe) that requires people who have it to drink blood, iirc. So they aren't pure works of fiction.
There's so much vampire garbage out now that it isn't really worth critiquing any of it based on history, but rather on its own merits in establishing a mythos separate from history. Vampirism as a disease is based on the symptoms of severe sickle-cell anemia, but you'll find virtually no reference to that in any modern film, television, or book. Trying to look at the vampirism from history in today's context is a pointless exercise when critiquing entertainment media.
So, it occurred to me today that vampires have always been about sex and sexuality. Perhaps Twilight is completely in line with vampire mythology - even if its message is not one I agree with, it's certainly about sex.
When Twilight does actually cover the topic of sex, it does so in such an irresponsible, overtly repressed way that it is a worthless discussion entirely unless you want to talk about how badly presented it was.
I don't think that Twilight is about sex in a good way, but it's definitely about sex: repressed, delayed, denied sex. It's about the sensuality of frustration.
SoQuoteWhen Twilight does actually cover the topic of sex, it does so in such an irresponsible, overtly repressed way that it is a worthless discussion entirely unless you want to talk about how badly presented it was.
yes, I would completely agree with this, but nonetheless they're about sex, that 'enormous theme of repressed sexuality' that you mentioned.
Remember when vampires (the original Central European legends) actually killed people by drinking their blood? The original point of a vampire was a sort of cursed unlife where the vampire has to murder and consume other people to sustain its own life. The media has kind of forgotten the very foundation of vampire legend.
But that's the crux of the matter. According to Christianity, God is all knowing, God is all powerful. He knows the past present and future of everything, of everyone. When he created his most beautiful angel he knew that satan would fall from grace and become the father of lies. This says to me that satan was incorporated into the design. He had to have been or he couldn't exist. God is everywhere and in all things, that would include satan.
God is all-knowing, but God also created us as free moral agents. Satan made the choice to 'turn bad'...
Gives a deeper meaning to "Judge not lest ye be judged yourselves", and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
The "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" i don't believe is agreed to have occured. Many bible manuscripts leave those verses out, the verses where Jesus in theory said those lines. And it doesn't make sense anyway - if Jesus said "Le he who is without sin cast the first stone", who should have been the first one to pick up a stone? ... Jesus :p
Man's vanity caused the Crusades, something that they believed was God's will, and yet we now question and apologize for.
We slaughtered people thought to be witches, because the bible said "suffer not a witch to live among you", but that was wrong too, because the bible didn't say suffer not a witch live.
There are many more examples where man performed atrocities against his brethren, believing it to be what God wants.
Amen. What about the pope and priests blessing instruments of war in practically every war in the last century. Both sides had religious leaders blessing the troops and blessing the war... both sides. the same religion.
Maybe in the end, we haven't got a clue as to what God's design is, or what he wants. Which would mean that our concept of evil is dependent merely on our point of view.
I'm a Christian, but I know that I don't know, and cannot know the design and heart of my God, because I am imperfect. We as a whole may want to curb our arrogance before we commit the next atrocity.
this is all foretold in the bible...
But here's the thing, there really is no choice, if it is known what we will choose, then there is a destiny, and a destiny robs us of choice, which means all was preordained, and planned. So the logical extension of this is that everything we will say or do is going to happen. Now apply it to the topic of this thread, and in our theoretical world of Vampires, they would also have to be part of the plan. We can't have it both ways, either God knows what we will choose or we have a free will to choose, the two cannot coincide. So for us to say that ANYTHING goes against God is a true fallacy. That's why it irritates me when Liberator and his ilk decide to run from a decidedly narrow and ill thought point of view. Sorry Lib but 4 years ago when I left for my break from HLP you were spouting the same arguments, they are growing cobwebs.
The "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" i don't believe is agreed to have occured. Many bible manuscripts leave those verses out, the verses where Jesus in theory said those lines. And it doesn't make sense anyway - if Jesus said "Le he who is without sin cast the first stone", who should have been the first one to pick up a stone? ... Jesus :p
I'm not even going to address this.
Amen. What about the pope and priests blessing instruments of war in practically every war in the last century. Both sides had religious leaders blessing the troops and blessing the war... both sides. the same religion.
Not just in the last century, but throughout Europe in the dark and middle ages, since the dawn of Judaism people have asked God's blessing. If it didn't have the blessing it wouldn't be part of the plan.
this is all foretold in the bible...
This serves only to further my argument.
As for good alternatives, I don't think I've actually seen a post 2000 decent piece of vampire fiction.Go watch Hellsing Ultimate, and I'd wager you'll change your tune. :p
It's in every version of the bible used by anyone who matters a damn. I don't think a single major printing of it has not used that. The only people I can think of who don't want that passage in are Conservapedia. And there was one other person who could have thrown the first stone, prompting Jesus to yell "MOM!" Or did you forget that part?
Besides, are you saying that wasn't the point? That the whole "he without sin won't stone the sinner, wtf are you doing you hypocrites?" was not the whole message? Or do you just have serious problems interpreting subtext?
sorry to bring this thread back, but just had to respond to this one:
NGTM-1R = Mary was not perfect.
That is all.
There's a actually pretty huge segment of Christianity that does not believe in Original Sin. The idea being that children are born innocent, in no need of salvation until they become old enough to become morally accountable. Sin isn't inherited, it's just inevitable because human beings are imperfect. So Jesus did not "inherit" sin from Mary, nor did he ever commit sin during his life on Earth. So, when the events of that passage took place, he was the only one without sin.
[Tangent] Seriously, I never got this whole Mary-worship thing. I've been a Christian for about 1/3 of my life now, and that idea makes even less sense to me now than when I was still agnostic. How is Mary-worship not idolatry? [/tangent]As Ford Prefect stated, Mary is not worshiped by the Catholic Church, but instead venerated as a saint. As with any saint, the phrasing of the Ave Maria/Hail Mary asks her to "pray for us sinners;" the prayer is not directed at her as a deity. Due to her unique role as the mother of Christ, Mary is generally viewed as being the ultimate intercessor for those who invoke her prayer. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was part of Catholic tradition to some degree for many centuries, though it wasn't until 1854 that it was established as infallible dogma. In general, devotion to Mary is something that can be traced back to very early Christians.
There's a actually pretty huge segment of Christianity that does not believe in Original Sin. The idea being that children are born innocent, in no need of salvation until they become old enough to become morally accountable. Sin isn't inherited, it's just inevitable because human beings are imperfect. So Jesus did not "inherit" sin from Mary, nor did he ever commit sin during his life on Earth. So, when the events of that passage took place, he was the only one without sin.
I'm pretty sure most if not all sects you can name would classify such a belief as hereticalTM.
sorry to bring this thread back, but just had to respond to this one:
NGTM-1R = Mary was not perfect.
That is all.
See, the problem with that is if she wasn't, then Jesus wasn't either because that's how Original Sin rolls.
I've been a Christian for about 1/3 of my life now, and that idea makes even less sense to me now than when I was still agnostic. How is Mary-worship not idolatry? [/tangent]
Mary is not worshiped by the Catholic Church, but instead venerated as a saintVenerated, worshipped, at the end of the day, any religion that has 60 foot paintings of Mary ('saint' or otherwise), has images, statues, and sculptures of her all over the church, etc. - is practicing idolatry. Period.
Venerated, worshipped, at the end of the day, any religion that has 60 foot paintings of Mary ('saint' or otherwise), has images, statues, and sculptures of her all over the church, etc. - is practicing idolatry. Period.
No, there are religions (Christian religoins) that don't have images, statues, etc. of saints, or any other individual (God or otherwise) in their churches.
no Jesus on the cross, no cross at all in fact, no stained glass depictions of it, no...you get the idea.Sounds a lot like a Mormon meetinghouse actually.
Sounds a lot like a Mormon meetinghouse actually.
And no Jesus on the cross, no cross at all in fact, no stained glass depictions of it, no...you get the idea. Idolatry is a very loosely defined thing. Islam's the only religion which is fully compliant to that sort of thing.
'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
1And the people see that Moses is delaying to come down from the mount, and the people assemble against Aaron, and say unto him, `Rise, make for us gods who go before us, for this Moses -- the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt -- we have not known what hath happened to him.'
2And Aaron saith unto them, `Break off the rings of gold which [are] in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring in unto me;'
3and all the people themselves break off the rings of gold which [are] in their ears, and bring in unto Aaron,
4and he receiveth from their hand, and doth fashion it with a graving tool, and doth make it a molten calf, and they say, `These thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'
5And Aaron seeth, and buildeth an altar before it, and Aaron calleth, and saith, `A festival to Jehovah -- to-morrow;'
And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `Go, descend, for thy people whom thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt hath done corruptly,
8they have turned aside hastily from the way that I have commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and bow themselves to it, and sacrifice to it, and say, These thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'
9And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `I have seen this people, and lo, it [is] a stiff-necked people;
10and now, let Me alone, and My anger doth burn against them, and I consume them, and I make thee become a great nation.'
11And Moses appeaseth the face of Jehovah his God, and saith, `Why, O Jehovah, doth Thine anger burn against Thy people, whom Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand?
12why do the Egyptians speak, saying, For evil He brought them out to slay them among mountains, and to consume them from off the face of the ground? turn back from the heat of Thine anger, and repent of the evil against Thy people.
13`Be mindful of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, Thy servants, to whom Thou hast sworn by Thyself, and unto whom Thou speakest: I multiply your seed as stars of the heavens, and all this land, as I have said, I give to your seed, and they have inherited to the age;'
14and Jehovah repenteth of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people.
15And Moses turneth, and goeth down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony [are] in his hand, tables written on both their sides, on this and on that [are] they written;
16and the tables are the work of God, and the writing is the writing of God, graven on the tables.
17And Joshua heareth the voice of the people in their shouting, and saith unto Moses, `A noise of battle in the camp!'
18and he saith, `It is not the voice of the crying of might, nor is it the voice of the crying of weakness -- a voice of singing I am hearing.'
19And it cometh to pass, when he hath drawn near unto the camp, that he seeth the calf, and the dancing, and the anger of Moses burneth, and he casteth out of his hands the tables, and breaketh them under the mount;
20and he taketh the calf which they have made, and burneth [it] with fire, and grindeth until [it is] small, and scattereth on the face of the waters, and causeth the sons of Israel to drink.
21And Moses saith unto Aaron, `What hath this people done to thee, that thou hast brought in upon it a great sin?'
22and Aaron saith, `Let not the anger of my lord burn; thou -- thou hast known the people that it [is] in evil;
23and they say to me, Make for us gods, who go before us, for this Moses -- the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt -- we have not known what hath happened to him;
24and I say to them, Whoso hath gold, let them break [it] off, and they give to me, and I cast it into the fire, and this calf cometh out.'
25And Moses seeth the people that it [is] unbridled, for Aaron hath made it unbridled for contempt among its withstanders,
26and Moses standeth in the gate of the camp, and saith, `Who [is] for Jehovah? -- unto me!' and all the sons of Levi are gathered unto him;
27and he saith to them, `Thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, Put each his sword by his thigh, pass over and turn back from gate to gate through the camp, and slay each his brother, and each his friend, and each his relation.'
28And the sons of Levi do according to the word of Moses, and there fall of the people on that day about three thousand men,
No, there are religions (Christian religoins) that don't have images, statues, etc. of saints, or any other individual (God or otherwise) in their churches.
And no Jesus on the cross, no cross at all in fact, no stained glass depictions of it, no...you get the idea. Idolatry is a very loosely defined thing. Islam's the only religion which is fully compliant to that sort of thing.
O god o god o god
first let me set this straight.
"let he who has not sinned throw the first stone" is in only a few of the ancient manuscripts, so its pretty safe to assume it was added later, not that it matters though, because even if wasn't, the moral is that we shouldn't judge others because we are all worthy of death.
secondly, Mary WAS imperfect, otherwise she would have never gotten old and died. the reason Jesus did not inherit sin is because sin is only inherted through the father, and since Jesus's father was god, he didn't get sin.
and finally, the cross is an idol that the Egyptians used for a form of sex worship. and besides, it doesn't matter what jesus died on, what matters is that he died for us.
That statement is self-contradicting, as it says it's in only a few of the ancient manuscripts, therefore it's not from them?
Unless it was present in the earlier versions and got deleted in later versions.that is one possibility, but like I said, it doesn't really matter.