Good lord, look at the madness we have descended into. Anyways, someone showed us this Twilight review, and we couldn’t help ourselves.
Just when you thought that the vampire genre of vampire fiction couldn’t mire itself any deeper in clichés, along comes Twilight.
SS— Oh, man, this’ll be good! Rip Twilight to pieces!
K— Let us sing Auld Lang Syne again!
Written by total unknown Stephenie Meyer, Twilight revolves around two star-crossed lovers
K— Because this hasn’t been done to death. Never mind.
SS— Yeah, sun-crossed lovers would be more original.
- shy, introverted 17-year-old Isabella (Bella) Swan and cold, enigmatic 107-year-old vampire Edward Cullen – who meet in the gloomy town of Forks.
SS— Shy AND introverted? Woah.
K— She never struck me as the shy type, just too high-and-mighty to talk to her classmates.
The novel has won several accolades, including the Publishers Weekly Best Book of the Year and #5 on The New York Times bestseller list during its debut in 2005.
SS: NYT Bestsellers: proof that people judge books based on their covers anyways.
The story is narrated from Bella’s perspective, so the reader is always intimate with the protagonist’s thoughts and feelings as she tries to adjust to a new life at Forks.
SS— And boy are her thoughts whiny.
It also veils the story with an air of mystery as she pieces together the true identity of the beautifully reclusive Cullens.
SS— If you can’t guess the “twist”, then you probably couldn’t guess the ending of the Bible either. Fail.
(No prizes for guessing the answer before she does.) There’s no prize if you guessed the answer before she does, however.
K— Hot dog, this is awesome! And by awesome I mean make it stop!
SS— (That thing she did with the parentheticals is terrible.) Those things she did with the parentheticals are terrible.
On the other hand, the titillating
SS— Huzzah.
(but never blatantly sexual) scenes between our lovers are more than reasons enough to compel us to continue reading,
K— At least if you like disappointment.
SS— If you are reading Twilight just for the sparkle-porn, please stop existing.
page after page.
SS— after page, after page, after page, after page, make it end. ._.
Bella’s fascination with the hauntingly ethereal Edward
SS— I can tell you’ve been reading SMeyer’s rotten, grotesque, overleaden prose.
extends well beyond curiosity, and while it’s inevitable that they should fall in love, the pains and inner conflicts that their love invokes in both of them is something that the reader can’t help but empathize with.
K— I can’t! Well, damn, I must be really heartless.
SS— I can totally sympathize with a guy who likes to put girls through emotional rollercoasters! (No, I cannot.)
The titillating (but never blatantly sexual) scenes between this odd pair of lovers are more than reasons enough to compel us to continue reading, page after page.
K— Lesson 45 in reviewing stuff: you’re getting paid by the word.
SS— Didn’t you already say titillating before? Tits.
K— Stop that. Tits.
SS— I’m in titters. Tits.
K— That was a terrible pun. Tits.
Whether or not you’re a longtime fan of the vampire fiction (and movie) genre, Twilight is a refreshing read. Having a vampire as a protagonist isn’t something new, but having an entire coven of vegetarian vamps is (and deliciously so!),
K— If by “deliciously new” you mean “pussified”, then yes, it is.
SS— That parenthetical doesn’t connect with any of the proceeding clauses, does it? (Maybe she should really stop using those.)
and Meyer’s portrayal of the Cullens coven isn’t even half as lame as the premise sounds.
SS— Not half as lame. About twice as lame.
K— No no, you’re being too generous.
SS— Let T(n) = 2^T(n-1) and T(1) = 2. Then Twilight’s lameness = T(1000).
K— You and your damn math.
Meyer’s fanged bloodsuckers are stylishly modern, rich, and play baseball during thunderstorms.
K— This is a safe and not-at-all stupid thing to do during a thunderstorm.
SS— I’m just waiting for the scene where Edward waves around his metal bat in the air, and is struck by lightning.
This definitely makes for a radical change from the usual apocalyptic, ritualisticancient,
K— Bless you.
pale and bloodthirsty bad guys that we’re so accustomed to seeing the vampires portrayed as.
SS— A radical change, unless you happened to have been reading ANNE RICE recently. So, oops, nothing new after all.
Better yet, Twilight succeeds in keeping itself from being overly self-indulgent.
SS— ORLY? You probably haven’t read Breaking Dawn.
K— Alright, this is just an outright lie.
Despite its orientation with the chick literature genre, Twilight avoids the generic feminine issues that tend to plague the genre,
K— You mean like whining, insecurity, and whining insecurity?
SS— What she means is that unlike most books, Twilight tries to undo the work of a half century of feminism. BOW TO YOUR MALE VAMPIRE MASTERS, WOMAN.
making it an accessible, perhaps even fashionable, read for males.
K— I think your read is faaaabulous!
SS— If by fashionable you mean “shops at Hot Topic”.
On the other side of the coin, the novel is surprisingly sparing on action scenes, so female reader need not be thrown off by any senseless fighting.
K— But I love senseless fighting…
SS— Strong sexism?
K— No, I’m just a mannish woman :[
SS— I didn’t mean you, I meant the reviewer. :P
K— [smashes beer can against forehead]
Indeed, the romance between Bella and Edward remains the most intoxicating essence of the masterpiece that is Twilight, this masterpiece of a novel.
SS— Masterpiece. You’ve gone too far. Far too far.
All in all, Twilight is definitely in vogue, having garnered millions of fans worldwide.
SS— Captain Obvious, reporting to the deck of the Enterprise.
K— Popular does not necessarily mean good. See also: rap, acid wash jeans, and Hitler.
SS— Hint to wannabe hipsters: Goodwill has really stylish looking jeans, because they’ve been, you know, actually worn. That’s the real worn jeans experience. Or, you could actually wear your jeans until they got worn, you.
It has even been adapted into a movie (see review on opposite pagee)!
SS— That TOTALLY makes your book good! Just like Eragon. :)
Whether if you’re into vampires or not, give it a try. And you’ll find that once you’ve sunk your teeth into it, there’s absolutely no extricating from it.
K— We are the fangirls. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Can you resist temptation? Why should you?
K— You will comply.
Artimaeus on 12 February 2009, 01:06 said:
“I think your read is faaaabulous!” made me burst out laughing. I needed that.
Anyway, hilarity aside, this is an awful review. I mean, even fangirls should know that SM didn’t pioneer the sympathetic vampire archetype. And there’s no support for any of the author’s points (assuming it you guys didn’t abridge it). I sincerely hope that no one was payed to write this…
SlyShy on 12 February 2009, 01:16 said:
No abridging, this was the full text we received. Heh.
Cory on 12 February 2009, 01:35 said:
Is “Whether if you’re into vampires or nor…” even gramatically correct? Couldn’t the if have been left out? On another note “I play baseball during thunderstorms… I’m so hardcore!”
To Artimaeus… I’m guessing they were paid to write this. They were paid by Stephanie Meyer.
scary_viking on 12 February 2009, 02:48 said:
Couldn’t the if have been left out?
More like, why is this person reviewing things that are in English without learning English first?
Falstar on 12 February 2009, 02:51 said:
Its almost like this review goes along the lines of “This books is total rubbish and I wouldn’t honestly bother wiALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!”
o.0
Kitty on 12 February 2009, 02:57 said:
The above comment is lolleriffic, please let me have your babies.
SlyShy on 12 February 2009, 02:58 said:
I was so disappointed after that promising first line. What on earth. It’s so strange, that author seemed to have a loose grasp of logical connection. Like, she starts off implying that Twilight is unoriginal, but later states it is. And there were some strange sentence transitions where the train of thought seems to have taken the sidetrack into a ravine of madness.
Addie on 12 February 2009, 03:07 said:
Lolleriffic. Wonderful word …
I think I’ll try it out now and say the above article is lolleriffic. And it is.
It’s so strange, that author seemed to have a loose grasp of logical connection.
Yes indeed, I can’t figure it out! With the repetition, you know, it sounds like the reviewer might be using sarcasm but then the ending praise sounds quite sincere. The opening statement sounds like the opening of a bashfest but then the reviewer turns around and says it’s a masterpiece. Ironic or no? I’m confused.
Ty on 12 February 2009, 03:25 said:
“On the other side of the coin, the novel is surprisingly sparing on action scenes, so female reader need not be thrown off by any senseless fighting.”
WHO THE HELL WROTE THIS? What century are they living in? And doesn’t a book that features a vampire in a central role logically call for senseless violence? I mean, hello, bloodsucking creatures! We’re not talking about sparkly fairies here!
This reviewer has accomplished the task of making me want to do something senselessly violent, preferably involving their head and a baseball bat. Maybe then they’d learn proper grammar. Proper usage requires “female readers” or “a female reader,” O Brilliant Sparkly Reviewer Thou.
SubStandardDeviation on 12 February 2009, 04:27 said:
Seriously, Department of Redundancy Department much?
On the other side of the coin, the novel is surprisingly sparing on action scenes, so female reader need not be thrown off by any senseless fighting.
Gee, I was thrown off by the lack of senseless fighting as soon as I saw it was, y’know, in the ROMANCE NOVEL section. It’s not that hard to figure out.
Nate Winchester on 12 February 2009, 10:58 said:
K— I can’t! Well, damn, I must be really heartless.
Yep. In fact, you have to sell your heart to be published on II’s front page.
K— Popular does not necessarily mean good. See also: rap, acid wash jeans, and Hitler.
GODWILL’S LAW!
Um… I mean… you’re a meany!
(end sarcasm – now guess where it began)
Lucywannabe on 12 February 2009, 11:04 said:
Ugh, what an obnoxious review. This part (and the part about violence) really made me roll my eyes:
“Whether or not you’re a longtime fan of the vampire fiction (and movie) genre, Twilight is a refreshing read. Having a vampire as a protagonist isn’t something new, but having an entire coven of vegetarian vamps is (and deliciously so!)”
No, it’s not a refreshing read. It’s filled with not only incredibly bad writing, it’s also got a bunch of cliches surrounding the cardboard characters.
Repeated abuse of the word “vegetarian”: You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Because if they were ACTUAL vegetarians, they wouldn’t be drinking blood, OF ANY KIND. ahem
Re: violence. I’m a female reader (and viewer) and I LIKE when things go explodey and the smackdown is had. Why am I not allowed to have that AND romance? Both can live in harmony!
Okay, I’m done. :)
Nate Winchester on 12 February 2009, 12:38 said:
Repeated abuse of the word “vegetarian”: You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Because if they were ACTUAL vegetarians, they wouldn’t be drinking blood, OF ANY KIND. ahem
I suddenly have an imagine of a fierce looking vampire… baring his fangs… getting ready to bite and!!!!! biting into a tomato, red juices flowing.
Of course, wouldn’t technically vegetarian vampires starve to death? (or whatever happens when vamps don’t eat, i guess for Meyer it’s “gets less sparkly”)
Re: violence. I’m a female reader (and viewer) and I LIKE when things go explodey and the smackdown is had. Why am I not allowed to have that AND romance? Both can live in harmony!
You lie!
It’s… it’s true?
You know Lucy, if you haven’t already, you should start a topic on the forums about violence and romance. It seems like a lot of time, excellent romance hurts the violence and the converse. Do some fictions prove otherwise? What do you think has good violence and good romance?
Juniper on 12 February 2009, 18:36 said:
“On the other side of the coin, the novel is surprisingly sparing on action scenes, so female reader need not be thrown off by any senseless fighting.”
As a female who has never been into romances and always appreciated action, I resent this comment.
SlyShy on 12 February 2009, 18:37 said:
But sexism and stereotypes about women are A-Okay when they come from women, right? Right?
Juniper on 12 February 2009, 18:53 said:
Was this reviewer female?
SlyShy on 12 February 2009, 19:32 said:
The authorial voice struck me as female.
Ty on 12 February 2009, 21:42 said:
Note about vegetarian vampires: if you want to read an actually awesome vampire book (AAVB), you’ve got to get a copy of Bunnicula, by James and Deborah Howe. It involves a bunny who happens to suck the blood of tomatoes, lettuce, and other victimized vegetables. It is a children’s book, but I can assure you, it’s two thousand times better than Twilight and also rather hilarious.
http://www.amazon.com/Bunnicula-Rabbit-Tale-Mystery-Deborah-Howe/dp/1416928170/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234488910&sr=8-1
Juniper, I completely agree. While I haven’t read many purely-action novels, some of my favorite movies fit in the action genre (i.e. the Bourne series). Whoever thinks that chick flicks, whether in book or movie form, are ideal “female” fare is utterly deluded and, yes, sexist.
Disclaimer: chick flicks can be fun to watch if you’re in the mood, and I have nothing against anyone who likes them. But suggesting that these are the only, or primary, entertainment that girls/women prefer treats women in general as vapid, giggling Barbies.
Kitty on 12 February 2009, 22:07 said:
“GODWILL’S LAW”? I think you mean Godwin’s Law. And yes, I went there. WHAT NOW, GUYS
Also, FML.
Nate Winchester on 12 February 2009, 22:16 said:
Whatever Kitty. Only 50% of my head is brain right now with this cold.
Lucywannabe on 12 February 2009, 22:42 said:
“You lie!
It’s… it’s true?
You know Lucy, if you haven’t already, you should start a topic on the forums about violence and romance. It seems like a lot of time, excellent romance hurts the violence and the converse. Do some fictions prove otherwise? What do you think has good violence and good romance?”
It’s true. I love me some shoot-‘em-ups. __
Oh, I’m not much of a frequenter(tor?) of the forums, and I was just asking a rhetorical question—I certainly don’t see why you can have things go kablooey while there’s also a romance developing.
SubStandardDeviation on 12 February 2009, 22:59 said:
@ Juniper: “Twilight avoids the generic feminine issues that tend to plague the genre, making it an accessible, perhaps even fashionable, read for males.” Based on this comment, I’d assume the reviewer is female. An actual guy would probably have spent a few more sentences on self-justification (at the risk of being laughed out of his dorm).
@ Nate Winchester
Do some fictions prove otherwise? What do you think has good violence and good romance?
What about the Spider-man and James Bond movies? They’ve received good ratings.
In general, I think that a lot of “action” fiction is male power fantasy, while a lot of “romance” is female wish fulfillment fantasy, so people (advertisers, writers, etc) ignore the comparatively small audiences of females who like a’splodey and straight males who like romances, and assume that everyone not in their target demographic must prefer things that target the opposite-gendered demographic. (Witness the pink Nintendo GBC/DS.) The small bits of sexism (chainmail bikini, anti-ex bitchfest) that are sometimes included don’t exactly help.
Dangerous Liaisons (which I’m reading right now) doesn’t contain violence, but it does have aggression of a different kind…
/rambling
Nate Winchester on 12 February 2009, 23:02 said:
SSD, whatever else we might say about them… I really don’t think romance is anything James Bond has.
SlyShy on 13 February 2009, 02:01 said:
Oh come now, a one night stand with a strange foreigner isn’t your idea of romance? Where is your Valentine’s Day spirit? ;)
Morvius on 13 February 2009, 08:07 said:
The thing that irks me the most is the use of the word “masterpiece”. Seriously… I have yet to hear even those who like Twilight call it a MASTERPIECE.
Nate Winchester on 13 February 2009, 09:41 said:
Oh come now, a one night stand with a strange foreigner isn’t your idea of romance? Where is your Valentine’s Day spirit? ;)
Fun? Sure
Fantasy? Definitely
Romance? Nope
Michal on 13 February 2009, 17:00 said:
Dear oh dear. Not to be redundant, but I admit I’m drawn to this question of the combination of romance and violence/action. If the author of this ideal bird-cage liner has any inclination that these two elements are mutually exclusive than he or she has /clearly/ never seen an episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” Romance and violence are constantly in interplay throughout the show, and on more than one occasion, the line between them grows so thin so as to all but disappear.
Will of the Wheel on 13 February 2009, 20:00 said:
This reviewer’s comments:
Having a vampire as a protagonist isn’t something new, but having an entire coven of vegetarian vamps is (and deliciously so!)
and
Whether if you’re into vampires or not, give it a try. And you’ll find that once you’ve sunk your teeth into it, there’s absolutely no extricating from it.
completely fit in with the “cream” theme, I think.
Snarf on 14 February 2009, 14:58 said:
I, for one, welcome our new male vampire overlords.
LiquidNitrogen on 14 February 2009, 20:43 said:
I think the author is trying to emulate Meyer when writing the review. She stacks adjectives like there is no tomorrow, doesn’t make sense, etc.
By the way, wouldn’t this article fit in the EWW category?
Or is it meant to be something other?
PS: I panicked before the forum change, and changed my email/password. My account is now inactive. Can one of the mods/admins reactivate it for me?
Legion on 14 February 2009, 22:33 said:
@Nitro: Your forum account has been reactivated.
Artimaeus on 15 February 2009, 15:15 said:
This reminds me of book reports I used to write in the seventh grade. Over use of adjectives, not a lot of support, shallow observations, a lot of clumsy transitions (“better yet,” “all in all,” “On the other side of the coin,”) and the tendency to exaggerate the book’s quality.
Naiviv on 15 February 2009, 18:25 said:
Aah, no AMC math! The horror!
SlyShy on 15 February 2009, 18:28 said:
Haha, someone recognized it. I’m annoyed at that problem because I got it wrong. :P
Yama-Tsu on 16 February 2009, 17:17 said:
If it hadn’t been for your guys’ sporking throughout, this review would’ve been physically painful to read. Thank you.
“The thing that irks me the most is the use of the word “masterpiece”. Seriously… I have yet to hear even those who like Twilight call it a MASTERPIECE.”
See Youtube’s very own nuttymadam. She calls Stephanie Meyer a genius. Oh, and she’s a full-grown woman.
SlyShy on 16 February 2009, 19:31 said:
Oh, let’s not pretend full grown adults have any advantages when it comes to taste. I’m sure they are fueling that part of the Hollywood film industry that cranks out nothing but terrible comedies.
Rand on 17 February 2009, 14:03 said:
Guys are at it again.
Glen on 18 February 2009, 11:53 said:
Lol really nice. Though I disagree on rap being bad. There are great rappers out there.
Wanderer Fan on 22 February 2009, 15:42 said:
That…was a sad review. It was a sad, sad review.
Those of you with logic rock though! :D And by that weird comment, I meant that the reviewers and people who commented are awesome.
falconempress on 22 February 2009, 16:41 said:
Twilight = masterpiece => there is no effing God.
Oh dear Lord, that was just plain scary.
And whatever is the deal with NY Times bestsellers? I have yet to read a book from the damn list I wouldnt find pretencious, full of itself and all – in – all untterly unenjoyable. Whoever finds the NY Times bestseller list to be an indentifier of quality literature should refrain from breeding.
Rand on 22 February 2009, 18:14 said:
Just because its a bestseller that doesn’t make it a good book. Its up to the reader to decide whether or not to buy a book based on whether or not it says New York Times bestseller on the cover.
Mumbling Sage on 24 February 2009, 21:12 said:
I feel the sudden urge to write a story about sun-crossed lovers…
I will say, this is one heck of a bait-and-tease review. It suggests Twilight is full of cliches and then…what?
—Can you resist temptation? Why should you?
Well, I’m Roman Catholic, and Lent starts tomorrow…I think I’ll abstain from all reading of Twilight for the next fourty days. Yes, such a sacrifice, I know. But hey, resisting temptation is GOOD for you in my religion.
And, you know, avoiding Twilight is just good for you, period.
Casper on 1 February 2010, 18:01 said:
“SS— Didn’t you already say titillating before? Tits.
K— Stop that. Tits.
SS— I’m in titters. Tits.
K— That was a terrible pun. Tits.”
omg. that literally gave me lulz. tits. XD;
but article redundancy is redundant.
Ally on 28 March 2010, 20:35 said:
“SS— Shy AND introverted? Woah.
K— She never struck me as the shy type, just too high-and-mighty to talk to her classmates.”
Being shy isn’t ‘high-and-mighty’.
SlyShy on 28 March 2010, 20:44 said:
Right, which is why she said:
“She never struck me as the shy type”
You know, with high-and-mighty being in contrast to shy. Reading comprehension is cool. ;)
Perry on 17 May 2010, 13:47 said:
I remember an article in the local newspaper about Twilight, in which Twilighters defended SMeyer, saying that she was “not a writer, but a storyteller” when asked about her “questionable” writing style.
The writer of the article even said Edward was sort of a Mr. Darcy, but with blood lust and sparkles.
Kennedy on 22 June 2010, 16:05 said:
Twilight is absolute rubbish. It has no literary merit, and I feel like barfing every time I see it in a bookstore. How anyone can consider this trash a “masterpiece” is beyond me, especially when compared to real literary masterpieces, like the Count of Monte Cristo or Pride and Prejudice , or hell, even Harry Potter.
Fell Blade on 9 April 2012, 10:37 said:
Ah, I was wondering why “The Hunger Games” was so unpopular among teen girls…wait what?