Jump to content
darkangel787

Eragon vs Twilight?

Which is better: Eragon or Twilight?  

381 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Because his loving fans are less and less each day. He started the thing 10 years ago, and has added so many sidequest I feel like I'm reading a mediocre version of Dragon Age 2 (and I didn't like that game much, even although I'm playing it again for lack of anything better to do).

 

I have been using the first copy to keep the tarantula locked in (the darn thing learnt how to open her cage, and my mom was not very fond of finding her crawling around the house). The second I forgot where it ended and, since I'm a masochist, bought the third and misplaced it somewhere. Actually, I do know where it is, at a friend's house who hasn't read it after 2 years, but I'm in no hurry to retrieve it.

 

The thing is, I can show a nice example of what over extending a serie does to it. The Dark Elf saga. The first trilogy was brilliant. The second was all right. After that, it went downhill without brakes.

Salvatore is a much better storyteller than Paolini will ever be, and after 20 books, hasn't been able to keep his main character up.

 

Paolini should have stuck to crafting his trilogy and rip off all the mumbo jumbo about dwarven politics and ludicrous sidequests that served for no other purpose than filling the book with pointless fluff. The first book was... well, Star Wars in the Middle Earth, with some ridiculous aspects such as the zombie horses (keep a horse galloping all day and it'll drop dead in a matter of hours, no joking), the "magnum" imperium that's about the size of Liechtestein, and one of the biggest sues in the history of literature.

The second could have been summarized in a few pages. Again, Star Wars on the Middle Earth, and Eragon becoming a bigger Sue (what's the whole half elf thing about?).

The third, well, lets just say you can rip off 600 out of the 700 pages and won't loose any information. And look, it's got Horcruxes! Sorry, those Heart of Hearts thingies that, somehow, contain souls and give the "evil emperor" their power and inmortality.

 

Frankly, considering the amount of rubble left by the other three books, I see the fourth will be another brick sized book with more fluff than substance. I expect a collection of Deus Ex Machinas and more pointless sidequests, being the first 50 and last 50 page the only important thing to know what's going on.

 

It seems writers today forget that quality is not on the size of a book, but on how you display your elements, and I write some pretty large books myself, but I try to keep my road steady and not sidetrack myself with pointless things.

 

So, no. Expanding stories beyond their original planning is one of the unwisest things one can do. I always keep in mind every aspect of my books before I even start writing. Writing on the flow, throwing in new things ust for the sake of it (Heart of Hearts, for example, or the baby mutant in Twilight), is a horrible idea, and the signs of a bad writer.

 

Not to mention, at least Salvatore manages to keep his characters loyal to their original creation. Not so Paolini. You see this more clearly in Eragon and Saphira, but like every of his characters seem so OOC in his later books it's almost as if I was reading a huge fanfiction. You can argue all about character development and whatever you wish, but people simply DON'T change in a matter of weeks, and how long has it been since Eragon left Carvahall? A month? 2 months?

Harry Potter evolved throughout 7 years, and so did every other character in the books.

Harry Dresden has been through various years himself since the begining of the books.

Even Drizzt, I think it's been about 10 or even more years, and you see him evolved, but at a natural pace.

 

Dragon or no, you don't change from your typical farmboy into a philosopher warrior in 2 months. It's impossible. I know that, to us, it's been 10 years, but in book, it's been 2 months and you must stick to it.

 

My latest work was written with a second book in mind, and I'm moving it forward a whole year to make the events believable and to not go through the tedious task of describing every tiny detail that happens day by day (which can and should be summarized in a few paragraphs).

Paolini should go straight to the battle and get on with it, and stop sidetracking the way he's been doing as of late. But... that's much wishful thinking on my part.

 

That's it for now. Some other day we'll discuss about how truly evil Galbatoryx is, in comparison to Eragon and his minions.

Share this post


Link to post

Do not double post, use the edit tool.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Eragon. I like it waaay more, also for having cool Ideas.

 

 

Twighlight.... mad.gif

I really don´t care if those characters are as plane as stickman and I don´t care, if a book is all about plane and dump love. I just wouldn´t read it. But...just look at my avatar. mad.gif . I hate this book for the one and only reason that this woman called those fakes vampires, just to hype her puny little love story, just because she couldn´t write a love story thats interesting itself. Noooo! She needed to to kill off the image of a killing shadow of night and made it a sunbathing glitter ball just to make the book interesting. And i dislike it even more, because it caused this damn vampire trend were even more of this vampire trash-books appear hurting the reputation of the fantasy genre and creating a small society of weak kiddos calling themselve vampire for wearing emo outfits, drinking tomato juice and wearing fake teeth.

 

No matter the other book, if it´s against twighlight, evrythings better.

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post
Eragon. I like it waaay more, also for having cool Ideas.

 

 

Twighlight.... mad.gif

I really don´t care if those characters are as plane as stickman and I don´t care, if a book is all about plane and dump love. I just wouldn´t read it. But...just look at my avatar. mad.gif . I hate this book for the one and only reason that this woman called those fakes vampires, just to hype her puny little love story, just because she couldn´t write a love story thats interesting itself. Noooo! She needed to to kill off the image of a killing shadow of night and made it a sunbathing glitter ball just to make the book interesting. And i dislike it even more, because it caused this damn vampire trend were even more of this vampire trash-books appear hurting the reputation of the fantasy genre and creating a small society of weak kiddos calling themselve vampire for wearing emo outfits, drinking tomato juice and wearing fake teeth.

 

No matter the other book, if it´s against twighlight, evrythings better.

I dunno. At least Twilight has some vague form of coherency, the same can't be said for say, Maradonia and the Seven Bridges, or The Legend of Rah and the Muggles.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate this book for the one and only reason that this woman called those fakes vampires, just to hype her puny little love story, just because she couldn´t write a love story thats interesting itself. Noooo! She needed to to kill off the image of a killing shadow of night and made it a sunbathing glitter ball just to make the book interesting.

SM is not the first writer to use the idea of Vampires, but change the details. Many authors change the whole sunlight-killing-them thing, be it because they sparkle (which, even I admit is...just..I can't even) or because of some special stone/ring/whatever (Vampire Diaries, published in 1991 - BEFORE Twilight), or even to change it to "irritating" and making their skin prickle, like The House of Night series.

 

Besides, who set the "rules" for vampires? Last I checked, they don't exist, meaning there aren't any "real" traits. If you're going by Dracula or Nosferatu or anything like that, you've still got to look at it as someone taking the general myth of a blood-drinking, undead creature and adding their own story to it. Even the vampire myths themselves vary greatly from culture to culture. Who are you to say what's a "real" vampire?

 

All of it started to attempt to explain why hair and nails appeared to grow after death, anyway. Vampires are fictional. I don't see anyone getting upset at the dozens of vastly different interpretations of fairies/faeries/fae or witches/wizards/warlocks.

 

Take Harry Potter, even. Originally, witches and wizards were evil, obtaining powers from demonic sources, and were something to fear. In Harry Potter this is certainly not the case, but people aren't all up in arms about how they "aren't real witches."

 

And i dislike it even more, because it caused this damn vampire trend were even more of this vampire trash-books appear hurting the reputation of the fantasy genre and creating a small society of weak kiddos calling themselve vampire for wearing emo outfits, drinking tomato juice and wearing fake teeth.

I can't agree with the bit about causing more vampire romances (since I do quite enjoy them), but I certainly agree that the whole "culture" of vampire wannabe's is quite ridiculous. Though, I must point out that it existed well before Twilight, and I would argue that the whole True Blood thing has contributed just as strongly (I believe there's actually a mixed drink based on something from this series?).

Edited by FireAngel73

Share this post


Link to post

edit: @ dr. Paine

 

Your argument won´t do . i don´t hate twighlight for its story wink.gif

But for the shameless missuse and manipulation of the image of vampires mad.gif

 

You can do many things in Fanatasy, but what she did to vampires (and the people following her) is way beyond the point of forgiving.

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post

Your argument won´t do . i don´t hate twighlight for its story wink.gif

But for the shameless missuse and manipulation of the image of vampires  mad.gif

 

You can do many things in Fanatasy, but what she did to vampires (and the people following her) is way beyond the point of forgiving.

Did you read my post at all? Any of it? I wasn't arguing for the story of Twilight. I didn't even bring it up. My whole argument was about the "image" of vampires. Go back and actually read it, thanks.

 

You could at least have the decency to admit that you didn't read it, rather than argue against what you assume I said.

Edited by FireAngel73

Share this post


Link to post

You postet faster than me xd.png Yeah I didn´t read , cuz i didn´t notice.

 

I wasn´t speaking to you (in that post, I will edit it)^^

 

(now i read it)

I don´t know the dates of release of Vampire Diaries, Twighlight, HoN...

But to me, this whole Hype/boom about Vampires started with twighlight and then came the rip-offs of twighlight.

 

Certainly, there are no Rules for fictionale races, but you also wouldn´t call a strong and grumpy midget who lives in a mine, fights like a bersek, loves gold and has manners like a drunkard , an elf, right? No, cuz its a dwarf.

 

And no matter what, all legend always have things in common. And Twighlight-"Vampires" betray them all.

It would have been better if she made them an own race, but no, the vampire-Bonus would vanish.

 

Originally Wizards/ Witches: for the Teutons and in the north mythology Witches were nearly equivalent to gentle goddesses and good omen.

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post

You postet faster than me xd.png  Yeah I didn´t read , cuz i didn´t notice.

 

I wasn´t speaking to you (in that post, I will edit it)^^

 

(now i read it)

I don´t know the dates of release of Vampire Diaries, Twighlight, HoN...

But to me, this whole Hype/boom about Vampires started with twighlight and then came the rip-offs of twighlight.

 

Certainly, there are no Rules for fictionale races, but you also wouldn´t call a strong and grumpy midget who lives in a mine, fights like a bersek, loves gold and has manners like a drunkard , an elf, right? No, cuz its a dwarf.

 

And no matter what, all legend always have things in common. And Twighlight-"Vampires" betray them all.

It would have been better if she made them an own race, but no, the vampire-Bonus would vanish.

 

Originally Wizards/ Witches: for the Teutons and in the north mythology Witches were nearly equivalent to gentle goddesses and good omen.

I was about to say. I was quite insulted when I thought you hadn't read my post! lol.

 

Vampire Diaries - 1991

Twilight - 2005

House of Night - 2007

Also, I'm adding the "Night World" series by LJ Smith, since they can live in the daylight, too, and the need for blood is described differently than is typical for vampires. I believe they were released in 1996.

 

I can admit that Twilight did spark a ton of Vampire romances, but it didn't start the trend. Nor did it start the "let's change the traits to suit my story" trend.

 

Also, I would call "a strong and grumpy midget who lives in a mine, fights like a bersek, loves gold and has manners like a drunkard" whatever the book called it. Dwarf, elf, Princess Sparkle Butterfly. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world says, the only things that are relevant to any given story are the details in said story. I'm reading a story now that has special terms for werewolves and vampires, even though they are the traditional blood thirsty monsters of the night.

 

Witches and Wizards are another thing such as vampires. They were made up to explain some ordinary and likely trivial part of life that the people of the time didn't understand, and have been shaped and molded by many different cultures into whatever they needed them to be. That's my whole point. Mythical beings are constantly evolving and changing, based on time, location, and need. So it isn't fair to hate Twilight for making vampires sparkle, but NOT hate Peter Pan for making fairies tiny and sweet, or Harry Potter for making witches and wizards the way they are.

Edited by FireAngel73

Share this post


Link to post

... I see both sides of this argument.

 

While I won't say that vampires can't or don't sparkle, I think that, in the case of Twilight, they probably shouldn't have sparkled... Meyer wanted to play them off as a Big Bad, that they were monsters that deserve only fear and disgust. Making them into these glittering, beautiful, ethereal creatures undermines that. Edward was not scary, no matter how much he talked about how he could 'accidentally' crush her skull with his little finger.

And then the mental image of a person standing in the sunlight throwing rainbows from their skin is just so absurd and ridiculous that it's hard to take the tree-smashing and murder threats seriously. Which is unfortunate, because that kind of stuff should be serious.

 

 

On the other hand, I think the main thing that makes a vampire a vampire is the idea that they are dead or undead and draw energy (in most cases, blood) from living creatures to survive. In that most basic sense, Meyer's characters are definitely vampires. They have an adverse reaction to sunlight, though not a directly harmful or life-threatening one. Writers working with fictional creatures do tend to pick, choose, and alter what parts of the 'traditional' definitions they will use. Meyer stretched a bit in some unusual new ways, but I don't see how she 'betrayed' the idea of vampires.

Share this post


Link to post

Well every one likes what he likes right?

I dislike Twighlight for its Vampires and I like Hellsing for it´s Vampires.

Same can be said for other Races.

For example. I general I also dislike elves for whole behavior.

But i like the elves of LotR, Tharkarún and the Albae and i don´t dislike the sithi of the Dragonbone chair-series.

 

Both may not be your everyday Vampire, but i think Alucard is about 1000000³ times more near on beeing a vampire and having a personality than Edward and his family could ever dream of^^

 

 

Vampire Diaries - 1991

Twilight - 2005

House of Night - 2007

Also, I'm adding the "Night World" series by LJ Smith, since they can live in the daylight, too, and the need for blood is described differently than is typical for vampires. I believe they were released in 1996.

 

I can admit that Twilight did spark a ton of Vampire romances, but it didn't start the trend. Nor did it start the "let's change the traits to suit my story" trend.

 

 

 

The only thing I can say, is that in my country this whole Vampire-nonsense began with twighlight and then came the rip-offs and then the TV-episodes of rip-offs and things like vampire Diaries. biggrin.gif

I mean so it was public and people knew it was there, before it was just a thing known to people who read that.

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post

They're both equally bad, in my opinion.

 

Eragon for being cliched, poorly written, and having an unsympathetic hero. I've had enough Adventure/High Fantasy novels even without enduring through the entire series.

Twilight for having awful protagonists, a plot driven entirely by the whims of a whiny teenage girl, and being also poorly written.

 

The sparkling vampires detail was really just the last straw of a terribly large pile. LOOK AT ME I CAN BREAK TREES AND I SPARKLE. A good author could have possibly, with a lot of effort, made that scene dramatic/intimidating/interesting in any manner. The thing is, that didn't happen, and the only thing I can say is that there are a lot of other better paranormal romance novels out there to read.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to disagree. Even if I put a horsey symbol on my little Clio, it won't be a Ferrari, no matter how hard I tried to convince you.

 

If I'm looking for books about elves, I want to read about elves, not dwarves. If I open an epic book which is supposed to be an adventure about the elven people, and find myself with midgets drinking ale and beer and mining mithril ores, I'd be more than annoyed!

 

I'm all right with going a bit against conventions. I have written my own vampires and werewolves in my books and they are a little different from the lore. That's fine.

 

I say the same about my dragons. They are a tiny bit different, since I go for making them more believable than your typical flying tanks that kidnap princesses and hoard gold and jewels.

 

But that's one thing, and changing the lore completely is another. What do Twilight vamps have with real vamps? They're dead and drink blood.... all right.

Aside from that, they are nothing but a cross between a fairy and a diamond golem. The least one should expect from vampires is for them to appear dangerous, and yet this things do not inspire me the tiny least of terror.

 

Many creatures drink blood, loup garous for example, which are a form of french werewolf if I recall correctly. And I read somewhere there was a type of fairy that drank blood as well, which might be more fitting for Twilight vampires.

 

I admit it didn't bother me nearly as much as the whole plot (or lack of it), the dangerous displays about love, and the continuous kicking to science and deus ex machinas. When I read that Edward sparkled, I laughed because it was simply ridiculous. I'm also not very fond of vampires myself (I just don't see what's so appealing about them, I'm more into werewolves), which might have added to the cause that I didn't really mind whether they sparkled or turned into water vapor.

But I can understand the more hardcore vampire fans to be annoyed, for reasons stated above.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to disagree. Even if I put a horsey symbol on my little Clio, it won't be a Ferrari, no matter how hard I tried to convince you.

 

-snip-

Yes, Twilight didn't go completely hand in hand with the typical Vampire lore, but you're comparing something real and tangible, that has real-world implications to something completely and totally fabricated from the very beginning. No, of course you can't call a Clio a Ferrari, because Ferraris exist and are physically defined in our world. Vampires do not exist, everything about them is just made up.

 

But that's one thing, and changing the lore completely is another. What do Twilight vamps have with real vamps? They're dead and drink blood.... all right.

Aren't the blood drinking, undead, and sun-avoiding parts of the lore the only important parts? It's the only parts that I've heard repeated over and over from different stories and legends and cultures.

 

If I'm looking for books about elves, I want to read about elves, not dwarves. If I open an epic book which is supposed to be an adventure about the elven people, and find myself with midgets drinking ale and beer and mining mithril ores, I'd be more than annoyed!

That's your right, and is completely understandable. It's totally okay to not like a story because it doesn't go along with your idea of a character or creature or breed, or whatever, but it's unfair to say that they aren't "real" vampires, or that they "ruin" vampires, just because they don't match your version. Vampires aren't real, ANY version of them.

 

(I just don't see what's so appealing about them, I'm more into werewolves)

Honestly? I think it started because of the neck thing. Veryvery seductive part of the body, at least in my opinion.

 

Well every one likes what he likes right?

I dislike Twighlight for its Vampires and I like Hellsing for it´s Vampires.

You're absolutely right, everyone is entitled to their opinion and their own likes and dislikes. I'm not trying to make you like Twilight, or to "make you see the errors of your ways" or anything like that, I'm just trying to point out that it's unfair to say that something is not "accurate" when the whole concept is imaginary to begin with wink.gif

 

 

Honestly, I'm really not trying to convince people to like the story. Goodness knows I don't like plenty of books out there, so it's hypocritical of me to try to make you like Twilight. I'm merely saying that if you don't like the book, or the story, or the characters, then don't like them and say that. But I'm really tired of the "they aren't real vampires" argument, if you can't tell. It's not a solid argument to rely on. I don't avoid Watership Down because they "aren't real rabbits," I avoid it because that isn't the type of story I want to read.

Edited by FireAngel73

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, Twilight didn't go completely hand in hand with the typical Vampire lore, but you're comparing something real and tangible, that has real-world implications to something completely and totally fabricated from the very beginning. No, of course you can't call a Clio a Ferrari, because Ferraris exist and are physically defined in our world. Vampires do not exist, everything about them is just made up.

 

Fine. Cars are real and tangible, and not an invention of the mind (of sorts). Let's talk about something not real and untangible. LOVE.

Some people (men to be more exact) consider beating their wives when they have behaved badly as an act of love. Same can be applied to children bein mistreated by their parents in the name of love. Would you consider it love?

 

It's not tangible. It's an invention of the mind and thus could be considered unreal. The whole true love is a fallacy, so why should we condemn those who have mistreated their wives or children? Aren't they entitled to believe what love should be?

 

I am speaking as a woman who has suffered abuse from her partner.

 

Is that really love? It is untangible, it's an invention of the mind, a manifestation of human desires and whishes, and has many forms and shapes and is constantly changing. It can vary vastly from culture to culture, thus any form of "love" should be accepted, no matter how horrifying and brutal it might be.

 

And yet, I do not believe beating a wife or a child is love at all.

 

Therefore, concepts are made of something more than just imagination, reality or tangibility. If we don't keep concepts a little bit steady, the world would be chaos.

 

Aren't the blood drinking, undead, and sun-avoiding parts of the lore the only important parts? It's the only parts that I've heard repeated over and over from different stories and legends and cultures.

 

Vampires avoid sunlight because they are night creatures and, in some form or another, the sun harms them. Being night creatures and vicious hunters add to their bestial nature, which makes them dangerous.

 

I don't get that feeling from Twilight vampires. I hardly feel they are vampires at all. I mean, if I saw a guy sparkling on the street I'd believe he was an idiot for wearing glitter, but in no means would I feel endangered by him, and much less would I believe it to be a vicious, dangerous hunter.

 

That's your right, and is completely understandable. It's totally okay to not like a story because it doesn't go along with your idea of a character or creature or breed, or whatever, but it's unfair to say that they aren't "real" vampires, or that they "ruin" vampires, just because they don't match your version. Vampires aren't real, ANY version of them.

 

You miss my point. Concepts exist for a reason. To add order in a world of chaos. To allow free license of crafting just about anything would be madness. Just think about your favorite type of creature. You're thirsty for reading about them and find just what seems the perfect book. The story seems promising but... you open it and find something completely different to what you expected. Your creature (lets say dragons, as we are in DC), happen to be happy unicorns in a valley of glittering flowers, where you were expecting large winged lizards that spit fire.

I insist, I'd be very annoyed, and I guess so do you.

 

You want to read about dragons, not unicorns. A one horned horse is a unicorn, not a dragon, independently of how real or imaginary they are.

 

It's simply a matter of concepts.

 

Honestly? I think it started because of the neck thing. Veryvery seductive part of the body, at least in my opinion.

 

I'm more for the whole howl at the full moon and link with nature and the animal inside. It's a more romantic version of werewolves than the usual bloodlusting, mindless beasts, more taken from indoamerican lore and inspired more in White Wolf's RPG games.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Aren't the blood drinking, undead, and sun-avoiding parts of the lore the only important parts? It's the only parts that I've heard repeated over and over from different stories and legends and cultures.

There are no Vampires outside of europe. That may be creatures who drink blood and avoid sun, but that aren´t Vampires.

They are to avoid the sun, cuz it hurts them! Not because they sparkle.The weaknesses are as important as the powers.

I can understand if you leave things like

"they need to sleep in the eart of their home country"

"they can´t enter a house without invitation"

And I can even understand if you invent Veggi-vamp, because you can´t write about Anti-Heroes.

But at least a little weakness to sunlight, a distaste of garlic and maybe a little fear of crucifixes, is that too much to ask for?

 

even the vamps in "The Little Vampire", knew the rules and weren´t what you would call evil, right?

 

But the vamps of twighlight are more like idealised and flawless super-humans, not Vampires.

 

If you like it or not, The things in Twighlight are no real Vamps. Thats fact.

Share this post


Link to post

And I can even understand if you invent Veggi-vamp, because you can´t write about Anti-Heroes.

Meyer didn't invent "veggie-vamps" (though I think she coined the term). She's not the first one to have vampires who live off animal blood for moral reasons.

 

And given Meyer's apparent desire to explain everything with science - albeit science that only works through the liberal application of insane troll logic - the fear of crucifixes wouldn't make sense in this story. The Meyer-pires existence isn't one having to do with magic or demons or anything like that, so why would any 'divine power' affect them?

Share this post


Link to post

If you read a bit further, I also mentioned "the little Vampire", i know there are others wink.gif

It was meant in general, not specific for twighlight wink.gif

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post

I know nothing about "The Little Vampire," and I'm not seeing where it says they don't drink human blood... just that they're 'not evil.'

Share this post


Link to post

it´s not my fault, if you don´t know "the little vampire" tongue.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Vampire

It´s older than twighlight and they were used to drink the blood of cows.

( i liked the movie, flying vampire-cows are funny)

 

If you mention, that there were others, you should at least give an example, like i did.

 

but my Point is,if you are a good writer you can take the real vampires and make them into sympathic charkters.

 

She idealised them into something to appeal little girlies dry.gif , not to improve the story.

edwards like a glitter fairy straight from Wings Club.

 

I am waiting for the twighlight beauty box for girls from 6-12 years....ahhh well now I am bit exaggerating biggrin.gif

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post

... Nor is it my fault that I've never heard of a German children's book. o_o

 

The main example I know is Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Vampire cursed with a soul, tortured by his human conscience about all the people he's killed, drinks pig's blood to avoid having to kill more people. However, I hear Anne Rice also mentions vampires living on animal blood, at least temporarily.

 

Anyway. I know Meyer's vamps come off as glittering superheroes. Well, actually, they are. I'm not a fan of the glittering, because it really doesn't make sense in the context of the story, and I really don't like that they have basically limitless physical speed and strength. But I'm still not seeing why "Vampires Don't Sparkle" ends up being the foremost argument that comes up against Twilight, or how Meyer's betraying or destroying the idea of vampires. I mean, I highly doubt that any other book is going to use vampires with sparkling skin.

 

 

 

 

Also, I know this wasn't your point but I've just gotta say, a series that contains a birth scene involving a spine-shattering fetus and the phrase "vomited a fountain of blood" should never be marketed to 6-12 year olds in any way EVER. D:

Share this post


Link to post

I think the sparkly vampires is the book's least problem. Like you mentioned, Stromboli, Meyer has issues getting a bit graphical about the whole sex thing, and yet doesn't have any problem describing to an extent that'd make Tarantino proud how Bella gave birth to the little monster.

 

The least she could have done is give her readers an erotic scenen involving Edward biting her, seeing how the little selfish was going ro transform anyway because she wanted to be speshul and pretty (that's about the first thing she realizes when she wakes up).

 

But no. Bella's transformation comes out as a gore scene (I just need to see that in the movies), and Edward stabs her in the heart with a syringe. NICE!

 

And then there is Jacob imprinting. Which is far more disturbing than the scene of the monster ripping her own mother out and breaking her bones and organs.

Share this post


Link to post

now you did it dry.gif

those things sound interesting....but since it´s twighlight i don´t think it will be very inventive?

Edited by Kurtos

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, the sparkling is the least of the Twilight issues. Pretty much the entirety of Breaking Dawn was just... dry.gif

 

I like Twilight, but I can admit that parts of it were...just...well, Breaking Dawn. 'Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Meyer has issues getting a bit graphical about the whole sex thing, and yet doesn't have any problem describing to an extent that'd make Tarantino proud how Bella gave birth to the little monster.

Which is kind of hilarious when you consider the way Meyer won't even watch films that are gory or rated R.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.