Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Where is All the Blood and Guts?

I don't normally blog about Twilight articles because there are enough of them out there to fill the Grand Canyon and most are exact replicas of each other. I really only like to talk about them if they tick me off enough...and this article I just read, written by a die-hard horror fanatic, would definitely go under the category of 'ticking me off'. I'm being honest when I say that the reason I despise articles like these is NOT because they aren't gushing over how wonderful Twilight is. Sometimes it's actually kind of refreshing to get an honest opinion from an author who read Stephenie Meyer's books and didn't fall into the growing sea of Twilight fandom. No, what twists my gauge to 'ticked off' is when people slam Twilight without having their facts straight. And this article right here is a prime example of something written by a man who doesn't know what he's talking about and just wants to channel his ridiculous frustrations in an unfair world onto the computer. Hence, a post by me voicing the many problems I have with this guy's article. Mind you, I know that he is entitled to his own opinion. So am I, then.
First of all, I can't begin to tell you how many people I've seen giving Twilight two thumbs down because 'I'm a true horror fan and this isn't a real vampire book/movie.' Am I the only one who thinks that Twilight should not even be near the horror category? It's a romance, people, with a bit of thrill and suspense tied in. There's no torture, blood spewing everywhere, zombies eating people alive, or deranged scientists experimenting with radioactivity on insects - things that horror enthusiasts and men in general seem to have a knack for. Why complain that Twilight doesn't have any of these qualities when it's not even supposed to? It doesn't make sense to me. Are you going to complain about Peter Pan not being horrific enough for you, too? And about the whole 'real' vampire thing - well as an author Stephenie is entitled to make her characters however she wants. There's no certain way that a vampire has to be. If everyone made vampires the same every time they wrote a book on them, it would get mighty boring. Just because Stephenie's vampires don't have lethal fangs and aren't all evil monsters, doesn't mean that they can't be interesting, too. The author of this article even mentioned how he didn't even bother to read the books before complaining about them.
The way he called the fans of Twilight 'goth' girls was also exceptionally aggrivating. Stephenie's books include a diverse audience. And they aren't only girls, for his information. My dad - who, by the way, loves to watch movies full of gore and blood-curdling screams in the living room late at night - is living proof of that. I tossed him the books and said, 'read them, they're great'. He did, and he loved them. Unbelievably, it's my mom I'm having trouble convincing to jump on the bandwagon.
I can understand where this horror geek is coming from. It's chunks of flesh flying around that gets him giddy, not teen romance. But basically saying that Twilight sucks because its vampires don't murder innocent humans (and actually, James tries to. So does Laurent. So does Victoria. What do you think of that?) is like saying that a book or movie about dogs is going to suck because you're a cat-lover. Seriously, are some people so narrow-minded that they won't open their eyes to the different possibilities? Like a (*gasp*) good vampire? And Twilight isn't meant to be horrifying, so to compare it to the expectations of horror flicks - like the 30 Days of Night - is crazy.

Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, Breaking Dawn, Midnight Sun, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, vampire, Edward Cullen, Bella Swan, Twilight Movie, Stephenie Meyer, Edward's point of view


Heather said...

I'm actually reading an awesome book now called "How To Read Literature Like a Professor," and one chapter did talk about the allegory of vampires (and other mythical creatures). The author of the article wrote, "Vampires have always been that allegory of the human condition that seeks immortality without boundaries of sexuality or basic human law, while also serving as a horrific lapdog of Satan." He was correct in all of that except for the last part about vampires necessarily being related to doing Satan's work. They are supposed to be a picture of immortality and urges without boundaries... I think Stephenie Meyer uses vampires ironically to show that they can overcome the id inside of them, and she's generally written a morality tale to demonstrate that we can all rise above instinct and interact with those who are different in rational, logical, and empathetic ways. (Sorry, the literature paper is done now.)

Twilighter said...

Wow, I should read what you're reading. Maybe then I'd be a bit more intelligent, yeah? I think you're so right about Stephenie Meyer's vampires. What bugs me about people like this guy is a. they don't read the books before going off on them and b. it's as if if they can't open their mind to the possibilities of vampires differentiating from how they are 'supposed to be'. To me that's just...I don't know, wierd. Though I suppose if you live for that kind of vampire story, then it gets a bit frustrating, but people assume too much. Anyway...I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore. (And don't worry, I like literature papers =D)

Heather said...

I love that idea that guys has of the way "Vampires are supposed to be." Seriously, they're fictional/mythical, how is there a right way to write about them? That guy's probably just irritated and/or frustrated...