In my junior year of high school, I got wind of the phenomenon called “Twilight.” Several of my friends encouraged me to read it, so I gave it a try. I was left feeling rather underwhelmed. But what began as indifference toward the book has developed into annoyance at the whole franchise as mania grew for this series, undeserving of the attention it’s received.
At the core of my dislike is the underdeveloped writing that leaves much to be desired. The book is riddled with clichés and is full of unoriginal, repeated metaphors. The plot drags for 400 pages of boringly gushy teenage infatuation and doesn’t reach any engaging action or development until there is only a fifth of the book left.
“Twilight” left me with no interest in reading any of its sequels, but I did give Stephenie Meyer a second chance when I read “The Host,” a book intended for an older audience. Though its premise was intriguing, the book suffered the same problems. With both books I was left thinking, “This is what everyone’s raving about?” I realize that Meyer wasn’t aiming to write the next great piece of American literature and that her books are meant to entertain, but if a novel is so poorly written that the reader is more frustrated with the writing than engaged in the story, then that cannot be called a successful attempt at being entertaining.
Considering how unimpressive I found the book, the obsessive fandom that followed has been particularly obnoxious, especially now that the franchise seems inescapable: billboards for the movie all over town, action figure versions of the characters at Target, a sign in the LMU bookstore that says “Edward Cullen wants you to read this” next to the book display, etc. Most saddening is the inability to walk into a Barnes and Noble without being ambushed by a massive “Twilight” display. The fans’ obsession with the series and insistence that “‘Twilight’ is, like, the best thing ever!” have become increasingly tiresome. Most frustrating is when people say that “Twilight” is the new “Harry Potter.” No. Nothing will ever be the new “Harry Potter.” Yes, that opinion is coming from a biased, devoted “Harry Potter” fan, but I think even non-“Harry Potter” fans can agree that if something were to become better than “Harry Potter,” it wouldn’t be “Twilight.” If you want to debate the popularity of each, here’s my say in that: “Breaking Dawn,” the final book in the “Twilight” series, sold 1.3 million copies in the first 24 hours after its release, while the seventh in Rowling’s series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” sold 15 million copies in its first 24 hours.
The worst of “Twilight” mania, though, is the Edward-worship. You’re obsessed with a sparkling vampire? I’m all for putting a new spin on traditional lore, but only if it’s something more innovative and less idiotic than having vampires glitter in the sun. The fact that girls see Edward as a perfect love interest and that there are the true stories of girls dumping their boyfriends “because he’s not like Edward” is horrifying. Edward is egotistical and controlling. Why that would prompt girls to put “I heart Edward” bumper stickers all over their Facebook pages is something I’ll never understand. Women blame the media for leading men to expect all women to be sex goddesses, but women are also at fault if they expect men to be like Edward.
As the release date for the film’s sequel draws near, “Twilight” becomes more and more inescapable. I guess I’ll just have to clench my teeth and wait out the next couple of years with the hope that “Twilight” mania will die down once the movies are complete.
This is the opinion of Emily Rome, a sophomore film production major from Fox Island, Wash. Please send comments to erome@theloyolan.com.
1 comments