Thursday, August 21, 2008

This Vampire Book SUCKS...

And not the way a vampire book is SUPPOSED to suck.

I don't know what rock I've been living under, but I only heard about Stephenie Meyer's massively popular Twilight book series a few months ago, mostly after the movie was announced with the cast and everything. My friend Sue read the book and told me not to bother, so I didn't give it another thought, until Entertainment Weekly ran a piece on the author of the series and how hotly anticipated the last book of the series, Breaking Dawn, was among the fans. Then I went into Costco and they had the first 3 books there the week before the release of Breaking Dawn. So I bought it.

The short version: Sue was right.

See, I don't hate for hate's sake. My husband, for example, hates the Harry Potter series of books. Why? Because they're wildly successful, and he equates that with mediocrity. That and J.K. Rowling acting like a complete baby over that Lexicon that she is currently trying to block. Has he read any of them? No. I've told him that if he read the books, he'd realize they really are brilliant. J.K. Rowling might be a complete egotistical diva, but the woman has created a world and a series that is unparalleled in today's children's literature.

So, I realized if I were going to hate the Twilight series, I needed to read it first so I could properly criticize it. And BOY do I have a lot to criticize.

First, in the EW article it described the series of books as being about a young girl who falls in love with a vampire who turns out to be much older. And they're making a movie of the book. "Hmm," I thought, "Will Sarah Michelle Gellar and David Boreanaz be reprising their roles, since this is a COMPLETE RIPOFF OF BUFFY?!" Luckily, by reading the book I realized that wasn't the case. Stephenie Meyer just isn't that good a writer. Her descriptions are cliched and overwrought, the dialogue is wooden, and she repeats herself over and over and OVER AND OVER again. The book could have been 200 pages shorter if we didn't have to read 50 times that Edward's golden eyes were like honey or Bella was rubber in his presence or his breath was like honey (yeah, there's a lot of honey in this book) or Edward chuckled, guffawed, laughed, or giggled his way out of every situation.

Quick synopsis: Bella moves to Forks, a rainy, gloomy area of the Pacific Northwest, because her dad lives there and her mom is off with her new boyfriend somewhere else. Her first day of school she sees this mysterious group of 5 kids and they're described as Dr. Cullen's adopted kids: Edward, who is impossibly beautiful; Alice, the goth pixie chick who is stunning; Rosalie, who is beautiful but a bitch; Emmett, also beautiful with a smirk on his face, and Jasper, the youngest of the bunch. Edward sits next to Bella in class that day and seems to be furious with her, clutching the edge of his desk and trying to keep as far away from her as possible. For about 175 pages she tries to figure out what is their problem, what makes them so beautiful, why is Edward so strong, why is their skin so white, and on and on. Apparently Meyer is trying to make us sympathize with Bella and similarly think, "Hmm... good questions, Bella, why ARE they so white? Why DO they look like they do?" But if you can READ you've seen the back cover, where it has a quote from the middle of the book where Bella is talking about Edward being a vampire. So the first 175 pages are us going, "He's a bloody vampire, for cripes' sake, can we MOVE ON??"

Every time Bella is in Edward's presence, he has this way of looking at her, this glow in his eye, this "impossibly beautiful" face that's been chiselled by God, to hear Bella explain it, and she can't breathe, walk, speak, or think. He's the most gorgeous human being on the planet. There's a lot of heavy breathing, Edward telling her he loves her, him getting close to her then pulling away. It's complete trash. As I said to my husband, "I think this book was written with the sole purpose of making adolescent girls wet." He asked, "What, is there a lot of vampire sex?" I said, "No, just a lot of vampire dry humping."

It's harmless, of course. I mean, while part of me is saying there is no way I'm letting my daughter within a hemisphere of this book when she is 13, I then remember that when I was 13 I read the Flowers in the Attic series, with all the brothers and sisters locked in the attic and the longing and the puberty and the incestuous sex and the baby-having and total craziness. And I LOVED those books. I'm assuming Twilight has that same audience, not discerning and hardly critical.

But what was so obvious to me about halfway through was one simple fact: Edward is a complete DICK. Take away his looks, his charm, the supernatural hold he has over Bella, and he's moody, angry, emotionally abusive, domineering, and acts like Bella is a toddler who can't make decisions for herself. He's possessive and dangerous and constantly laughs at Bella and makes big life decisions for her. Meanwhile, Bella is about as interesting as a blade of grass, and in the big climax in the end I was praying for her demise, but knew it was in vain since there were 3 more books to suffer through.

My friend Marion read the series and said she was completely ambivalent throughout, and felt like she had to take a shower every time she read part of it. I couldn't have put it better myself. I was drawn in by Edward, and hated myself for being drawn in. When he wasn't on the page, I was dead bored. All the action in the novel happens in the last 100 pages, but I found them completely boring.

Is there ANYTHING redeeming? Sure... the reason she's come up with for why vampires try to stay out of the sun is original. Alice intrigued me a bit. Until she was described as a vampire who has visions and was out of her mind when she was turned... I guess Juliet Landau can reprise HER role, too. (Oh, and there's a suggestion that one of the characters might be a werewolf... Seth, are you free, too?)

When I first read that EW article, I was angry. I remember when I first started watching Buffy and I thought it would make a great series of YA novels. So when I read the article I thought, "Argh, Meyer went ahead and did it, while stupid me, I thought JOSS ALREADY HAD." I was angry I hadn't gotten there first. But then I read it and realized, oh. If THIS is what sells, I'm glad I didn't write it.

One thing is for certain. People need to be careful about cavalierly throwing around the "Next J.K. Rowling" mantle. Yeah, Meyer has proven she can also write adult fiction badly, not just Y/A, while Rowling is so far resting on the laurels of Harry. But you know what? She can rest on it for good and never write another word, and she would have solidified her place as a great writer. Meyer just hasn't done that with this book. I've read she's a stay-at-home mom of four, and for THAT I am impressed, but I wonder if she'd want any of her kids reading this when they're 13?

Sigh. Where's the good vampire novels when you want them?

Good news, however... I have seen the first two episodes of True Blood, and it's frickin' fantastic. A longer review to come.

In the meantime, skip Twilight and rewatch the first two seasons of Buffy. You'll thank me for it.


Sean White said...

Hey Nikki. Although that was quite a harsh review (remember the first season of Buffy wasn't perfect either) then again I suppose that despite the vampire-human romance comparisons I would never compare Whedon's writing to Meyer's. I work at a book store and have had hundreds of rabid teenage girls going on about Edward so i decided to read all the books. Honestly for a holiday read I enjoyed Twilight somewhat but agree a lot with your criticism. Especially with Edward's personality. She tries to make him so perfect that he comes off as a selfish dick. Honestly I like teen romance but Twilight wasn't romance. It was some sort of lust drug addiction. I found I enjoyed the rest of the books because of said werewolf though (Jacob, the most obvious plot-twist ever) but that's probably because I have a soft spot for werewolves (Big Oz fan here) And don't get me started on how she handles the last book. You seriously don't want to read it or you'll rant on forever like I just did :)

The Leonard's said...

The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova

A little dry at first but it does suck you in... pardon the pun.


Michelle said...

Yeah I was curious about these books too because of all the buzz over the last one. Several of my college friends cream over it and gossip about it so one time I was in Barnes and Nobles and I picked it up to read a bit of it in the store. I got through the parts where she moves and meets Edward and he's mysterious and beautiful and angry, blah blah blah. I didn't see the appeal either. It felt like very childish writing. I'm not quite sure what the big fuss is about.

But then again, tell your husband I agree with him. I tried reading the first Harry Potter book and felt the same way. But I know to be fair I should have kept reading because people tell me the first book isn't the best. I haven't had the motiviation though. It just feels overused.

Anyway, good review. I agree. :)

Anonymous said...

I saw the True Blood preview at San Diego, and it does look really good. They gave me a copy of the first novel and I'm looking forward to reading it.

I also saw all the promotion for Twilight, and it interested me not.

Corey said...

I can't say I have any interest in this series (the movie previews leave me limp), but the women I worked wiht at my last job LOVED it. They LIVED it. It was scary in a way.

Anonymous said...

Awesome. Thanks for your recap and insight! Just last night I said to my husband, "What is all this buzz about Twilight?" He said, "I don't know. Go online and read about it." And then you posted! Perfect. :) And now I don't think I'll waste my time checking it out.

Sue K. said...

Thank you Nikki - it's nice to hear that I wasn't off base in the opinion I gave you of the book. You verbalized a lot of the issues I had with the book and the writing. I was very upset about EW calling the Twilight series the next Harry Potter. I realized the other day when I was discussing Twilight with them that I think that young teens are drawn to Twilight because of this idealistic but forbidden "romance" between Bella and Edward of everything but in the end, there is no real substance in the book at all. I think that when all of the teen readers who are so in love with this series right now go back in 10years and remember it in some fond way and decide to read it again, they will find that it's not a good read at all. If Nikki recalls, we had a similar experience with Wuthering Heights a few years ago - loved the book when we were 20, loated it when we read it again at 30. There is no way that this series even comes close to the Harry Potter series - the Harry Potter series will be classics and will stand the test of time - why? Because they have something very fundamental that Twilight does not - a complex thematic core that works on so many levels - it's appealing to people of all ages and of all backgrouds - in the end the themes Rowling laid down in all of the HP books are universal and timeless and that is why Twilight can never be or should never be compared with Harry Potter. As for Flowers in the Attic series - I am a fond lover of those novels as Nikki knows and I believe that they too have more substance than Twilight and better writing than Meyers - I just introduced 2 readers to them -a woman in her early 20s and a woman in her late 50s and both women devoured the entire 5-book series in a matter of weeks.

Of course I adore Buffy and am trying to get more people to watch the series. As well, I am trying to introduce a new reader to Anne Rice's vampire series. Rice's themes throughout her series are much more mature and thought provoking and if you want eroticism, she delivers.

One more thing about Twilight - how hokey is it that a vampire can come outside as long as he's not in direct sunlight - like come on - what kind of vampire is that?

K J Gillenwater said...

My answer to your criticism is this: It was written for teens. The end.

I went through my crappy phase...reading the terrible "Sweet Valley High" series full of schlocky junk. But, at the time (I was 13 or so), I loved those babies. They were like Twinkies. So bad for you and fake tasting, but delicious all the same.

I have since outgrown these types of books (oh, say 20+ years ago) just as I have outgrown Twinkies. But I can still appreciate why a teen girl might like them.

So, I do get a little upset at adults bashing these books. You are not the intended audience.

As for JK Rowling, I am not HER intended audience, so I feel any criticism I have about her writing skills are sort of petty. She's writing for middle grade children, not 30-something me. So I can forgive what I see to be annoyances with how she wrote her books (especially the first one).

Go back to your Joss Whedon vampires...nothing will ever compare in your mind. :-)

Nikki Stafford said...

the leonards: I have read The Historian. I really enjoyed it until the ending, which I thought was a disappointment compared with the beautiful build-up.

Sue: Interesting about Flowers in the Attic! I was assuming a re-read would be disappointing, but maybe I'm wrong!

Kristin: I think you've completely misread and misunderstood my entire post. First, I fully acknowledged that teens were the intended audience (you missed my paragraph on Flowers in the Attic and my love of the pure sex and carnage when I was 13). Secondly, I said the problem with this being intended for teens is the innate chauvinism and sexism in it. Edward is domineering and Bella is entirely willing to go along with every command and bully he gives at her. These books set back feminism at least 50 years, and everyone I've talked to who has read them believed that.

And I want to add that no matter how old you get, you still have that teenage girl inside you. That was the ambivalence I was talking about in my review where I said I was completely drawn in by Edward and found him alluring, and hated myself for thinking that.

So yes, I understand it's for teenagers, and that's what I said. The essence of my review was to bemoan the fact that the girls are getting this particular message about being dominated by someone who is really good-looking. Doesn't matter how much danger you're in, or that he can hurt you or kill you or abuse you, as long as he's really hot and says he loves you, he's worth all the pain.

K J Gillenwater said...

Well, if you read "Flowers in the Attic," do you think that had a particularly good message for teens? I don't think so. And were you ruined somehow by reading this? No.

I'm not saying this is great literature for teens, but clearly it is speaking to something in themselves. You are an emotional mess as a don't think rationally about stuff like love and boyfriends.

I get your frustration with the portrayal of their relationship as anything but healthy. I guess I look at it like a soap opera. People are drawn into those over the top stories, but they themselves would never want to live lives like soap opera stars. I doubt many teen girls are saying, gee, I wish I had an abusive boyfriend just like Bella.

Give them some credit.

Nikki Stafford said...

Kristin: You're right. I don't think teens are reading this book and saying, 'Wow, I wish I had an abusive boyfriend like Edward.' That's because they don't see him as abusive. Don't tell me the girls reading this book wouldn't give ANYTHING to have Edward. If I were 13, I would be head over heels in love with him. It's the underlying abuse that is not actually obvious. (Read the book, you'll see what I mean... I get the feeling you haven't actually read the book, and are criticizing me just for the sake of disagreeing with me. I'd be interested to see what you thought after reading it.) My analysis of this book is probably very different from that of the fans. They don't see him as abusive, trust me. It's very subtle, and then he says "I love you, Bella... I live for you," and Bella melts, and so, Meyer hopes, does the reader.

No reason to get so excited here. I think I was a little baffled by your initial response, since my entire post was about how she's written this for teens and I remember reading similar trash as a teen. You responded by saying it was written for teens and I probably read similar crap as a teen. Uh...

Actually, I give teens lots of credit; in fact, more credit than I think you or Meyer give them, because I think they deserve great writing, too. I disliked this book because the writing was crap, and you responded by saying, "Yeah, but it's for teens." I don't care if it's for my 4-year-old daughter, I expect it to be excellent writing if it's for them. I don't think teens deserve sub-par writing any more than we do. J.K. Rowling's writing is comparable to the greats, and I mean the greats of any area of literature. That's why she appeals to such a cross-section of demographics. I could read Harry Potter at 12, 20, 35, 50, and 67, and enjoy it just as much at any age. But you say my criticism of Meyer holds no water because I'm not supposed to criticize the writing if it was intended for a 13-17 year-old age group. Huh? I think good writing is good writing, no matter what the age the intended audience.

K J Gillenwater said...

No I haven't read the book. And yes it probably is crap. But I guess my disagreement with you is not over the analysis of whether or not it is fine literature for teens...but over what kind of 'harm' this book actually does?

Since you yourself admit to reading teen schlock, as do I, and we both are sane normal people with stable relationships, I just don't see how you can blame a book for anything a teen might do. Teens are emotional beings whether or not any schlocky reading is involved.

Anyway, it just delves into the idea that reading should be regulated somehow or fit some strict idea of what 'good' reading is. For some parents, they might be glad their daughter is reading at all.

I'm just not that concerned about it. In the 70s it was the book Forever, in the 80s probably "Flowers in the Attic." Those books are always around and always popular.

I would have to disagree with you on the Harry Potter series joining the ranks of fine literature. It was a commerically successful series that will probably live on, but I doubt it will be something high schools analyze in a lit class someday.

Don't mean to get your dander up, but your post was just so emotionally charged. I just didn't agree...sorry.

Ryan said...

Perhaps EW and others compare it to Harry Potter not because of quality or even a similarity between the stories, but more based upon the reaction it is getting among fans of a similar age group? I'm not sure.

I've not read any of the Twilight books, but they sound very similar to the vampire series written by Amelia Atwater-Rhodes, the precocious young author who admitted to taking stories directly from Buffy. I don't know much about the Twilight books, but I've heard many reviews that are similar to yours - I'd rather watch Buffy :)

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to sway anyone else's opinions. I have never seen more than maybe 5 minutes of Buffy, so I can't argue if it's a rip off or anything of that show. But I do understand why Buffy fans might not like the books; they're in love with the vampires they know from that series, not Stephanie's. It's the same with me and anything that I think looks like it's a rip off of Harry Potter. I have a younger sister who watches "Wizards of Waverly Place" and I cannot stand that show, even though I've never seen more that a few promos, just because it looks like Disney said "Harry Potter's cool, so we'll do a show about teen wizards too!". So I get where you're coming from, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this...

Anonymous said...

When I was a teenage girl, my favourite book was The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury. I will admit to reading Harlequin Romances at the home where I babysat, but I could get through one of those by the time they parents got home, and I was over them by the time I was fourteen.

Yes, in this day of video games and downloads, I'm happy to see a kid reading at all. But a diet of ice cream sundaes isn't healthy for anyone, and I would hope that given quality choices, teenagers would turn against the schlock themselves. Now I have to find that chapter from Twilight I was given at Comic Con to see if it's as bad as I suspect it to be.

And Sofia, I would say that Buffy fans don't necessarily like Twilight because Buffy is well-written, not because the vampires are different. I, for one, was quite taken with Lestat.

Nikki Stafford said...

Ryan: I agree, I think people are calling Meyer the next JK Rowling because of the sales of the books, which have been astronomical.

sofia: You have a good point: usually the thing we see first colors everything to come after. That said, I've read a lot of vampire fiction, and this one is fine as far as the vamp stuff goes. I actually said that in my review, that what the sun does to these vampires is intriguing (hint: It doesn't involve disintegration, burning, smouldering, or burning), and the vamp stuff itself is fine. I complained that she'd ripped off some characters and situations from Buffy... but then again, that's if she's actually seen it. :)

I'm a fan of other vamp fiction, still have a special place in my heart for Dracula, I worship Lestat, loved The Historian until the final 75 pages or so, etc. So it's not the vamp stuff I disagree with -- in fact, it's the vamp stuff that actually kept me reading to the end. If Edward had just been really hot and not been a vampire, I wouldn't have finished the book, I don't think. :)

Unknown said...

Nikki I was also living under a rock because I just read these books in the past week, somehow not noticing they existed before now. I agree with a lot of your points about the characters, the writing and the repetition. I have to agree with Sean, though, that for a simple summer read I was ok with letting my brain go for a while. Sure the relationships are pretty whacked out but I did totally fall for Edward (even if he is a controlling DICK) and did get sucked in by the story.
The first one is the only ok one of the bunch - the 4th one is just bad on so many levels.

Anonymous said...

Thank you!!! Someone who agrees with me! All of my friends think that its better than Harry Potter, but it is very very very far from it. And they are delaying the release of the 6th Harry Potter movie to release Twilight.... NOT FAIR! And Twilight is the most predictable book in the world. I dont understand what all the hype is about.

Michelle Rowen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michelle Rowen said...

I have to respectfully disagree with you... I thought Twilight was very good and despite being a rabid Buffy fan, the only similarity I saw between Bella/Edward and Buffy/Angel is the fact that she's human and he's a vamp. The books are definitely not perfect (the heroine is the most passive creature I've ever read about...SOOO not Buffy kick-ass), and I hear the last one blows, but I think they're very entertaining (I'm halfway through the third as we speak!) :-)

It is essentially a romance novel, so if you're not into those, this one definitely won't cut the mustard.

BTW, the werewolf character is fabulous in the next book and you should give him a try. NOTHING like Oz. ;-)

Nikki Stafford said...

Oh Michelle, don't do this to me. :) I find from your comments you and I agree on many of the same things, and now you're urging me to keep reading... ack! I'm so torn now. At this point, as I said in my post (I think), I'm a tiny bit curious as to how everything will play out. But the backlash on that final book that's garnered huge complaints from even the diehard fans who put up giant fansites throughout the series has me worried. Part of me wants to, for the first time in my life, simply seek out really good synopses so I don't have to read them.

But man... a Buffy fan telling me he makes a better werewolf than Oz is very intriguing to me...


Emilia said...

As much as I hate to lean on the "at least they're reading" least they're reading. Would I rather teenage girls were obsessing over a book with a little more complexity and substance? Of course. But I've heard a lot of stories about people who didn't consider themselves competent readers until they tackled the Harry Potter books, then gained the confidence to keep reading. I hope that is the situation with the Twilight books as well.

Michelle Rowen said...

Nikki... I didn't say he's a better werewolf. Nobody beats my Oz! (I watch family guy just so I can connect on some strange level with SG). But he's definitely... yes yes yes. If you're not an Edward fan you will be a fan of the other guy. Kind of like the Spike/Angel debate. Fans are definitely split into two very vocal teams!

Bella is, in a word, ridiculous. If she stresses about making dinner for her father one more time I'm going to throw up. And she has no sense of humor.

Read New Moon and SEE if you can resist the rest of the series. It's crack, I tell you. CRACK. ;-)

And an interesting sidenote is that the author is planning another book -- Twilight rewritten from Edward's POV. I am curious. Sigh.

Hey. It's better than Moonlight. *g* (hated that show)

Anonymous said...

here's some tongue-in-cheek summaries of all 4 books that just might do the trick:

i've read the first 3, haven't read the last one yet. i actually enjoyed them. were they great literature? no. but as a fluffy summer read, they were (mostly) passable. other than the aforementioned werewolf, who is the most obnoxious, annoying, arrogant, juvenile character ever to grace literature since ron weasley. seriously, his attitude and actions alone were enough to put me off continuing the series after the second book. and, oh, did i mention the part where he basically forces himself on bella despite her repeatedly telling him she isn't interested? yes, because that's an excellent message to send to teenage girls. nothing like a little physical assault to convince you of a boy's love for you. :-| seriously, i almost didn't continue reading the series, i hated the character so much -- more than bella, even, and that's saying something.

quite honestly, i don't see much resemblance to buffy at all, other than the human girl and vamp boy. that's where it ends. and really, joss whedon, much as i love him, isn't the first person to invent cross-species love affairs. but then again, i'm not a buffy fanatic, so maybe i'm missing something. there was much left to be desired from the twilight series, but i've certainly read worse.

Anonymous said...

fans of the books didn't like the last one only because edward does end up marrying bella. they were all hoping it would end with "edward looked up at the girl reading this book. 'will you marry me?' he asked"

i sort of like the last one, simply because it was NOT what i was expecting in any way at all...

YolandaAsh said...

Ok I thought these books were RIDICULOUS but laced with crack.I will agree with Michelle. Jacob was my reason to keep reading, and the only reason I made it through Breaking Dawn. So it would make me feel a smidge better if you could get through the second book and liked Jacob's character. (and I never knew why Bella liked Edward in the first place he was such a ^&*&*)

Michelle Rowen said...

other than the aforementioned werewolf, who is the most obnoxious, annoying, arrogant, juvenile character ever to grace literature since ron weasley. seriously, his attitude and actions alone were enough to put me off continuing the series after the second book

Interesting. But WRONG! LOL! Jacob is THE BEST!!! ;-)

Spuffy forever!

Cedar said...

Nikki, you made my day once again. I tried to read Twilight. It was recommended to me because of the vampires. (Everyone thinks I like vampires just because I like Buffy. However, the vampire material is not the reason I like Buffy. The brilliant writing is the main reason I like Buffy.) Anyhow, I didn't make it beyond the first kiss in Twilight. The horror, the horror--the complete lack of rhetorical sophistication! Plus Meyer does not know the difference between "who" and "whom." Still, she had a good idea, and it worked out for her--you've got to give her credit for that.

Nikki Stafford said...

Your comments are all so interesting, because as I said in my post, the thing I hated the most about Edward was the fact that he drew me in. ARGH. Every page he wasn't on, I was bored stiff. When he was on the page, I couldn't turn them fast enough. I've seen criticisms of the book since I wrote my post saying that the problem with the book is that there's no action until the final 120 pages, and that you have to wait that long until it gets interesting. I'd argue the opposite: the last 1/3 of the book was dead boring to me. No Edward, my interest gone.

So I read articles saying there are Team Edward people and Team Jacob people, and I thought, "Who the hell is on Team Jacob? He's dull as dirt." But then again, he's also sweet, and only in a couple of scenes. So for all the Jacobites or Jacobeans or whatever you're calling yourselves out there, when did you start to like him? The first book or the second? Because if you liked him from the beginning, I'm not sure we'll ever be on the same team. ;) But if he does something different in the second book, I could see it.

Anonymous said...

I'm team Jacob all the way, because he was there for Bella when Edward.... *spoilers...* um... does something obnoxious and bad... yeah. he's the main focus of the 2nd book, and thats when i went onto his team. he actually cares about Bella.

YolandaAsh said...

I am with Sofia, in the first book I thought he was unimpressive but in the second book again without spoilers you see him become a character and not a plot advancement (What the love of my life is a VAMPIRE!?!) And based on your comments Nikki I think you will side with us. Jacob is basically everything Edward isn't, caring suporttive, and awesome (in a completely unbiased opinion of course).

Ian said...

Thank you for saving me from further deliberation on whether to read it or not.

Anonymous said...

After reading your blog post, it's taken me a long time to decide to try the book for myself. It's sitting on my desk, waiting to be cracked open.
I linked your blog post to my blog post yesterday. :)

Gillian Whitfield said...

I know that I'm WAY late for this, but for a brief while, I sort of liked Twilight (and when I say brief, I mean brief), but now I can't stand it. I couldn't finish the last one. It was forever on my bookshelf with the bookmark in place.

I had to FORCE myself to finish the third one. And I just skimmed over it, taking in a little. Today, if you were to go through my house, you wouldn't find a THING related to Twilight and I'm at the age when I should like it (16).