Let's Have Some Fun (Twilight Edition 1)
Soooo, welcome to my new "thing" that I'm going to be doing. It's called Let's Have Some Fun, and basically it entails ripping apart any book that comes with my evil grasp.
A Detailed "Review" of the "Novel" Twilight by Stephenie Meyer:
tl;dr: This novel sucks, and I've just pulled a l REAL iterature student over Smeyer and explained why in a detailed analytical form.
Title: Twilight
Notes:
Okay, seriously? What a sappy title. I mean, one-word titles are really overdone nowadays, to the point where unless they're really tightly connected to the text they just seem cliched and sappy.
Besides, what does "twilight" have to do with vampires? It's not like it's a safe time for Smeyer's vampires, anymore than day or night. In traditional vampire lore, vampires are creatures of the night, not the half dark. Really, twilight isn't particularly relevant. I mean, I can see how it might be the time when humans and vampires can roam at the same time, but unless this is going to be a tense, suspenseful horror novel, then it's really just a sappy title used by someone who is trying to mimic vampire lore and failing.
Epigraph: quote from the Bible (Genesis 2:17)
Notes:
I will be the first to admit that I like epigraphs. There are some amazing books that have been written using them - think The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald) - so I can hardly reproach an author for using them. However, there's just something a bit... rotten about quoting from the Bible unless you're going to have heavy religious or moral overtones in your novel.
Alright, so I'll give Smeyer the benefit of the doubt. Let's take a look at the messages in her novel. Without getting too far ahead of myself, here are some themes that I can think of: the choices we make in life and the ethics of living as a vampire. Wrapped in there is the religious idea of redemption, too. So, based on that, there could be an argument for the use of a religious quote. So, let's take a look at the quote:
"17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (King James Bible, Genesis 2:17)
Now, I'll admit that I'm not particularly religious, and therefore not an avid reader of the Bible. However, I do have ground knowledge in it, having studied it in RE at school. I can therefore take a decent shot at interpreting this passage. The tree of knowledge is a tree which contains in its fruit the knowledge of the ways of the world. Adam and Even were born "innocent", like children who played in the garden. However, if they were to eat the fruit from this tree, they would "grow up" (in a modern sense) and become educated in the ways of the world, for example that evil exists. The second half ("thou shalt surely die") indicates that if Adam and Eve were to disobey God's order not to eat the fruit they would die a spiritual death. Of course, they do not really die, but they lose their connection to God, and lose their innocence, instead becoming sinful humans.
The use of this quote implies the fact that humans have chosen to become creatures of sin. Now, to connect this with the idea of vampires: in traditional lore, vampires are the embodiment of creatures of sin, as they feast on human blood. However, this quote refers (in the Biblical sense) only to humans. On the other hand, Smeyer is implying that Bella Swan's choice to become a vampire is a "good" choice.
Furthermore, this quite indicates a discussion of ethics, though without actually partaking in the discussion. The idea is twofold: firstly, it would be unethical for Adam and Eve to disobey God and eat from the tree. Secondly, it implies that the knowledge that they gain from eating from the tree would include knowledge of unethical conduct. Contrary to this, in her novel, Smeyer is talking about ethics on a very basic level. In a sense, she makes "vampire ethics" equal to "human ethics", holding them both to the same ethical standing. This means that the act of a vampire drinking animal blood is acceptable (animals being of lower standing than humans) but the drinking of human blood is not.
Lastly, one must consider the symbolic act of eating from the tree of knowledge and therefore gaining knowledge of evil. Smeyer seems to be holding her characters up as the pinnacle of moral goodness, so presumably comparing them to Adam and Eve before the Fall. This is also shown in the particular quote that she chose, which is merely one of God's orders, and not a description of them disobeying the order. It seems extremely hypocritical for her to compare her characters to ancient Biblical figures. She is merely a twenty-first century writer, and can never claim to hold her books to the same standard as the most famous text ever written. Furthermore, it goes completely against any religion to compare Edward, a vampire, to a Biblical figure. This, in my opinion, is borderline heresy: to compare a creature of sin and darkness, to a human at the time when humans were still pure, innocent creatures.
All in all, it should be said that though there are moral messages in the novel, they do not particularly coincide with this quotation. I would like to make a point of saying that Smeyer insists that her novel be read from an ethical point of view, and from a surface point of view as a romance novel. However, she seems to avoid defining it as a religious novel. The religious overones do exist, but in order to relate them to the epigraph, one must read deeper than what the author seems to want us to read.
What does this mean? Essentially, the religious overtones do exist, and the epigraph draws attention to them. One must remember that Smeyer is a Mormon, and Mormon values are reflected in the text. The question is whether these are there purposely, or merely because that is all the author knows. This is a discussion that will definitely be coming up later on in my commentary.
Chapter 0: Preface
Notes:
Okay, first and foremost, I have one major point to make. When I was first writing this part, I made the mistake of writing "prologue", not "preface". I quickly noptied my mistake when I referred back to the text, and corrected it. However, as I did, a thought occured to me: a "preface" is something that is usually found in non-fiction texts, comparable to a "foreword". So, I googled the definition of preface, because I don't have my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary handy. Here's what it came up with:
noun /ˈprefəs/
prefaces, plural
Now, let's take a look at the "preface":
Subject of the novel: vampire romance.
Mentions in preface: none.
Scope of novel: romance novel that covers moral and ethical choices surrounding the undead, designed for adolescent females.
Mentions in preface: none.
Aim of novel: entertainment.
Mentioned in preface: none.
Essentially, instead of laying down these facts, the preface acts as a prologue and gives teaser introduction into the tone of the novel. We can therefore safely say that "preface" is a mis-nomer. This, in fact, a "prologue":
noun /ˈprōˌlôg/ /-ˌläg/
prologs, plural; prologues, plural
The first thing that I took notice of whilst reading was her language. For someone who alledgedly studied English Literature at university (or college, whatever), she presents a very poor grasp of literary language.
A Detailed "Review" of the "Novel" Twilight by Stephenie Meyer:
tl;dr: This novel sucks, and I've just pulled a l REAL iterature student over Smeyer and explained why in a detailed analytical form.
Title: Twilight
Notes:
Okay, seriously? What a sappy title. I mean, one-word titles are really overdone nowadays, to the point where unless they're really tightly connected to the text they just seem cliched and sappy.
Besides, what does "twilight" have to do with vampires? It's not like it's a safe time for Smeyer's vampires, anymore than day or night. In traditional vampire lore, vampires are creatures of the night, not the half dark. Really, twilight isn't particularly relevant. I mean, I can see how it might be the time when humans and vampires can roam at the same time, but unless this is going to be a tense, suspenseful horror novel, then it's really just a sappy title used by someone who is trying to mimic vampire lore and failing.
Epigraph: quote from the Bible (Genesis 2:17)
Notes:
I will be the first to admit that I like epigraphs. There are some amazing books that have been written using them - think The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald) - so I can hardly reproach an author for using them. However, there's just something a bit... rotten about quoting from the Bible unless you're going to have heavy religious or moral overtones in your novel.
Alright, so I'll give Smeyer the benefit of the doubt. Let's take a look at the messages in her novel. Without getting too far ahead of myself, here are some themes that I can think of: the choices we make in life and the ethics of living as a vampire. Wrapped in there is the religious idea of redemption, too. So, based on that, there could be an argument for the use of a religious quote. So, let's take a look at the quote:
"17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (King James Bible, Genesis 2:17)
Now, I'll admit that I'm not particularly religious, and therefore not an avid reader of the Bible. However, I do have ground knowledge in it, having studied it in RE at school. I can therefore take a decent shot at interpreting this passage. The tree of knowledge is a tree which contains in its fruit the knowledge of the ways of the world. Adam and Even were born "innocent", like children who played in the garden. However, if they were to eat the fruit from this tree, they would "grow up" (in a modern sense) and become educated in the ways of the world, for example that evil exists. The second half ("thou shalt surely die") indicates that if Adam and Eve were to disobey God's order not to eat the fruit they would die a spiritual death. Of course, they do not really die, but they lose their connection to God, and lose their innocence, instead becoming sinful humans.
The use of this quote implies the fact that humans have chosen to become creatures of sin. Now, to connect this with the idea of vampires: in traditional lore, vampires are the embodiment of creatures of sin, as they feast on human blood. However, this quote refers (in the Biblical sense) only to humans. On the other hand, Smeyer is implying that Bella Swan's choice to become a vampire is a "good" choice.
Furthermore, this quite indicates a discussion of ethics, though without actually partaking in the discussion. The idea is twofold: firstly, it would be unethical for Adam and Eve to disobey God and eat from the tree. Secondly, it implies that the knowledge that they gain from eating from the tree would include knowledge of unethical conduct. Contrary to this, in her novel, Smeyer is talking about ethics on a very basic level. In a sense, she makes "vampire ethics" equal to "human ethics", holding them both to the same ethical standing. This means that the act of a vampire drinking animal blood is acceptable (animals being of lower standing than humans) but the drinking of human blood is not.
Lastly, one must consider the symbolic act of eating from the tree of knowledge and therefore gaining knowledge of evil. Smeyer seems to be holding her characters up as the pinnacle of moral goodness, so presumably comparing them to Adam and Eve before the Fall. This is also shown in the particular quote that she chose, which is merely one of God's orders, and not a description of them disobeying the order. It seems extremely hypocritical for her to compare her characters to ancient Biblical figures. She is merely a twenty-first century writer, and can never claim to hold her books to the same standard as the most famous text ever written. Furthermore, it goes completely against any religion to compare Edward, a vampire, to a Biblical figure. This, in my opinion, is borderline heresy: to compare a creature of sin and darkness, to a human at the time when humans were still pure, innocent creatures.
All in all, it should be said that though there are moral messages in the novel, they do not particularly coincide with this quotation. I would like to make a point of saying that Smeyer insists that her novel be read from an ethical point of view, and from a surface point of view as a romance novel. However, she seems to avoid defining it as a religious novel. The religious overones do exist, but in order to relate them to the epigraph, one must read deeper than what the author seems to want us to read.
What does this mean? Essentially, the religious overtones do exist, and the epigraph draws attention to them. One must remember that Smeyer is a Mormon, and Mormon values are reflected in the text. The question is whether these are there purposely, or merely because that is all the author knows. This is a discussion that will definitely be coming up later on in my commentary.
Chapter 0: Preface
Notes:
Okay, first and foremost, I have one major point to make. When I was first writing this part, I made the mistake of writing "prologue", not "preface". I quickly noptied my mistake when I referred back to the text, and corrected it. However, as I did, a thought occured to me: a "preface" is something that is usually found in non-fiction texts, comparable to a "foreword". So, I googled the definition of preface, because I don't have my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary handy. Here's what it came up with:
noun /ˈprefəs/
prefaces, plural
- An introduction to a book, typically stating its subject, scope, or aims
- The introduction or preliminary part of a speech or event
- The introduction to the central part of the Eucharist, historically forming the first part of the canon or prayer of consecration
Now, let's take a look at the "preface":
Subject of the novel: vampire romance.
Mentions in preface: none.
Scope of novel: romance novel that covers moral and ethical choices surrounding the undead, designed for adolescent females.
Mentions in preface: none.
Aim of novel: entertainment.
Mentioned in preface: none.
Essentially, instead of laying down these facts, the preface acts as a prologue and gives teaser introduction into the tone of the novel. We can therefore safely say that "preface" is a mis-nomer. This, in fact, a "prologue":
noun /ˈprōˌlôg/ /-ˌläg/
prologs, plural; prologues, plural
- A separate introductory section of a literary or musical work
- - this idea is outlined in the prologue
- An event or action that leads to another event or situation
- - civil unrest in a few isolated villages became the prologue to widespread rebellion
- (in professional cycling) A short preliminary time trial held before a race to establish a leader
- The actor who delivers the prologue in a play
The first thing that I took notice of whilst reading was her language. For someone who alledgedly studied English Literature at university (or college, whatever), she presents a very poor grasp of literary language.