Book Review: The "TWILIGHT" Zone

Disclaimer: May be deemed biased and hurtful by Twilight fans (but may be deemed truthful by Twilight haters). May be deemed pointless by people who've never read it. In case the last applies to you, you may want to read the book first. I wouldn't want to damage your perceptions just yet. Note to Meyer fans, feel free to plan my murder/assassination.

"Twilight," the debut novel of first-time author Stephenie Meyer, has been making waves for the past several months. Some of my friends have strongly recommended it, some practically swear by it. Some call her the "heir to the throne of J.K. Rowling." Some even go as far as calling Meyer a "literary genius," and calling Twilight the "literary masterpiece of the century."

I was intrigued. Surely, I thought, only a work that is hands-down laudable can cause such a big splash in the international market. I haven't witnessed the type of book-hype that it generated since the advent of Harry Potter.
I've seen, and I'm sure you have too, this book perched daintily on The Shelf in all the proper bookstores. But, being a miser by nature, I wasn't about to cash out 500 bucks for one book. I shop in Booksale, not Fully Booked, you know.

And so, I haven't had the chance to read it until someone sent me an e-book.

Saturday, September 20, I sat down in front of my computer and read it. Five hours later, well...

First, I want to talk about the positive.

1 Meyer knows her target audience well, and plays on description that appeals to them to catch their attention.
2 She also completely ignored The Vampire Cannon (sleeping in coffins, turning into bats, etc) and made her own version of vampires. Props for originality.
3 The book is also a good piece of entertainment, and Meyer writes well enough to keep nice images of the setting in your head.
4 She played on an aspect of romance, forbidden love, that made the framework interesting.
5 She also did a considerable job of making sure that her readers see vampires as good creatures, despite the sucking blood thing. The benefit of the doubt, and that all creatures must be granted that.
6 Most importantly, however, it made people read. Any book that makes people want to read is laudable.

Now, for the considerably longer list of things I hated about it... Organized according to The Beginning, The Muddle, The End, and The Thing I Hated The Most. (If you don't have enough time to read this, just read the last section, up to the conclusion. I have the most conviction there.)

[The Beginning]

1 POV. Her new friends, teachers, environment, and situation got described in the first person narrative that felt strained at times. That’s forgivable, since that’s what usually happens with such a POV and a writer who uses it for the first few times. Somehow, it had the feel of something Ann Martin might have written before she discovered the wonders (and potential) of BSC. Ann Martin writes in this genre and for the same target audience too, so excuse me I can’t help but compare.

2 IT'S A HYPE BOOK. Not that that should be taken against it, but most hype books are... 90% just hype. There's a mass psychosis that makes people think that if other people think it's good, then it must be good, and they think it's good before they even read it. Hype book status is like pre-reading brainwashing. And they feel like if they disagree they're not cool. Hey, I admit, the first few days I was hesitant to broadcast that I hated Twilight. Then I met people who hated it too, and were afraid to admit it too. We bonded over that fact. Yes, we feel much safer now.

[The Muddle]

3 ADVERB ABUSE. Seriously. Like JK, she abused adverbs like hell. Like she never met an adverb she didn't like. This is a book deal-breaker people. Form isn't more important than content, but it counts.

My favorite example of adverb abuse from the book?
"He chuckled blackly."

4 ADJECTIVES. Meyer described physical features too much. (That may be the understatement of the epoch). How many times did she say that Edward is (insert every synonym of handsome you can think of)??? I think she did it twice every ten pages. From the "muscled chest" to the "artfully gelled spikes," the book paid more attention to Edward's pulchritude (hah, now that's a word Meyer forgot to use) than the other things that might have been more conducive to character and plot development.

And note how she kept repeating how “attractive” the Cullens and the Hales were from the get-go. Say it once, okay. Say it twice, that’s fine too. Three times, four, five... When you repeat it every couple of pages, it becomes wearisome. Unless it’s a poem or you swear by anaphora, then that’s just irritating. Meyer was doing neither, obviously. I got the feeling that she did that so as to completely ingrain the thought that Edward was the most stunning person on the planet, and to build the backdrop of what was to come later. In short, I thought she was brainwashing the readers. Hey... Wait a second...

Typical conversation with fangirl:

Me: What's Twilight about?

Fangirl: Edward!!! He's so handsome (and synonyms)!!!!!!!!!!! *blush, swoon, sigh*

Me: I was, uhm, asking about the story...

Fangirl: Oh, there's this girl, Bella, and she moved to Forks and met *blush, swoon, sigh* Edward!!! He's so handsome (and synonyms)!!!

Me: *confused look* THAT'S the story? Edward is handsome?

Fangirl: Well, no, but... EDWARD!!!!!!!! EDDDWAAAARD!!!!!!!!

Me: *nods in pretend comprehension*

She WAS brainwashing. And it worked on the fans.

And while people might find the repetition of physical attributes amusing, it makes one wonder whether there isn’t anything else to say.
Note.

There was this line:
“Edward Cullen was not... human. He was something more.”
And I realized I underestimated Meyer's powers of brainwashing. All the other vampire novels I’ve read say that vampires are “something less,” not “something more” than human. Consciously or unconsciously, she’s building an image that her target audience would blindly adore. Consider how she never used the word fangs, given that this is a vampire novel.

5 THESAURIZATION AND OTHER WORD CRIMES. While I was reading the novel I felt like Meyer had her thesaurus open all the while she was writing it. Seriously. And I quote Stephen King, "Any word you search for in the thesaurus is the wrong word--no exceptions." There were so many inappropriately used words I'll leave you to look for them yourself.

Here's my favorite word-crime line:
“Desolation hit me with crippling strength.”

Oh, masterful, masterful use of words, Ms. Meyer. Science fiction, much? Loneliness is NOT desolation. I know the thesaurus lists it as a synonym, but it just doesn't work this way.
Here's another one:

“Again, his mobile features transformed...”
Uh, what?

6 CLICHES. Massive, glaring cliches. Read the book (or read it again) and see how many cliches you can find. Sources say about three-fourths of the book is made up of worn-out and already overplayed ideas. I mean, from the beginning, the scene was "new girl goes to new town." How many fanfictions, movies, tv series, and published novels have begun with that?

7 LACK OF A DETERMINATE STRUCTURE. (Imagine a bunch of wooden blocks, all stacked up on top of each other. Now imagine that those blocks are plot elements. Take one out, and the entire thing comes crashing down.) Twilight's plot was so loose that even if you removed the first 200 pages, and virtually any section after that, it would have still not affected the last 150 pages. And about those first 200 pages... It takes that long for Bella to say that she looks average, is clumsy, is insecure, is a good daughter, is smart, and is observant. Unfortunately, that's as far as she got. Because after that the story revolved around Edward. Odd, you'd think you'd know more about Bella since she was narrating it.

8 CONFLICT. Meyer tried (and failed) to produce the inevitable, plot-induced conflict. I was actually squinting at every page to coerce the beginnings of the conflict out of hiding. It was odd. She kept trying to present a conflict, and it just didn't happen, so she ended up telling the reader what the conflict is, instead. Come on. Again, no determinate structure.

9 CHEESINESS. This book is very, extremely, completely, unabashedly, totally, genuinely, indubitably, really, truly, undoubtedly, unquestionably and veritably CHEESY! (See, the thesaurus is annoying.) It's the epitome of the "Chick" genre. They were looking into each other's "glorious, agonized eyes" for waaaaay too long I wanted something else, anything else, to happen to the story. Because right around the middle the story stopped on account of hand-holding and face-touching. The blind man that does massages down the street would've been so proud. By the time James arrived I was rooting for him I actually wanted him to kill someone, just so it'd be interesting. I don't think I even have enough adjectives to express how cheesy this novel is. And for fear of turning into an overly-describing writer, I won't. I know that since it IS a romance novel, it is SUPPOSED to all mushy and stuff, but there comes a point when cheesiness becomes intolerable.

Oh, yeah, show, don't tell. Here you go--

“He threw me over his stone shoulder, gently, but with a swiftness that left me breathless. I protested as he carried me easily down the stairs, but he ignored me.”
“That was the first night I dreamed of Edward Cullen.”
“It makes me... anxious... to be away from you. I wasn’t joking when I asked you try not to fall into the ocean or get run over last Thursday.”
“Besides, since I’d come to Forks, it really seemed like my life was about him.”
“I feel very safe with you.”
“You are my life now.”
“I’ll always want you,” I warned him. “Forever.”

10 SHORTCUTS. Waaaay too many shortcuts. About 40 pages after they met, (a week, or something) this line already appeared:
“It would be more... prudent for you not to be my friend, but I’m tired of trying to stay away from you, Bella.”
Barely anything happened, and then that. This is just one example of the many many shortcuts. A lot of the time the scenes felt contrived. Character development also took major shortcuts.

11 MAIN CHARACTER RELATIONSHIP.

Me: I'm sure you didn't notice, but the glue that held Bella's and Edward's relationship is curiosity and sex appeal. They didn't actually get beyond that.

Fangirl: No!!! They were in-love! They loved each other!!! It was sooo romantic!!!

Me: (Wow she's a major fangirl) Are you sure you're not getting a little carried aw--

Fangirl: Come on! Their love was so amazing... *sigh* They were meant for each other. The book actually touched me so much, it made me cry... It was such a beautiful romance...

Me: (It made me want to puke last night's dinner) Okay, maybe I missed that part. (Not.)

They were thrust together not by fate or circumstance, but by plain authorial fiat. The same authorial fiat locked them together in a face-touching, constant-dithering state-- and this worked because Meyer took away every shred of Bella's self-esteem, self-worth and self-preservation. In fact, this is the only way the plot could've ever worked.
Okay, so you're disagreeing with the "curiosity and sex appeal" part. I'll explain.
80 pages into the novel, the element of “I can’t read you but I want to” was introduced more specifically. From then on, that is where the story was banked. They kept trying to "get to know" each other. And they talked at length about, what else, themselves. The curiosity kept them together. Over and over again, they conversed about their "feeeeeelings" and their "perfect relationship" (which was mostly just staring googly-eyed at each other.) I don't know about you, but it's annoying when all book characters talk about is themselves. I was literally cringing for the majority of the time I was reading it. As for the sex appeal, see "ADJECTIVES."

Note.
Maybe the reason Edward couldn't read Bella's mind was because there was nothing in it.

[The End]

Refer to Number 6. How many fanfictions, movies, tv series, and published novels have ended with that? And, also, refer to Number 9 while you're at it.

[The Thing I Hated the Most]

IT'S LIKE FEMINISM NEVER EVEN HAPPENED.
Do a lot of girls really desire to be in a relationship where they don't exist apart from their partner? Bella didn't have friends--she ditched them when she and Edward hooked up. (And THAT was bad.) She spent every minute with Edward and her family and I quote "Edward was my life."
What about her own life? What about what she wanted to do for herself?
It's like Meyer is saying, sure, go ahead, it's alright to throw your entire future and individuality away if you're in love. Don't use your head. What career? What future? No go for the apron and the wedding ring! Before the story even ended, they were already talking about marriage. Bella was obsessed, no other word for it.

And for those reasons I declare:

ISABELLA SWAN SUCKS. She is a weak and pathetic person easily blinded by good looks and sex appeal. For a protagonist, she's very unlikable. Clumsy, irrational, and begging to be saved. Her complete lack of any sense of self-preservation was scary. From the figurative self-immolation at the very beginning, to the literal self-immolation every so often during the story, it would have done everybody a favor if she just died when that van came reeling in her direction. Pity the other protagonist saved her life. (Spot that cliche!)
She was literally tripping over her own feet, AND flirting in the process. I'm sorry, second-rate heroines just don't cut it.

Here's a passage that illustrates said self-immolation:

“I intuitively knew — and sensed he did, too — that tomorrow would be pivotal. Our relationship couldn’t continue to balance, as it did, on the point of a knife. We would fall off one edge or the other, depending entirely upon his decision, or his instincts. My decision was made, made before I’d ever consciously chosen, and I was committed to seeing it through. Because there was nothing more terrifying to me, more excruciating, than the thought of turning away from him. It was an impossibility.”

Now that's stupid. Literally walking into literal death just because you're in love. And don't give me your hopeless romantic nonesense, even the hopeless of the hopeless would think twice. Only Meyer's character has the complete lack of self-esteem, self-preservation, and self-worth to do so. I wanted to jump into the book and slap some sense into Bella.

And did nobody notice that if you take away the little factoid that Edward was, to use fangirl talk, "totally totally hot," that he was a creepy stalker, totally possessive, and was too domineering? Is it okay to be in a relationship where you are seriously undermined, just because the guy is "totally totally hot?" Is possessiveness romantic? Is this the thirteenth century?

I feel like if Simone de Beauvoir (author of Le Deuxième Sexe and an existential feminist) was living today, she'd chuck Twilight into the garbage bin and give Stephenie Meyer a piece of her mind.

"The basic options of an individual must be made on the premises of an equal vocation for man and woman founded on a common structure of their being, independent of their sexuality."

At one point, she actually allowed herself to be compared to a lamb. Let’s review, shall we. Lambs are the animals usually depicted as stupid and would follow whatever is told to them. Thanks, George Orwell. And, let’s say I didn’t know Edward was a vampire. Then some of the dialogues would simply come off as he’s a self-important spoiled kid whose victim is willing to be victimized.

Beyond the mushiness, beyond the "I Love You, You Love Me" concept and the "world-colliding" romance was the immemorial theme of man's transcendence and woman's inferiority. Obviously, women (both in fiction and real life) have already surpassed this prejudice. So what was Meyer's business, bashing feminism like that?

Take Medea, from the play by Euripedes. Now she was one woman who took care of things. Consider, too, Vittoria Vetra, Hermione Granger, Oprah Winfrey, Condoleeza Rice and a million other women out there.

Bella is mental and Edward should get a life. Pun intended.

It's really, really like feminism never even happened. It worries me that this book is sending the wrong message to women readers, especially the young ones. After all, this is YA fiction. This book implies reliance and dependence on men, that, frankly, is an unhealthy conviction.

Regardless of the fact that Edward was supernatural, EVERYBODY should take care of their own problems.

[Conclusion]

Despite all this criticism, there is a part I liked.

VAMPIRE BASEBALL. Not kidding. I was amused by that one. And from that scene to the part where Bella almost (darn it) died, I actually paid attention. To me, James was the most interesting character. Edward was dispatched far too easily. Bella exhibited major dim-wittedness during this (come on, the ballet room had a VCR) but it was really the only thing in the book that warranted both eyes on the screen. (Paper, if you want to get literal).

After that, it was just a cliche that made the fangirls swoon, I'm sure.

Criticisms aside, I think that the advent of Twilight is good because of the simple fact that it's a book that majority of people like to read. It's actually my fault that I read it, and for that reason it's my fault that it disagreed with me.
I let myself be led into the Twilight wagon-- only to jump out and hit the ground running moments later.
I HATE TWILIGHT. There. I said it. And if you still don't see my point... I'll let Haruki Murakami take it from here.

"If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. That's the world of hicks and slobs. Real people would be ashamed of themselves doing that."