Is Twilight‘s Appeal A Generational Dog Whistle?

It's less a question of how well-written they are that the fact that they glorify abusive relationships, they're blatantly sexist, they deny free will, etc. Adding that on top of the bad writing, it's hard to see how Twilight could be the new Beatles. I'm part of the Twilight generation, sadly, and it is as bad as they seem, there's no particular "thing" that makes people love them. When I've asked my peers, they've come up with "Edward is hot!" and that's pretty much it. But it's still an abusive relationship, the books are still shit, and the fad isn't going to change that, haha.

I think you missed the gender aspect of this films attraction. It's not generational. Look in those theaters - they are filled with older women, as well as younger ones.

It's a geek series, aimed primarily at women. After decades of geek stuff aimed primarily at men, it's a bit surprising to see the snarky reaction of those same geek guys to a small amount of geekiness aimed at women. What, is it encroaching on the grand male geek empire?

I just think that this is going to be like the Titanic movie. Remember how that was, at the time? I was in my early teens and I remember well. A few years on, these same girls who are now screaming their heads off for Edward and Jacob will be more than a little embarrassed by all of this. The only differences here, I think, is that Twilight has been amplified by the fact that is has both books and movies, and that they are multiple, and not a one-shot like Titanic.

The legions of non-teenaged fans kind of kill your premise, though. I'm in my early 30s, so I don't actually know any teenagers, but just about every woman I know swoons for the Twilight crap. The biggest fan Twilight fan I know is a good 15 years OLDER than me. And isn't one of the most online fanbases those creepy Twilight moms? This is isn't a generational thing.

But I do wonder if you're on to something but saying that the audience just doesn't want the irony and messiness of real life. We're taught to marry for love, but making that work is a lot harder than it sounds. I suppose that the idea of meeting some guy who becomes obsessed with you and then living happily ever after because "it's destiny" could be appealing.

I could only get through the first book, because yes, it IS that badly written. It's on the level of badly written fan fiction composed by 12-year-olds. (Harry Potter did have some examples of bad writing, but it was fairly literate and was far more complex and thoughtful than Twilight could ever hope to be.) But what I find most horrifying about Twilight is the underlying themes and messages and creepy religious undertones. I would hope that most of its fans would "grow out of it" the way my generation grew out of New Kids on the Block. But, of course, there's that huge segment of "grown-up" fans....

Harry potter has some terrible examples of writing . I have to ask is the critic just jealouse that JK rowling is more sucsessful then he or she is ? Harry Potter was written for kids as such it is a well written that manged to mix more then just fantasy it also had mistery suspence romance humor and murder everything that most fantasies don't always have it also didn'y write down to any one so the minute the critic give that kind of complaint it make me ignore him good day

Wayne Ligon,

I think your view point is very cool and not at female fearing. Thank God.

Honestly I never thought of it the way you have considered. Some women are hot for attractive yet unusual guys and women have a lot of anxiety about growing older, vulnerable, and responsible.

• Wayne why do you think these concerns transcend age.
• Why do you think guys are so afraid to accept these anxieties expressed by women?
• Do you think these concerns are appropriately expressed in popular culture?

THANK YOU for this article. I am big into comics and other things geek, but I also happen to be a Twi-hard. I get SO MUCH flack from my geek friends about it. They hate it! But, they hate it just to hate it ... or at least it seemed that way. I think your article really nails it on the head. I am about 5 to 10 years younger than most of them, and they tolerate me (reluctantly) when I geek out about Twilight.

There is something ... exhilarating about the unabashed romanticism in the Twilight books. I've heard all the arguments about the vampire lore being screwed to hell and Edward being an allegory for abuse & codependence. But, more often than that, it's just rejected outright because the fans are screaming too loud for some folks to even get close enough to pick up the book. I can't help but think there exists a desire to NOT be mainstream, to not be a part of such mass hysteria, and to think one is above such trivial fandom. To that I say I see that light saber in your closet.

I don't think it's a generational thing. I hear multiple comments from women in their twenties to thirties that they're a little weirded out by /their mothers/ crushing on a chiseled-abs 17-year-old.

I think a good chunk of it's success among the tween set hinges on two things. One is the beauty of the two main young men as well as the idea that at least Edward will never grow old and get fat or have hair in his ears. 100 years can pass and he can still flip a quarter with his ab muscles.

The other main appeal is a more universal one, which we see in all sorts of other popular media: both boys are outsiders to the normal culture and can rescue Bella from the oncoming grind of adult life, something that most 14-year-old have juuuust begun to realize is going to happen much, much sooner than they're ready for. Become a vampire, or go off into the forest with wolf-boy and you get to make your own rules for the rest of your life - it's like Summer Vacation that never ends.

Wayne Ligon,
I think your view point is very cool and not at female fearing. Thank God.
Honestly I never thought of it the way you have considered. Some women are hot for attractive yet unusual guys and women have a lot of anxiety about growing older, vulnerable, and responsible.
• Wayne why do you think these concerns transcend age.
• Why do you think guys are so afraid to accept these anxieties expressed by women?
• Do you think these concerns are appropriately expressed in popular culture?

No the books and movies are terrible, there's nothing wrong with you.

here's a why Twilight is popular:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4uuGvmAxTI

The thing that kills me about this franchise isn't the so much how Meyers completely mutilated the mythology of vampires (i.e. sparkles), but that the story is so completely and totally messed up. It promotes the absolutely worst morals to their readers (who are predominantly young girls). The story doesn't promote true love, but rather a really unhealthy relationship.

I mean, the girl goes around claiming true-love for a man who is physically beautiful, but has no other positive traits. He stalks her, but at the same time emotionally abuses her, and later begins to control aspects of her life, such as who she can and cannot be friends with. Meanwhile the girl forgo her personal identity for the sake of this supposedly 'perfect man', and when he leaves her, she tries to kill herself multiple times. And then there's stuff like the werewolf having a romantic fixation with a newborn baby. Or the main character essentially raping the girl when she passes out. What kind of message is this sending kids?

And as others have mentioned, the writing is terrible. Harry Potter, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other books and movies like those, had good writing. You didn't feel like you were reading bad fan fiction or watching a bad fan-film.

I think you have it backwards. Because, like you said, it's not well-written at all. It's terribly written, as the books are, too.

So, what you have is a group of people who ONLY appreciates it because they're the target of hormonal and emotional manipulation. The rest of us don't "get it" because it stinks.

Buffy stank, too, but the writing was only mediocre, not atrocious.

Well, as a 21 yr old. I caught all of the Harry Potter franchise, and as an avid reader i've gotten my hands on everything from Geoff's Blackest Night (hence me having this site saved to my favorites) to Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, and everything in-between such as Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson and Kane Chronicle's (both of which are great) so i can consider myself well-read, or at least say i get around. And i hated Twilight. I read every single 1, bc i love my gf and she asked me to read them with her...but i don't get it. Bella's annoying (which most twilight fans will admit, if u admit to having read the books and force them to consider ur words) Edward is possesive, Jacob needs a hobby (or ta get laid..) I just don't see what it has going for it. So no, don't think it's generational, not with the number of teenage girls, young women, and married mother's swooning over it. I just think w/o the perfect XX pairing, you can't get past how much it sucks to buy the love story that boarders on interdependancy that lies w/in.

To be brutally honest, I have not read the TWILIGHT novels, and have only seen a bit of the first film. So I'm not going to scream that it sucks or its god-awful or that this or that star from the movie looks like (add whatever snarky comment here).

Having said that, though, I'm not going to dismiss the whole franchise because, well, it is to me just a different type of vampire story. Let's face it--what if the reaction to TWILIGHT was the same type of reaction that greeted Ann Rice's INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE? Perhaps there are things that the fans of the series notice that we don't but I refuse to call them idiots or dimbulbs.

Maybe the best thing to do is to introduce them to other vampire stories, such as the VAMPIRE HUNTER D novels and films, the original I AM LEGEND novel and others such as 'SALEM'S LOT or even DRACULA.

The Toronto Star did a similar article when new moon was released: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/vampires/article/731460--critical-disdain-for-twilight-saga-is-beyond-the-pale

You know, the egregious, widespread popularity of something for a short period of time isn't enough to convince me it's good. The Twilight books are *terribly* written. That they're so goddamn popular, first of all, just speaks to the illiteracy of our culture in general. I'm a little older than you--I'm 39. But that didn't stop me from *loving* the Harry Potter novels, or *loving* James Patterson's Maximum Ride books For the record, I don't *like* Buffy. I like sincerity, not snark. Anne Rice was *my* vampire zeitgeist--and she's an actual *writer*, not a lucky hack. Why should you think that just because you don't jump on a bandwagon, that everyone else who does sees something you don't?

As a 16 year old, I think I understand what the writer is trying to say. A lot of my 30-something friends ADORE movies like "The Goonies" and such, and I'VE never understood their appeal. On the other hand, Someone explained the, quite frankly, unhealthy cultural obsession with Twilight: It's abstinance porn for Girls. I mean, let's be honest here. If you've had to read the books, as I have, then you know the whole purpose of the characters Jake and Edward is to be Bella's Eye Candy, and to fight over here. What I personally believe Ms. Meyer did was take what would be just a simple fanfic over here in the internet, sexualize the characters to the point where people kind of lust over them, without making it too much, published it, and then had an amazing marketer bring out all the romantic fanfic writers and fans into the open.

Because as a Guy, I can honestly speak when I've had more than 1 friend get dumped because they aren't their gal's Ideal. When asked, they ALL replied "edward" or "jake". Most of my friends hate twilight mainly for the fact that now it's about 10000x harder to even CONNECT with a girl, because they're drooling all over the characters.

I have a young daughter and the truly sad part is that a lot of these younger boys, younger than you, are trying to appear to be like Jake or Edward. As a dad with a daughter I naturally think all boys are idiots, but these little jerks have caught on. They put on this act of being like the Twilight boys and get the girls to swoon over them.

The Harry Potter novels are exceptionally well written. So much so that classes at Harvard are being offered to study the archetypes and myths JK Rowling wove into her stories. Twilight on the other hand is prepubescent drivel. The plot in every book is juvenile and a complete ripoff of the Sookie Stackhouse novels; just 20 degrees lower in quality. Bella is about as weak a female lead character as you could write, always needing the strength of man to get her by. The franchise has cute faces and that's it. It's not generational. Ten years from now, VH1 will do a Remember the 2000s episode and comedians and celebrities will joke at how bad it is.

I am a professor at Lemoyne College(go dolphins!) and I actually teach a class about co-teach a class about Harry Potter and another on Twilight. I personally don't like either series but we offer the classes as part of the education masters to help better understand what kids are currently reading. I have been pushing the rest of the faculty to expand the Harry Potter class to be more about general fantasy fiction and the twilight class to about general horror fiction(even though twilight itself is not horror it takes elements from horror and makes them kid-friendly).

The point of this that just because schools like Harvard are teaching classes about a specific book does not mean it is a good book, it means that the book is relevant to culture at the moment. Also you have to factor in peoples personal taste. If a professor likes a certain book and they have tenure, they are going to work that content into their classes.

As a human male I have nothing to gain from watching Twilight. While I am 27 I do teach classes with teenagers and if anything I say it has less to do with age and a lot more to do with gender as boys do not like twilight at all. I work with a tenured professor in her 60s who loves the twilight novels because she thinks their cute. I have a 35 year old sister whose favorite novels are the kushiel's dart books where a magic hooker fights Conan. Women want different things out of fiction then men, its not anything more complicated than that.

I'm 17 years old, and absolutely hate Twilight. The writing is appalling, the acting is wooden and the directing is so poor David Slade should be a dead cert receive a golden raspberry award for worst director. The reason the films are so successful, in my experience, is because people can't get enough of Robert Pattinson.

It does suck. From the concept to the acting. I had the hardest time getting through the first one and finally gave up.
It might help if the people acting in it knew how to act. It's not like they're making Star Wars, another movie with very bad acting and poor writing as well (though I seem to be the only one willing to admit this)
This series has done damage not only to the Vampire and Werewolf mythos (I heard a kid say he didn't like Wolfman because the werewolf didn't look like a real werewolf like in Twilight.) but the whole 'let's a get a bunch of talentless hacks who just look pretty and people will watch it' mentality has infected comic book movies and has long destroyed the horror genre.
Of course in the video store I work in I've noticed more and more people renting movies from the 1980's and older. I think people are sick of this crap.

I find the Twilight "phenomenon" as predictable as it's unwelcome.

Unconvincing characters, terrible writing and overwhelming displays of single minded selfishness permeate the series and to me, Bella is the most unlikeable character ever commited to paper or celluloid.

I definitely dont see perceptions of Twilight as being affected by generation at all as age should never really have any real bearing when considering creativity.

Ann Rices Lestat books definitely struck the right balance as regards Vampire/human interaction and the Sookie Stackhouse/True Blood books and TV series are a helluva lot more respectable in terms of overall creativity than the insipid meanderings of Twilight.

I think the writer misses the point of what's popular in the pop culture. For one, a very popular book series for its time was Tarzan, which was a horribly written bunch of books. But, Edgar Rice Burroughs taped into something that not even the 'great' writers of the time did. A wise writer once said to me, "Trying to convince others that something others enjoy is awful is really an uphill battle. A better tactic, and probably a more interesting way to go, is to ask why something is popular."
Harry Potter may have some writing problems, but, when a writer who does not make a hundred million for his work complains about it, it really comes off as sour grapes. I like Harry Potter because it was a step in a right direction for children's literature. Before, children's literature were listening to the inane comments of supposive psychology experts who were convinced that making stories too exciting for kids could damage their little psyches. Rowling, to her credit, made the most exciting books she could write and that is why people responded positively to them. To state that no one has said negative things about her books seems naive, considering the number of religious nuts who are convinced that the books are proof of the apocalypse.
As for Twilight, I have to admit I have not read the series or seen the movies, but admit that being in my 40s probably predisposes me to not like it. I remember and enjoy the older style vampire and monster movies and books, where the monsters are hidden in the shadows and the pace is slow and filled with dread. I really was turned off by the whole Underworld trend, with vampires and werewolves turning into hyperkinetic hot bodied ninjas, and always suspect that this is what Twilight is about. Others try to tell me that I am wrong, and maybe one day I will give the stories a try.

Why do I keep clicking on these articles from CBR? The writers are either total trolls or just incredibly out of touch with most subcultures of society (I think it's a bit of both really). (Mostly I'm just annoyed about the Scott Pilgrim soundtrack article.. Beck and Broken Social Scene are "hipster rock"? yikes! T. Rex are classic rock? Don't put them in with dinosaurs like Mick Jagger! Pssh! I mean it is "classic" and Glam is a form of Rock, but.. I'm just rambling now, really)

Obviously, the fan base of Twilight is extremely homogeneous, if you don't think so, look in a movie theater at the premiere of the new movie. I'd hardly call lonely manga fangirls a "generation" (yeah, there's more to the audience than that, but that seems to be the primary fanbase to me). I'm 20, and I definitely don't think it's a "generational thing", it's just for people who don't have such good tastes in books/film and enjoy having weak female protagonists...

"I'd hardly call lonely manga fangirls a "generation" (yeah, there's more to the audience than that, but that seems to be the primary fanbase to me)."

Which is why us comic book, manga, and anime fans should welcome Twilight fans. They may like something that we may not find all that interesting, but they are obviously more open minded to geeky fandom. I say we bring them into our ranks before they come to their senses. ;-)

I , for one, dread TWILIGHT. I think the films are pure Hollywood crap and they are cranked out to be cash cows for the generation. Why the Twilight movies have appeal? because the majority of the people going to see these movies take them at face value. They dont analyze every scene, critic on dialogue and scene structure, analyze the cgi. The fans just enjoy it. They enjoy the story and action.

"They dont analyze every scene, critic on dialogue and scene structure, analyze the cgi. The fans just enjoy it. They enjoy the story and action."
Which is the whole purpose of entertainment.

Please be convinced that Twilight is as bad as you think it is. A majority opinion does not equal good quality. I thought that that was pretty obvious. Besides, how many things do you agree with tweens on? Even yourself as a tween? I know that I was a dumb kid and I no longer think that the Backstreet Boys and overalls are the coolest things in the world.

This is just easy wish fulfillment and like all other 2D plots: It will fade.

There's just no excuse to attribute some hidden gem within this series because there's a mass hysteria over it.

"I mean, yes, the Twilight novels aren’t especially well-written, but neither were the Harry Potter novels"

Honestly, you lost all credibility with that line. A few cynical bloggers aside, that series was beloved by fans of all ages AND critics. Twilight is only loved by women. I'll take the opinion of everyone i've ever met along with the overwhelming general critical consensus over somebody who writes for a website called spinoffonline.com

I have got to agree. I actually know quite a few writers, far more successful that I'll ever be, that love Harry Potter. Most have MFAs in writing so in terms of the side technical of writing they know more than me and they think the Potter series is great.
Twilight on the other hand is one they all generally agree is poorly written, though several of the women love the books.

Its just like Star Wars to me. Its just that Twilight isn't marketed for sci-nerds instead it is seen as a teen girl crazy thing. In any movie event i have seen i have noticed that quality isn't measured by any true talent being displayed by writer or director no its all based on who liked it. So Twilight is fine it has nothing to do with generation and more to do with perception like everything else. After all there are like 50 year old women who love Twilight, why are they there? i bet it is because they LIKE it they like the romance they like the story, and who are we to tell them what they like sucks? After all didn't people like Avatar? and other than the fancy CGI wasn't that a complete peace of drivel.

"Its just that Twilight isn't marketed for sci-nerds instead it is seen as a teen girl crazy thing."

I think, sadly, that there's a lot of truth in this. As much misogynistic BS as there is in the Twilight books, there's also a lot in the discussion of the phenomenon — and I say this as a 30-something woman who thinks the books are laughably bad (but also knows that the same is true of the Mercedes Lackey books I read as a young teen). I think it's possible to talk about how craptastic Twilight is WITHOUT insulting the audience that loves the series, but I also think a lot of the discussion about Twilight centers around dismissing the desires and interests of young women (no, not all of the series' fans are young, but that's where the marketing points). I'm as guilty of this as anyone; I think the message is creepy, the writing is dreck and the characters are made of cardboard, and I wish something else was madly popular with young women. But after watching Eclipse, my favorite 12-year-old said she'd be "pretty pissed" if her boyfriend disabled her car, like Edward does to Bella's truck, and I remembered that teen girls are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

It's an emotional playground. We all had ours.

(I had some other thought about the forced gender divide — how women are conditioned to identify with Bella but it'd be embarrassing for a man to identify with either of the male characters — but it's late and I'm too tired to spin the damn thing out.)

I know very little about the Twilight Saga--only that it does not look like my kind of thing (the movies at least). I did read Harry Potter, though, and while it was enjoyable I also know that there were better books out there that no one was reading. I find that a lot of people engage this stuff not because of genuine quality but because of hype and perceived popularity. Kind of the same reason why the Greatest Comic Ever gets canceled while everyone else keeps buying X-Men.

Interesting article. I agree with much of what you're saying, though I wouldn't put it quite in terms of zeitgeist. I`ve seen both movies, and been irked by them, but recognize that I`m simply not the audience for what seems to be very deftly aimed at/exploring a particular psychological target. My take on the movies is that they are perfectly attuned to the sexual tension of people that are interested in sex but intimidated by the thought of consumation. In Twilight, you have two young people who are forever locked in an intense courtship phase of a relationship, but can never proceed (what with the vampirism and all). So they get all the emotional up and down thrills of love without the dirty squishy stuff. It seems to me to be psychological flip side of the explanation of rape fantasies, which are about people who want to have sex, but for a variety of reasons (fear, the thought that they are bad people if they want to have sex, etc), they want sex without their agency being engaged. So for those for whom Twilight doesn't resonate, its simply because you have different feelings and fears about things. Zombies movies key off of fear that you will wake up one day and your neighbours are trying to kill you. Most vampire movies play off of the destructive consequences of sex (and are all the more resonate in an era when you have a fatal sexually transmitted disease (that is also carried in blood).

So endeth my arm-chair psychology - an amateur, so hey, most of this is probably crap. And it doesn't answer the question of why HP resonated so strongly with so many.

I'm 40. I really liked the first movie but hated the second. I get that Twilight and Vampire Diaries are very similiar to Buffy and Angel, but I can still enjoy them. I read the first 40 pages of the first Potter book. I couldn't stand it. But I liked those movies.

Even if I were to accept the twilight-is-quality/dog-whistle thesis, I'd just just have one thing to say to twilight fans: Get off my lawn.

Um, I don't see what I've read and heard about Twilight to be much different than the popular adult Laurell K Hamilton Anita Blake novels, minus the "devil's threeways" that become so prominent later in that series (I had to read the first and something like the fifth novel for a university course). Both are atrociously written, yet somehow fulfill some ridiculous need in their audience for a female protagonist who is the centre of sexual attention for supernatural beasts.

I agree, though I think the Anita Blake series pays more of a homage to the era of pulp detective stories, but with supernatural elements. Though I have to admit that I have only read the first two books.
Twilight is more like a Harlequin romance written for tweens with supernatural elements. Neither is known for their high quality, but both have a quality that fans of those kinds of stories love. We may not like them and they may indeed be poorly written, but like everything else in life everyone has different preferences.

I'll have to agree about Laural K. Hamilton; I actually felt dirty the last time I read one of her's.

Spot on.

I was actually thinking the same thing to myself earlier today. I was listening to a podcast where a 30-ish female host was complaining about Twilight. (Note: She was complaining about it, and yet she's seen both movies so far and has read at least a few of the books.) Yet the host is a total supporter of all other things vampire (True Blood, Vampire Diaries, and on back to Anne Rice).

It doesn't even have to do with the quality. Look: Almost all pop culture programming is awful. People who can see how bad Twilight is...but who can't see how bad most of the movies they like are...those people just haven't had the right sort of preparation to fall for Twilight as well.

On the one hand, it does have to do with age and generations. On the other hand, there's probably a quality issue as well. Many people who hate Twilight are just a little too old to fall for it. But if they had been more susceptible to the programming that people younger than them have gone through--which would have softened their minds and their quality-control checkpoints a bit more--then they'd totally fall for Twilight as well.

I really think some people are just a little TOO mad about Twilight. It's almost as if they're jealous about not being able to fall for it. They wish they had another pop culture fad to fall for.

Great post. I'm 45, male, father of several kids, and the host of TwilightNewsSite.com. We discussed this issue in depth on our most recent podcast. Here's the "Readers Digest" version (I can actually use that phrase with you and you'll know what it means; I'm stoked!): The story of Bella Swan, the ugly duckling, extends beyond a girl-meets-boy story. The archetypal framework is of the seeker, a human seeking for God. It is largely an allegory for searching for the meaningful and transcendent in life. Bella and Edward are both living pretty sucky lives, and find in one another a savior, discovering that through love, commitment and sacrifice that they can transcend their world weariness. Despite (because of?) her humanity, Bella -- a profoundly unreliable narrator with an unpolished narrative style -- saves Edward (her guardian angel) and everyone else in the series, while never even seeing herself very clearly... until the very, very end after she discovers the divine within herself. To that end, the author puts forward various values and morals as helping people reach their potential, including chastity. And there we reach the crux of the matter: if you believe in God and are somewhat desperately seeking Him -or- if you believe that life can be a meaningful and rich experience if you choose wisely -or- if you believe that true love can be the path to transcendence, then you are more likely to enjoy Twilight. If you're an atheist, absurdist philosopher, or are bitter about love, then you probably would not only dislike Twilight, but hate it. And, possibly lash out to those who are happily enriching the meaning of their lives through their appreciation of the meaningfulness of the work. The gnashing of teeth you hear are those very people angry at mere thought that someone's life could be enriched by this book. But they are, which is why they love it. Is there a generational tilt to whether a person falls into the hopeful and believing side vs. the cynical and doubtful side. Yes, as you observe, there may be.

"If you're an atheist, absurdist philosopher, or are bitter about love, then you probably would not only dislike Twilight, but hate it. And, possibly lash out to those who are happily enriching the meaning of their lives through their appreciation of the meaningfulness of the work."
"So all I am saying is that if you are not a hopeful person, then you are less likely to agree with the themes in Twilight."
I could not disagree more. I could be misunderstanding you and I apologize if I am, but it seems that you are saying that Atheist are not hopeful, aggressive, and don't understand love. If that is the case then your statements are very egotistical and incredibly detached from reality.
Atheist tend to be very hopeful, have an incredible love and appreciation for life as we only get the one, and generally are fairly well read, intelligent people. Atheist also tend, if any other atheists disagree feel free to say so, to thoroughly enjoy fiction of all kinds because we don't start reading a story trying to fit it into some mythological "belief" system. I think it would be very fair to say that an Atheist would be more likely to see all, or at least more of the themes in any given story than someone who tries to impose some sort of religious context on most things they encounter. Atheist are more often than not raised in religious households so they tend to know a great deal about religion. Their desire for knowledge and understanding of religion is what leads them into atheism. An actual atheist is a skeptic who wants to know more about something, not a cynic who dismisses it
.
Again, I am not trying to be insulting and while I respect your right to have and express your views I think you should understand other people better before you try to categorize them as somehow inferior.

There's something there in your post I felt compelled to comment on...

"if you believe in God and are somewhat desperately seeking Him -or- if you believe that life can be a meaningful and rich experience if you choose wisely -or- if you believe that true love can be the path to transcendence, then you are more likely to enjoy Twilight. If you're an atheist, absurdist philosopher, or are bitter about love, then you probably would not only dislike Twilight, but hate it. And, possibly lash out to those who are happily enriching the meaning of their lives through their appreciation of the meaningfulness of the work."

Here's my personal point of contention:
I'm the former in the type of person I am. I have faith in the ideal of God and Heaven. To me it's more spirituality than religion, though. To me religion is one viewpoint and spirituality is a more open perception of the idea and theology of God. I have faith...I seek God's guidance and pray for His/Her/Whatever God Is strength. And I say that at the risk of sounding like a militant religious zealot...believe me, none of that from me. I also believe that love matters and can lead you to good things. It's worked for me so far in my life.

In saying all that, I don't really have any or even a little interest in Twilight.

I find that writing I've quoted up above to be too much of a broad generalization that cannot in any way, shape, or form be applicable to everyone who either loves Twilight or is not interested in it. And also I want to stress that I don't hate on it either. In fact I have a certain level of respect for it and for True Blood on getting more females into comics, sci-fi, and genre entertainment (not that I'd compare True Blood to Twilight, which I've been told is far better than Twilight, but I haven't watched it yet...still I plan to and have more interest in it).

I don't see the point in doing so. It's just another fad that a bunch of people are into, that's it. BUT I also do feel that the things I've read and have been told by a few more Twilight fan/friends of the characterizations as well as where the stories go isn't all that healthy for the target demographic to take in...young teen girls.
If I had a daughter in that demographic I'd hate for her to come away from a book and/or movie that portrays the leading young lady as indecisive and lost, willing to take the crap of some boy and feel that the sun rises and sets in his glimmering in the sunlight eyes.
I'd want her to read and watch something that didn't portray the leading young lady as so co-dependent that she has no real sense of herself until it's just about too late. I'd want any daughter I had to read/watch a female character who is more strong and determined. Faithful and truthful of her self assuredness. Someone who wouldn't just turn away from her family because she has a boy interested in her in that intense way. And then there's the stuff on the age of the vampire Edward. Technically he's ages old and way beyond adult in years, lusting over a teenage girl. Statutory rape symbolism, it sounds like to me. And one friend told me of Jacob the wolfkid feeling a love for the girl's baby in the last stories...so what does this tell us...when she becomes of teenage he'll go after her to, having left his mark on her? When my friend who loves Twilight told me that, I responded that part should end with Chris Hanson from NBC's To Catch A Predator taking both Jacob and Edward aside saying, "Could you two just have seat right over there!"

Like I said, it doesn't interest me. I have no inclination to watch it or read the books. Just not my cup of Lipton. I guess I'm just indifferent to it.

No way. I can't agree with anyone who thinks that anyone who can't appreciate Twilight is a bitter cynic. I'm a Christian, believe in love and though I can be a cynic at times I've been described as a romantic many times. Twilight isn't about a search for truth, or a discovering of the divine. Unless you're thinking that somehow vampirism (which is described as more often than not to be a curse) is divine. Bella was never the ugly duckling, at best she was just plain. She doesn't love Edward because of his lifestyle, or vice versa since the "love" pretty much manifested without either of them knowing much about each other. Doesn't Bella eventually become one of these vampires? How does Bella reach us with her humanity if she eventually becomes one of these creatures? Twilight doesn't teach us about God and embracing humanity, it teaches us that humanity sucks.

I've no problems with the franchise, but you can't just paint all Twilight haters with the same brush.

Wow, that's a really insulting post: "If you don't like Twilight you're an Atheist or someone who doesn't believe in love" is what I got out of it. I do think a large part of the backlash against Twilight is because of the fans because they say stuff like that. In fact I think the majority of the backlash is because of the fans. It's not just that they are obsessed with Twilight, but they're rudely obsessed with Twilight. For example I went to Comic-Con last year, and the Twihards were absolutely despised as being the rudest people there because their camping the large panel halls which prevented people who actually wanted to get into those panels from doing so, among other things. I was with a couple of Twilight fans who generally felt the same way about the Twihards, so it wasn't just me.

Look if you like Twilight, whatever dude. If it makes you happy fine, but don't get defensive and say we don't understand Twilight and that's why we find the flaws in it. The flaws are there, and if you choose to ignore them, well more power to you. If other people are concerned about them because they feel that they're teaching the wrong lessons, then I think that you should debate and explain why they're wrong. Ending the post by saying that whether or not you like Twilight is on if "a person falls into the hopeful and believing side vs. the cynical and doubtful side" does you no good because it's a broad statement that comes of as an (inaccurate) insult. Optimistic and believing people can get the same things that you say Twilight provides you from other sources and still dislike it.

I'm sorry. I think you misunderstood, or I wrote it unclearly. What I mean is simply that it is much harder to like a story, film, poem, comic book, folktale, etc., if you don't agree with the theme. Twilight offers what many see as a religious allegory for seeking God, and puts forward various other themes in the process. It is a very hopeful book. So all I am saying is that if you are not a hopeful person, then you are less likely to agree with the themes in Twilight. That isn't the only reason why a person would like it, nor does it guarantee that someone who shares that worldview would like it. Nor am I saying that those who haven't even read the books will automatically feel an attraction for the series. I'm just saying that it's an important factor. Sorry to seem insulting or condescending in any way. Best wishes...

I don't know, its a fair question to ask but I don't see it as generational at all. I know of mothers and daughters alike that are diehard Twilight fans. It might possibly be a gender thing, as most of the Twilight fans I know are girls. As a 22 year old guy I tried to give the series a chance after watching the first movie which I didn't think was bad. I couldn't get through the books though, they were too poorly written and the "love" between the characters came across as 1) the authors fantasy and 2) unhealthy obsession. My gf loves the movies so when they come out I watch them with her, knowing that whatever comic book movie comes out she's there But I still won't touch the books.

Ironically, I went to see the first Twilight movie with my gf and two of her girl friends and think I enjoyed the movie more than they did. They were avid readers of the books and were disappointed in the character representations (Bella gets a lot of hate among hardcore fans). Having not been exposed to it beforehand (I asked whats Twilight and got blank stares) I found it a serviceable movie.

I'll probably end up going to see the other movies with my gf.

I actually had never heard of Twilight until the the first movie was announced. My daughter, 10 yrs old at the time, was still into Harry Potter and we just didn't know about the Twilight books. Once the first movie came out I watched it with her and while she loved it, I thought it was OK. Not great, not horrible, but a "bubble-gum" kind of film, entertaining to watch occasionally but with little substance.
When the second film came out we watched it as well. She loved it and I thought it was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Even my 13 yr old niece, who loves the books thought it stunk. Still both my niece and my daughter have picked their "teams" and are madly infatuated with their heroes, Jacob and Edward.
It wasn't until seeing the impact these films, and books, had on my daughter and niece that I really started to look at these stories. As a father I think that they set a very bad example for young and impressionable girls. They portray women as weak, indecisive, victims that need protecting. As a dad I'm not happy about that. They also make it seem that women are incomplete without a man in their lives.
If these were like any other films, enjoyed and quickly forgotten, I wouldn't think much of it, but given the "Twilightmania" that has tweens and young women going crazy I regulate my daughter's exposure to them. I won't deny her the ability to see them, but I also make sure to expose her to films and shows that offer an alternate, stronger image of women.

"What if Twilight doesn’t actually suck?"

First, ask yourself what your standard of quality is. Second, determine the perceived general standards of a piece of literature (it won't be exact, but if you took high school English, you can figure it out). Third, consider what the target audience (females) wants to see in their fantasies.

Now, let's address the question posed in the first paragraph: "What if Twilight doesn’t actually suck?" After going through the above process, can anyone actually legitimately ask this question? Wouldn't anyone asking this question NOT have thought of the above items (my standards, literary standards, the marketplace)? Or is this blog piece meant to gather traffic for this website that proposing that Twilight doesn't suck? For the latter question, see the last paragraph: "Well, it’s really not that well-written, let’s face it... I’m not convinced that Twilight is actually as bad as it seems."

What.

http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight

Read that for the TRUTH about Twilight...

I am 31 and I don't get it either. Now I have to say that I am a huge Potter fan but I do think those books were imaginative and the movies are really well done. Just look at the CGI stuff in the Twilight movies. They are awful! The werewolves look dumb and that scene in I think the first movie where the vampires are playing baseball!?!?!?! It look like an independent fan movie and the studio knows that these teens will fork over their money so they figure, why should we put any production values into the films. The acting is pretty poor too. At least with Potter, you have some very good acting. Forgive me because I don't know their real names but both Dumbledore characters, Snape, Hagrid and even the kids are all pretty good. I just think it's another case of teenagers showcasing their bad taste but hey, to each his own right.

Harry Potter may not be perfect, but it's written a lot better than the Twilight series. Twilight is a sappy romance novel in a vampire costume. Harry Potter is a coming of age tale in a wizard hat, but that already means it's a few rungs upon the ladder of good reads.

I'm 24, and although i see where Graeme's point is, and agree with it to a degree, i still hate twilight. Its always been personal preference, even with the Beatles. Hell, i also don't like the Beatles, but unlike twilight i recognize what the Beatles have done fore music. The generation before may not have seen what made the Beatles so unique, but those that came after have. Alice Cooper, Ozzy, Sabbath, just to name a few. Those three are among the greatest in hard rock and heavy metal, and in turn influence new acts such as Disturbed, Slipknot, Rob Zombie. The Beatles added something different, something that wasn't familiar, but still true to what influenced them . I don't see the same with twilight. Obviously twilight was influenced by horror and romance, (seems to be more of the romance, though), and even more obviously twilight was influenced by the idea that Vampires can be sympathetic. Which doesn't seem so bad, and i do give credit for that. Where twilight went wrong is that they pretty much took out the horror element, and left only the romance. Vampires are not nice creatures that sparkle, nor were they ever. They were nightmares, things that you feared. Horror and sympanthy work well together, not separate because you could never be sure when the sympathetic vampire would turn around and become a monster. Focus only one one, and the monster is no longer a monster.

No. Twilight actually DOES suck. Don't sell your opinion short.

For starters, let me apologize for not reading the other wall-length comments down there.

I'm a nineteen-year-old Beatlemaniac, and I was just flabbergasted that you could align Twilight with The Beatles. (But then again, you're only juxtaposing them and not implying that The Fab Four = Sparkly Vampires.)

In a nutshell, The Beatles freed the young from the dullness of the post-war 50s, broke new ground in music (from their chord notations to their funky sitars), took the generation along in their search for expanding consciousness, and wrote some of the greatest albums ever.

Going from The Beatles to Twilight--totally horrible, IMO. Some of the best music on earth has just been succeeded by, as you said, by horrible writing. They gave us a real Revolution In The Head, but Twilight seems to be making us regress in terms of feminism and intellectual pursuit.

Two words: gothic novel. This has happened before in Georgian/Regency England. Authors would put out works that weren't terribly well-written, and authors who could truly write were mortified. See Anne Radcliffe, Matthew Lewis, Regina Maria Roche, Horace Walpole, etc. That's not to say that some of these authors aren't enjoyable for other reasons. (I enjoyed The Castle of Otranto) But few of them actually knew about the human relationships required for thoughtful fiction.
Then there were writers like Jane Austen, who can't write an ending, but at least her characters hardly ever fainted.

As a 17-year-old girl I am definitely part of Twilight's target audience. But I think that actually adds to my disdain for it. I really, really hate the fact that Twilight and Hannah Montana are the things that my generation is gonna be remembered for.

But even aside from the terrible writing, both the books (Yes, I've read the books.) and the movies send absolutely terrible messages to the audience. They're basically saying to all girls reading it:

"Your life revolves around your boyfriend."
"Your boyfriend is more important than your family."
"If your boyfriend is mean to you, it means that he just loves you more".
"If your boyfriend leaves you, you should be so depressed that you throw yourself off a cliff."
"...But don't worry because he'll come back eventually."
"Oh, and don't bother going to college. Just get married fresh out of high school, abandon your family and have a kid. But don't worry about the kid too much because you don't have to be responsible to be a parent."

I get that the message of the books is supposed to be "Don't have sex until you're married" but that is NOT what readers are getting from the series. This book belongs in the trashy romance section of bookstores. It is not "teen fiction".

I could literally go on for hours about this but by now, I'm just sick of hearing about it.

alot of this might be explaint by the fact Stephany Meyer it a Mormon and they tend have simuler values as the ones you describe

Falling into the same gender and age group as the above poster; I agree completely.

Every generation has its popular, low quality entertainment that appeals to a large audience at a base level. Boy bands and girl bands were an example noted by Neufel. Their popularity wasn't about one of quality, but maybe of generation "coolness".

And Twilight is not very good. At all.

First off, I have to laugh at the people who deride Twilight while holding up Buffy as the superior example of the vampire genre, because when Buffy the tv series first started coming out I clearly remember it was derided by many fans in the exact same tones that Twilight is condemned today. Doesn’t anyone remember Forever Knight fandom? Vampire: The Masquerade? Kindred: The Embraced? Buffy was as frequently condemned by fans of those groups as Twilight is today, I think in large part because it made a hero out of a character whose central aim was to rid the world of the Nick Knights and Lestat de Lioncourts they idolized. Even the claim that Buffy’s popularity was “destroying the vampire genre” was common then; I know, because I heard it expressed many, many times. So in that respect, I think the observation that there is a generational element to Twilight worship does contain some merit; in ten-fifteen years time, when the next big vampire thing comes along, those same fans who took Twilight to heart will be deriding the latest vampiric fad in the exact same tones, merely because it wasn’t the style of vampire story they’d become fans of.

But in a larger sense, I think what also is going on is that there is a niche that Twilight is servicing that is not really being serviced anywhere else, namely a modern take on the old-fashioned style of “fairy tale, happily-ever-after” romantic fiction. I think there is a genuine demand for romantic stories with fantasy-style trappings out there, especially among young females, but which the primary providers of entertainment (at least in America) are not providing. Just look at some of the other fandoms that have attracted large numbers of young fans -- Harry Potter, Teen Titans, Avatar (Last Airbender), Naruto, etc. -- and note that all of them have very large, very active, very enthusiastic, “romantic” (i.e, “shipping”) communities. Even when romantic storylines are introduced in modern multi-media storytelling, there is a certain level of frustration that has set in, because so much of it is either superficial (usually as an excuse to let two characters immediately have some sex) or used for tragic drama; in Buffy, for instance, all of the primary romantic examples ended either tragically or inconclusively. For better or for worse, Twilight appeals to those who not only like romance but prefer it without the jaded tinge of modern “realistic” storytelling. It’s a love story that isn’t ashamed of being a love story, and I think that is why so many have responded in the way they have.

I think you are right about the fact that Twilight fills the old-fashioned romance niche, because there are plenty of people out there who love that sort of thing. Of course, I would argue that the romance Twilight offers is actually pretty superficial, far more superficial than any of the examples you sighted, but I don't think the fans mind. Old-fashioned romance has always been pretty superficial - that's why people like it.

Can't really compare the two.

Buffy has strong characterization and has a strong feminist bent to it. Relationships are more realistic and people kind of move on. It was also very witty and self aware.
Twilight's characters only serve to advance the plot, and it is very misogynist at points. Relationships are (like you noted) fairytale like. Its also very dry and takes itself far to seriously.

But I don't think any sane person would make the claim that Stephanie Meyer is superior writer to Joss Whedon.

For the record, I should point out that I'm a big Buffy fan and definitely prefer it to Twilight. And I certainly don't think Meyer is a better writer than Whedon. But I do find it ironic that I am hearing the same justifications against Twilight today that I heard ten years ago against Buffy, usually from the same sort of fans who grew up with the previous "big vampire thing". The wheel turns and the ages come and pass...

And actually, I believe Whedon himself said at last year's Comicon that he sees nothing wrong with Twilight, and cited Twilight fandom as the "new" generation.

When you come right down to it, everyone is different, and different things appeal to different people. I don't care for Twilight, but neither do I denigrate those who do like it. To each their own.

I've not read the books, nor seen the films, but I still have to question whether or not these are really vampires. I mean, they sparkle, live in the forest, are highly effeminate, fly, and are apparently vegetarians (that makes my brain hurt). It always seemed to me that Meyer decided to write a series about fairies, was told that fairies don't sell, and just changed them to vampires.

I have a theater background, and without wanting to dive into the way theater works in the German speaking countries (way more abstract than in the US!!), I have been in dire need of refusal of irony and authentic emotions for quite some time. Now don't get me wrong, irony and sacasm and media savviness have been part of my everyday life since my teens (I'm 32), but at the same time, I want something true and authentic and I'm looking for it in art in its various forms, be they books, paintings, films, plays, music. What I'm looking for does not have to be grand and earth shattering, but unmistakeable and something to believe in in a very intimate way (unlike, say, religion). If your theory is that "our" generation does not "get" Twilight because we are just too lost in irony and sarcasm and deconstruction, then I heartily disagree. I just think that Twilight is this generation's big love story movie, or at least one of their big love stories...like Titanic or, if you were arty, Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet in the 90's. However, I also think it's poorly written and there's probably more going on in an episode of True Blood than in the entire Twilight series up to now. But to some of the kids, that simply doesn't matter, either they know about those flaws and igonre them for the pop phenomenon value and the eye candy or they are blissfully unaware that there should be more than eye candy. Every generation has some cultural trend that later either gets romanticized or makes people cringe.

given how twilight should be considered its fans base own version of what star wars is to its fans. with vampires. and those who do get it should just except twilight is not for every one. to each his own taste in films. even twilight

Greame,

A number of generational differences may distinguish us and the Twi-hards. But we have to admit what distinguishes us from the Twi-hards; if some of us are not in fact Twi-hards. It sounds as though you would be surprised to find out there are male Twi-Hards.

First I think your references to quality writing are really subjective, biased, and really relative. Maybe you should be careful; you are talking to an audience filled with comic book readers and let’s face it comic literature frequently negates visual description because it just doesn’t need it. Logically books with giant pictures really don’t need the kinds of visual definition necessary for novels so maybe we should drop the topic altogether.

You seem to suggest that most of the differences are age based. I think this is not accurate as many of the fans of this blog concede. Fans of the Twilight franchise are composed of everyone from Tweens to very mature women. You would know this if you watched Oprah? But this may be a hint of what makes the Twilight franchise unique.

You claim that Buffy should have satisfied everyone of the 35 year old set. But honestly Buffy did nothing for me. Though it had a female heroic lead it was very obviously written or filmed by men for men. Twilight was not necessarily written or filmed for men. Specific for your comic book reading audience, most male comic book fans think the Archie series is written for women yet other than Josie and the Pussycats very few of Riverdale’s characters have been proposed for big screen adaptation(s).

You repeatedly brought up comparisons to Harry Potter, and I believe this is the most relevant analogy that I think you made. Yet I think this analogy demonstrates where these books differ; (as you suggested). J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter began her series by discussing the adventures of a tween-aged wizard. Stephanie Meyer’s twilight novels discuss the relationship of its teen heroine, Bella Swan and her vampire boyfriend Edward. The big difference here is one book is largely about an individual with a large supporting cast. The other book is about a relationship with an even larger supporting cast.

Though both books were written by women, Twilight explores territory fairly unfamiliar to men; teenage romantic relationships from a female perspective. as many of your readers ahve conceded; men are not the biggest supporters of this franchise anyway. Women are the ones who appreciate this franchise the most. So if you are not a woman maybe you should just get over the screams and just suck it up. Women have different appetites than men and that doesn’t diminish us any more than Indiana Jones diminished most of the women in our lives. WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE THIS.

As you have suggested, generationally I do believe Twilight has set a new Highmark for literary as well as film production. It’s proved that women can be pop cultural producers of books and widely popular films. And that should produce impacts in popular culture far into the rest of the century.

I'm 22 and I don't get the appeal either. Maybe it's these dumbass other teenagers and young adults my age don't understand what decent writing is. To be frank, Harry Potter may not be that great, but it doesn't have sparkly vampires and a Mary Sue bitch of a character you feel no sympathy for.

I'll tell you what it is sir, it's a cheap romance novel. A cheap crappy romance novel that's gotten more attention than it should because of the Horror twist it has on it. Have you seen the trailers? It's softcore porn for teens and aging housewives. That's it, everyone is just too afraid to admit it. It's porn and they're all watching it to see glitterly vampire abs.

It's really not that complicated.

"I used to be with it, until they changed what 'it' was!"

It has nothing to do with age. I know folks from 20 to 40 who are in love with the damned thing. And I don't know why. Especially when some of them should know better.

Quality and Fandom are two different things. I like certain works that aren't well-written, and I don't like some works that are masterpieces. It's fine that these young girls like Twilight, but any basic understanding of story-telling should let you know its craps. And plenty of teens and young twenty-something hate Twilight. Also, people's issue with the franchise is what a horrible role model Bella is for young girls, especially as a character in a YA novel. Ultimately, the story shows no awareness of Bella's insecurities. heralding them as traits of a heroine. It's not a statement of how teen love feeds on neurosis, hence enlightening its audience and providing an opportunity for growth. A writer, a "real" writer, should have some distance from the culture, and be able to assess and comment on it, not just blindly buy into it.

PS I'm 24

I'm 19. Twilight is misogynistic horseshit. It's not badly written, it is ABYSMALLY written. There is no generational difference-every generation is obsessed with stupid crap to some degree or another and this is ours. That doesn't make it NOT GARBAGE.

My wife loves the books and hates the movies.
I was on a plan where the original movie was the on-board flick and without volume the performances and plot were annoying, obvious and horrible.

You might not be convinced that the movies are absolute garbage/drivel, but its either because you're thinking about it far far too much or you just have very little taste.

From your article I surmise its because you're just over-thinking it and giving the current generation far far too much credit.

Lets be honest here.
A great majority if what we enjoy as kids is crap.
I can look back to my youth and acknowledge that what I was entertained by was largely circumstantial.

I vote for a combo of gender and age.

Twilight is so very teenage. Using a comic book superhero comparision, as a small kid you may like Superman with the bright colors and optimism. As a teenager you think Superman sucks and starts to love the angsty romance and fury of X-Men. As you enter into adulthood and on into middle-age, you reject furiously and snarkly your teenage tastes while looking back fondly on your childhood ones.

That is why Harry Potter gets a pass. Kids like it, and grown-ups like to feel like kids again. But most grown-ups don't want to feel like teens again.

And there is the gender thing. I won't defend Twilight's (lack of) quality or (dubious) messages, but I will note that lots and lots of other brainless, offensive stuff in movies get a pass, because they're for boys. I think I still prefer Twilight (marginally) to most boring action movies I've heard of in the past 15 years or so.

Is Twilight's Appeal a generational dog whistle? Simple answer: no. Absolutely not.

Well, I just watched the second movie last night for the first time... My wife who has far more of an appreciation for all things 'soap opera-ish' than I do, fell asleep before the big finale in Europe. I made it through but thought it was totally awful. I can't speak for the books but just the basic structure of the story/movie was all kinds of wrong. Essentially Bella mopes for an hour and 15 minutes.. We had a debate going last night as to whether Kristin Stewart is a bad actress or if her one note, one facial expression, character was actually difficult to play.. which was ironically answered when Adventureland came on cable this morning and we realized she acts like she's mopey, expressionless, awkward and pining for Edward regardless of whatever movie she acts in... which is also the same person she seems to be in real life..
As for the story, the big reveal with Jake everyone sees coming a mile away.... and the blatantly over, and clearly unapologetic, story parallels to Romeo & Juliet was totally eye rolling. If you're suggesting that the latest generation's vampire story is a hot because that audience demands so much less from their fiction than previous generations? I think that's more of a sad comment on the fans than lack of us older folks 'not getting it.' Sgt. Pepper this wasn't.

Neither Twilight not HP are amazing, but HP is in another level compared to Twilight. Grab both novels at a library, put them side by side and read a page of each. ONE.

There's just no comparison. Twilight has clunky, lifeless sentences right from the first page. There's no "voice" to anything. I read 300 pages of Twilight and not even the male lead got any development, every character just gels together. You wouldn't be able to tell who's saying what by their dialogue.

In Harry Potter even minor characters get individual personalities, speech patterns and their own "mini-arcs". Characters have purpose and move the plot forward. The first chapter alone had more development for 4 characters (inclduing a very moinor one) than the whole 300 pages of Twilight (that had 3 male characters and 2 female that served the exact same purpose).

Here are excerpts from both series:

http://www.childlit.info/index.php?title=Twilight_Excerpt
http://www.kidsreads.com/clubs/club-sorcerers_stone-excerpt.asp

There's just no comparison, writing-wise.

The obvious thing you're missing, as other commenters have noted, is that it's mainly a gender gap, not generation. My ~40 wife and her friends love the Twilight series.

A big turn off for non-fans are the fans of anything. Beatle fans drove non-Beatle fans away. I couldn't stand Duran Duran in my youth because of the gushing enthusiasm of their fans, but a younger male macho friend loves them because he's just judging them on themselves. I like the movie Clueless, but a friend who was in high school at the time hates it bc of the Clueless girls in his class. And now Twilight repeats the cycle.

Finally, don't think that Twilight fans are blind to its flaws. My wife took me to the New Moon movie. When Bella asks Edward why he's leaving her, a girl screamed, "Because you're a boring ass bitch!" The mostly teen girl crowd roared approval.

Girls by nature hate all other girls.

No, no, no, no. All those 14 year olds Should NOT get laid. That's not going to help at all.

most of it's fans are female.
Harry Potty is loved by everyone.

not true it appealed as many boys as girls and men as well as woman it not polite to genralise Harry Potter would not have sold as many book if it only appealed to women

Not generational really. I think the vitriol comes in part from how rabid the fanbase is, the fact that it isn't that well written, the pussification of vampires, and the fact that it can be argued that Bella and Edward are in a borderline (or not so borderline depending on your viewpoint) abusive relationship. Here's a link to a list of the ways that their relationship can be viewed as abusive http://kar3ning.livejournal.com/545639.html. No way you can convince me that this is something that you want young women reading.

Well also rember the fanbase her are girls in thier tweens to early teens...how many boys in that same age group are flocking to twilight?

"a vampire love story for kids"....it's simply Anne Rice with a PG-13 rating

Did you really just compare Anne Rice to what's her name?

all those 14 year olds should get laid already and spare us the craptastic movies.

and I assume you are the one to do the deed

No, Harry Potter was well-written.

No, it really wasn't. On top of being, at best, piss-poor fantasy, Rowling failed to deliver on even one payoff for the entire series. The most important question - why couldn't Voldemort kill Harry - is the most disappointing of all since the answer is . . . love? Really? So no one else that Voldy killed was loved by anyone? Okay . . .

Look, I'm just a sandwich, but even I know that Harry Potter is retarded.

considering that you are just a sandwich, we can't really expect a relevant comment from you

Well, it was a bit more then just love, there was a pretty long explanation as to why he survived, and then why he further survived. I'm not gonna go into a long summary as to why, but I'd say just about all the questions Rowling brought up she wrapped up in the end.

It's not an age thing. It's a female-male thing. Twilos/Twihard/Twiitards range from 'tweens to moms in their 30s and 40s. The first two films did not speak to men overall. The third film hits both genders. I addressed this in my ThatWriterGuy review (I don't think I'm allowed to place a link here) And Buffy/Angel are both superior because of better writing, hands down.

I really don't think it's an age thing to be honest. I am 19 now and I have never been and never will be a fan of the franchise. My ex was a massive fan of the franchise so I did end up reading the first two books as well as seeing the movies and I still do not see the big fuss, I thought the writing was terrible and that thev books could easly be a piece of crappy fan fic that has been written.

One of the main reasons I do hate the series though is because of the way it shits of the mythos of vampires, I grew up loving the Dracula movies, reading Blade and watching Angel and Buffy so I did absouloutely hate how Twilight just shit on the whole mythos and I think that is a major reason why so many people do hate it.

As for why it is so popuilar, I believe it just came at the exact right time and apealed to the right audience, that audience being young girls and women, they all want to be Bella.

No, it is absolutely as bad as it seems

Maybe worse...

I think a lot of the vitriol against Twilight comes as a reaction against its extraordinary popularity, which has occurred with Harry Potter and any number of ubiquitous books/films/bands. But that doesn't mean the vitriol isn't deserved.

For my part, the reason I never begrudged JK Rowling (or most of the others) her success is, despite not really playing to my tastes, she deserved all that came to her. She worked hard, she tapped into something that millions of people didn't even know they were looking for. But Stephanie Meyer, though the same could be said of her and her work, has something a bit sinister going on as well, IMHO. Yes, I'm talking about the dubious morality and anti-feminist messages. The alleged protagonist *sits out* much of the climax of book one (admittedly as far as I've been able to stomach) while her boyfriend takes care of things. There's also the whole no-sex-before-marriage thing, the sacrifice-anything-for-a-boy-thing, and on and on. Belle is the anti-Buffy, an obvious Mary Sue made worse by the regressive fantasies she's used to act out.

I'm not saying anything new. But I don't think the like/dislike thing is generational, just fame-hating on the large with a few legitimate complaints in the mix.

Not sure why you suggest it's a generational difference. My 37-year-old friend loves the series. She felt a little less embarrassed to go to the midnight opening of the release of one of the books when she saw and chatted with the other moms her age there. Interestingly enough, she didn't groove on Buffy but her 16-year old son does.

I get your point that maybe what some people are looking for in escapism/fantasy/romance has changed in recent years. But I think it's overstating it to think it's a generational thing, per se. For every Beatles there's a Back Street Boys, 98 Degrees, 'N Sync, and 15 other bands that had just as ecstatic audiences. The fervor they feel now is little evidence of literary merit or a signal that it is anything more than it is: a wildly popular Harlequin-type romance. And I don't hate it for that, per se. Romance is cool. I hate it for the mediocrity its characters advocate.

So, I recommend not second guessing the disdain for the series as just being an old fogey and wait to see what pans out. Besides, twenty years down the line, who will be more embarrassed to be wrong: the screaming,weeping fan or the snobby critic that will never really like it, anyway?

It targets a very specific group of people -- teenage girls and younger -- and presents a story that is tailor-made to appeal to them. Girl doesn't fit in, finds a handsome mysterious guy who turns out to be a vampire, then meets more mystical creatures like werewolves who happen to have a guy who also falls in love with her. She's given the token quiet girl faults of being clumsy and awkward at times, just like a lot of girls are at that age. And she's the one all the supernatural creatures fight over. It's escapist fantasy, except instead of an action hero you get a heroine that everyone wants and loves.

Why it gets trashed more than Harry Potter is easy. Potter didn't really muck around with the established tropes of fantasy and magic and things like that too much. It did move it all up to the present day, but even then magic is mostly away from normal everyday folk. Twilight took a lot of the romanticism that vampires have gone through the past few decades, but made them sparkle in sunlight, which is immediately going to make nerd hairs on your neck stand up. Twilight fans don't typically help their cause from what I've seen from various conventions either, generally being pretty douchey to other attendees (then again, who was the first douche, the Twilight fans or the Twilight haters? Chicken and the egg). Potter also gets a pass for being aimed at a younger crowd initially, people were just happy kids were reading anything at the time, no matter what it was.

But beyond that, the bigger something like a book or movie is, the stronger reaction someone will have to it. If Twilight kept coming out but it was only moderately successful, there wouldn't be so much hate for it. The more people love it, the more people will hate it.

I don't believe popularity can ever dictate quality. Generally I find it's the opposite. I've read the Twilight books and I can see why people like them but I don't understand this rabid fan freakery that is happening. While the books were interesting enough they were beyond poorly written. The ending to the series is a perfect package complete with a bow. Meyer took little to no risk with the characters or events that transpire. As I said I can understand liking them on a guilty pleasure level but the quality of the books are severely under deserving of the insanity that has blossomed around it.

By comparison while the Potter series is full of flaws I think Rowling is a much more mature writer who is willing to take risks which made certain events through out the series unpredictable.

Also on a vaguely sexist yet relevant note I think there's a lot to be said for the target audience. Females in general are much more vocal, emotional creatures. I think that's why you're comparison to Beatlemania works so well. After all there were clearly male fans at the Ed Sullivan performance but all anyone ever sees (and hears) are the screaming girls. Males on the other hand are more subdued. I remember when Serenity was coming out and Whedon and company were at WonderCon. I was sitting in the auditorium and there were a large number of people there. Many of the male fans were just taking things in (there were some blatant exceptions, this was San Fran after all) but the female fans were going freaking nuts.

Well, throughout the 80ies many thought shoulderpads, pastel colours and mullets were all the rage, too, while others stood nimbly by and laughed. Nowadays though, everyone is in agreement; they were ridiculous. In 10 years it will be the same.
I've read the books and, frankly, while they didn't do one iota for me, I can understand WHY they appeal to younger people, and especially girls. However, that's not to say girls who like them don't change their minds. I've a cousin one year my junior (I'm 27), and she absolutely adored the books as she read them the first time. Then she reread them and realized they were what I'd been claiming all along while I read them; shite. I've a friend, 2 years my senior, and he urged me to read them as he thought they were the coolest books he'd read in a long time. He also made me watch the movies and he made the same realization during his second viewing as I'd done with my first reading (and during my first viewing); they sucked. I guess some people are quicker to wake up to the smell of feces than others. I'm not one of those, though. I'd a mullet in the 80ies. ;)

I refuse to read the books, but have a wife who ate them all up (we are both 30). The grist movie was terrible, the second was much better, but still bad, but i have to admit...the full trailer for the third one doesn't look as bad as i want to think it will be. I think it is less a generational thing, but more a contemporary society "this is popular, but i don't like it so i grow to hate it as more people like it" kinda thing.

I wanted to say "I'm 22, you must be wrong !" but let's face it, i grew up with Buffy. I also had my vampires to build the man I am today.
But does this mean this generation need Twilight ? I also grew up with the Spice girls, there were many fans, just like for Twilight. And ? Did we need it ? Did it sum up my generation ? I surely hope not.
Heh. Every generation makes mistakes. We can't always like good stuff. I'm pretty sure everybody will look back to Twilight with shame. Just as 95% of... all the teenagers like.

It's a fair question, but I'm stunned by the many, many women my age, mid-30's, who never miss a novel or a movie and love the whole romance of the thing. I'm not sure it's age as much as it is a combo of gender and age.

Also, I think it's interesting that the early Potter books were aimed at a pre-pubescent crowd and touted for "getting kids back into books" and the parents basically enjoyed them enough to share in the story. Their utter lack of sexuality in the early novels is another reason, I think, for the pass the Potter books get over Twilight...that and they carry a much wider appeal as a result of saying something other than all the romantic tropes. Or as a dad told me the other day, (his wife loves the books by the way), "So I'm supposed to think a 16 year old making a decision about falling in love for eternity with a much older, undead guy is romantic and not awful and creepy? 16 year-olds can't make decisions about anything that lasts longer than a month." While that may be the age talking, I do think he's hitting on something about the way gender influences your opinion about this kind of love triangle.

I like your line of thinking, but I don't know if age has to do with it. I'm 22 and hate the series, it seems to suggest a vulnerability in women and an exploitative element in men that (while it may have some validity) terrifies the living hell out of me. Especially when these characters that personify these things become culturally worshiped like you mention in reference to beetlemania. There's a clear difference between a tragic and flawed hero and the cast of Twilight. None of them seem to rise above their petty in fighting and sexually charged conflicts.

But I have a ton of family who swear by the series, most female. My older cousin, who is a parent of two and a hard working student trying to finish her college education, loves the books. Her friends love them. Her little sister loves them.

I have male friends (though very few) who also swear by the series, as if some longing for dark romance had been stirred within them at the sight of pouting lips and dark eyes. That part of everyone that rises to attention and feels driven when in a bad situation, that element of us that absorbs unnecessary drama... that's where I think this comes from.

We fear being hurt, but we love the excitement that leads us down the bad roads that harm us. Who hasn't been in a relationship they should stay away from? It's compelling stuff.

All I know is, if Twilight can really be said to be more than a passing fad and has truly earned a role in the zeitgeist like you provocatively suggest, I feel sorry for a generation of people growing up with their heroes being so... i don't know. Pathetic? I see nothing admirable in this new vampire mythology, and nothing that enriches the already vast well of material that we have to draw from.

I'm responding to you saying the heroes are pathetic. (Keep in mind that I don't like Twilight either). A pathetic hero is most likely either an anti-hero or a tragic hero. Edward seems like the former. In today's world, nobody believes that a hero can be perfect. Heroes are flawed and make mistakes. Thus there are anti-heroes.

i don't know, myself being 20, still don't get it, maybe all the fans love it because they don't see anything else worth investing time and this is something you can understand easily it has easier access to people who don't know better than this, and of course the thing about fashion, trends and tendencies: "it's new so it must be cool". At last let's face it girls like cute boys