Twilight--Not some awe but full awe

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:20 am

48815

That response made the entire post worth reading!

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:04 am

I feel that the archaic meaning of awe holds so true for Twilight; the power to inspire dread.

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:32 pm

Did you dread Twilight?

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:22 pm

Werf_Must wrote:Did you dread Twilight?

I dread the results of Twilight; namely the mindless drones that have been produced by the production of the books.

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:24 am

I don't think any mindless drones were produced!

I think they were like that beforehand

I actually mildly enjoyed the books... I totally agreed with what Yellow said today about them being candy, I have called them "literary comfort food" for a while.... but am in nowise a I LOVE EDWARD and OMGosh I LOOOVVVEEE TWILIGHT!!! fan

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:39 am

I agree, it is a quick easy read for the occasional spat of boredom.

Portia · Post by **Portia** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:28 pm

to those who thought "at least they instill good morals" (I think The Answer is 42 might have been one?):

The word on the street is that there is some pantless kissing (on Bella's part, anyway) in the movie.

Also, isn't she all bruised after their honeymoon?

And gets married at 18?

(And names her daughter Reneneneenenesssejenensjemgejghgpyeee?)

And this is the book that is supposed to be the alternative to the smutty literature/movies of our day for preteens? (I'm serious about these questions, except for maybe the name one. Ha.) I'm no Puritan, but if a girl (and these are girls that get so into it, often--not women) was living under my roof, she'd be expected to keep her pants on, dangit!

Post by **bobtheenchantedone** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:34 pm

Yes. Yes, there is pantless kissing.

And yes, the fourth book is damning as far as the whole 'it's so chaste!' thing goes (at least, in my opinion).

yellow m&m · Post by **yellow m&m** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:47 pm

bobtheenchantedone wrote:
And yes, the fourth book is damning as far as the whole 'it's so chaste!' thing goes (at least, in my opinion).

Well, they are married in the last book...

Post by **bobtheenchantedone** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:31 pm

yellow m&m wrote:
bobtheenchantedone wrote:
And yes, the fourth book is damning as far as the whole 'it's so chaste!' thing goes (at least, in my opinion).
Well, they are married in the last book...

I still don't want to know about the sex and the sex and the sex and the sex and the sex and the "How do you ever stop?" and the sex. And the sex.

Also, from what I've heard, the whole baby-being-born scene is disturbing, to say the least.

Also, I think SMeyer went a bit too far with her imprinting junk. No one is going to like teens 'imprinting' on children, no matter how much you insist it's perfectly fine and totally non-romantic. It's something you learn when you write: things will be taken how you don't want them to if they possibly can.

TheAnswerIs42 · Post by **TheAnswerIs42** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:52 pm

to those who thought "at least they instill good morals" (I think The Answer is 42 might have been one?):

Not sure if I said that or not. I do remember being glad at how chaste (meaning, they didn't sleep together) they were in the first book when I noticed that almost all of my beehives read it. But, as you say, the fourth book spent a significant amount of time discussing married sex, which while technically "chaste", is still nothing I wanted in the hands of my beehives. So that went out the window.

And yes, the actress was not as well clothed as I would have liked. Grrr. And I hated the stupid name of her daughter.

I still like Harry Potter better. And Chronicles of Narnia, and LOTR, and Tess of D'urbervilles, and Les Miserables . . .
But for fluff reading, I didn't hate it.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:08 am

What is Chastity, precisely? Isn't it both the physical and mental restraint?

Yes, in the books they are chaste, but they aren't being chaste because they should, they're not going the full nine yards cause he'd lose control and slaughter her. So if lil ole Eddie was a normal human, they would have been going at long before they were married.

And isn't necrophilia a crime anyways?

yellow m&m · Post by **yellow m&m** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:22 am

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:What is Chastity, precisely? Isn't it both the physical and mental restraint?

Yes, in the books they are chaste, but they aren't being chaste because they should, they're not going the full nine yards cause he'd lose control and slaughter her. So if lil ole Eddie was a normal human, they would have been going at long before they were married.

And isn't necrophilia a crime anyways?

Well, that was not the full reason they were chaste. Edward did have some morals, and he did not want to go all the way until after they were married. That's more than just not wanting to slaughter her.

But I will have to read the books again before arguing for it.

Post by **Laser Jock** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:14 am

Yeah, I agree with those of you who were a bit surprised by the amount of focus/discussion about sex in the fourth book. It seemed like a major theme, even, that Bella just wanted sex with Edward--was obsessed about it, even, both before and after they were married. (This was what I was referring to in Board Question #48869.) Until this thread, though, I hadn't heard anyone else who seemed to think anything of it.

About the question of "What is chastity?"--yes, it definitely includes thoughts as well. Several general authorities have spoken against preoccupation with sex, for example. Sex is nothing dirty or bad or wrong, but it does need to be contained within the bounds the Lord has established, to our own benefit.

Portia · Post by **Portia** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:55 pm

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:
to those who thought "at least they instill good morals" (I think The Answer is 42 might have been one?):
Not sure if I said that or not. I do remember being glad at how chaste (meaning, they didn't sleep together) they were in the first book when I noticed that almost all of my beehives read it. But, as you say, the fourth book spent a significant amount of time discussing married sex, which while technically "chaste", is still nothing I wanted in the hands of my beehives. So that went out the window.

And yes, the actress was not as well clothed as I would have liked. Grrr. And I hated the stupid name of her daughter.

I still like Harry Potter better. And Chronicles of Narnia, and LOTR, and Tess of D'urbervilles, and Les Miserables . . .
But for fluff reading, I didn't hate it.

I am glad to hear that. Because if people are going to like this series for being "innocuous" . . . I think it . . . should be?

I maintain that Gilbert Blythe is way hotter, and conforms more realistically to women's romantic ideals. Not to mention he's not undead. And the Anne of Green Gables series is definitely something I would want my future preteen daughter(s) to read, because I think they are high quality. From what I've heard about the fourth book and the movie, I'm not so sure about Twilight.

Post by **bobtheenchantedone** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:02 pm

I'm certainly going to be handing my daughters books other than Twilight, but I certainly won't mind if they do read it. As long as they're smart about it, that is.

Speaking of which, I should probably ask my 13-year-old brother what he thought about Twilight...

361 · Post by **361** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:20 pm

Portia wrote:
TheAnswerIs42 wrote:
to those who thought "at least they instill good morals" (I think The Answer is 42 might have been one?):
Not sure if I said that or not. I do remember being glad at how chaste (meaning, they didn't sleep together) they were in the first book when I noticed that almost all of my beehives read it. But, as you say, the fourth book spent a significant amount of time discussing married sex, which while technically "chaste", is still nothing I wanted in the hands of my beehives. So that went out the window.

And yes, the actress was not as well clothed as I would have liked. Grrr. And I hated the stupid name of her daughter.

I still like Harry Potter better. And Chronicles of Narnia, and LOTR, and Tess of D'urbervilles, and Les Miserables . . .
But for fluff reading, I didn't hate it.
I am glad to hear that. Because if people are going to like this series for being "innocuous" . . . I think it . . . should be?

I maintain that Gilbert Blythe is way hotter, and conforms more realistically to women's romantic ideals. Not to mention he's not undead. And the Anne of Green Gables series is definitely something I would want my future preteen daughter(s) to read, because I think they are high quality. From what I've heard about the fourth book and the movie, I'm not so sure about Twilight.

/starts pulling girl's hair and calling them names...

Portia · Post by **Portia** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:56 pm

What?

Also . . . are you Orb 360 reincarnated? If so, I missed that, but I have suspected.

Wisteria · Post by **Wisteria** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:05 pm

I'm pretty sure that 361 is poking fun at Gilbert by mimicking how he tried to get Anne's attention in class by pulling her hair and calling her carrots. To which I say, any young teenage boy is going to act funny around girls. You notice that after Gilbert grew up and matured somewhat, he cast off his childishness and there is no other record of him pulling hair.

yellow m&m · Post by **yellow m&m** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:22 pm

Portia wrote:What?

Also . . . are you Orb 360 reincarnated? If so, I missed that, but I have suspected.

I'm not sure he ever came out and officially said he was Orb 360, but he is.