Have you read Twilight?

please answer the poll.

but of course......of course I have.....

Anyone else?

i really wanted to, but i can only find crepuscle!!!
I don't want to start reading it from the middle!

This is my two cents of Twilight:
Plain and simple, RAGE at the travesty that is---





The author's completely inaccurate with the portrayal of what a vampire is in the first place.

RAGE 1.) Rather than vampires burning to ash in the sunlight, they sparkle--seriously. I think a gaydar just exploded somewhere

RAGE 2.) Pigs Blood<Human Blood--These vampires don't even drink human blood! What kind of BS is that! They drink pig blood instead.

RAGE 3.) All the girls, beautiful or otherwise, are drawn away by the mass pandemic of EDWARDIAN-FEVER---you might not understand if you don't have babbling girls incessantly talking about the movie at school.

RAAAAAAAGE 5.) The author's excuse for not getting 'er facts straight...."I never did any research"----THEY'RE VAMPIRES DEMMIT, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN UNDER THAT ROCK?

Footnote: The only reason I know all of this is because of Humanities teachers claiming "It's a valid cultural event thus we're going to make you read a stupid article about it.

Long post for a guest, you should consider registering.
You also maybe interested in the Vampires thread
https://islasorna.darkbb.com/general-discussion-f32/vampires-t213.htm
So your problem with it is that it is uncannon?

everyone has their own interpertation of a subject, that is part of the reason that i like twilight! and, i liked vampires before! i was( and still am) a fan of conventional vampires!

wow....someone really doesn't like Twilight......................and that is no guest

Jasper Hale wrote:wow....someone really doesn't like Twilight......................and that is no guest

I'd burn every copy if I had the chance, I read some of it... my eyes nearly violently had epiliptic seizures causing them to explode out of my eye socket.

Why, because they aren't stereotypical vampires? (can you even stereotype a non-existent thing?)

neoraptor wrote:Why, because they aren't stereotypical vampires? (can you even stereotype a non-existent thing?)

Mostly the sparkle thing, and the book is to over-hyped.

Vampires don't burn in the sunlight.

neoraptor wrote:Vampires don't burn in the sunlight.

They turn to dust...my main issue is the book is way to over-hyped.

No, in the original Dracula the only thing that happened when he was in the sunlight is that he weakened

neoraptor wrote:No, in the original Dracula the only thing that happened when he was in the sunlight is that he weakened

True, but the mythology evolved over time, this just came out of no where,

So did the ash burning thing when it came out

and whats your problem with originality?

Alice Cullen wrote:and whats your problem with originality?

Whats mu problem with bloodthirsty kilers that are reduced to sparkles in the sun? >

i had my doubts at first too... i had the sme problem and i usually hate romance! but it was genuinly good! just look at it in a different way!

Well, I have to say, your one of the more intelegent fans of the book, I respect that, you don't run around screaming EDWARD TWILIGHT TWILIGHT EDWARD!!!!! But I just don't like the book.

thanks! i love the books but i can respect people who dont. im a little less outspoken about the fact that i do love them...

I love books, I just like proper litrature, this is not proper litrature though.

what kind of books do you like?

the Meg series, classic books like war of the world, all Micheal Chrichton books, anything with the the classic western story concept.

i like more scifi type stuff. i actually really do like crichton!