Play-by-Play: Twilight - Take 2
Aug. 1st, 2008 02:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azuriteOkay, so I've finished reading "Twilight," the first book in Stephenie Meyer's series of the same name, which includes "New Moon," "Eclipse," and the soon-to-be-released "Breaking Dawn." It's also going to be featured in a movie of the same name, coming out December 12th.
I've heard a lot about the series, from my FL and off, from fans and wankers alike. My impression started out fairly negative: that it was poorly written, and should only be read for the LULz, that the main character was as close to a "canon Sue" as has ever been written, and the fans are even more delusional than the women that think they're married to Snape or Scott Summers.
Some reactions from outside:
-makani on DeviantART seemed to hate it (or just went along with the wank reports), and she got a torrent of commenters from all ages claiming they like/love the story, and just as many, if not more, that hate it.
-My roommate says she likes it because it's an easy read. She reads it in the 15 minute breaks she gets between shifts, but I've also seen her curled up with it on the couch when I get home. She got into it because of her 14-year-old sister, and disagrees with the opinion that it's meant for older readers than "Harry Potter" (even though Meyer herself said in a USA Today interview that the fourth and final book, "Breaking Dawn" is meant for ages 15+). She said it was more for 9-year-olds, but I think the language and tone is a bit more than that-- though I'm basing it off of things that were suggested to me when *I* was 9. The world's a different place, and I never read on my age level anyway-- I usually skipped a few grades in terms of booklists.
I actually had made another post a while ago, which included my reactions as I read the book in 20-30 page chunks. But it was lost, so here's my reaction to the first book as a whole, after I finished reading it earlier tonight.
After finishing it, I do have to say, Bella's not the greatest girl ever. I can't really empathize with her the way I might have with Harry Potter, Amy "Bugaboo" Haskel of the "Secret Society Girl" series, or other famous protagonists. It's not a matter of Bella being Sue-ish, really: as people have pointed out, she does have her flaws, and throughout the book, Meyer develops them to the point where they can be believable, rather than just two-dimensional. Bella started out very Sue-ish, in my book, because despite her being "plain" and "anti-social" and all these other things, her biggest failing is being a klutz, and yet it doesn't seem to stop so many guys from being interested in her, especially the hottest young vampire in boring ol' Forks, Washington.
But by book's end, her klutziness is more or less her saving grace, because if it wasn't SO bad (I'm talking on the level of Usagi Tsukino here, except without the comedic relief), she never would have been able to use it as the lie that ends up protecting the Cullens family and keeping them in Forks.
Now, addressing the other main parts of the story:
Vampire: Stephenie Meyer's vampires are quite unlike anything I've ever heard of or seen before. I do have to admit, my impression of "vampires" is largely colored by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," but that's mainly because I feel like Whedon did vampires RIGHT. Meyer's vamps... well, they need a bit of work. For starters, they:
* are super-strong (okay, this I think most vamps have, to some degree)
* have super-senses (smell I can understand, and perhaps even sight, but everything else, too!?)
* can run super-fast (it's getting weirder...)
* may have "additional" powers, such as mind-reading, foresight, or the ability to influence others' emotions (now we're just getting Sue-ish)
* sparkle (WTF!? I didn't want to believe this was true, and thought it was just a distortion of Edward's "ability" to "dazzle" people, especially women, but apparently it's true-- of all vampires, at least the Cullens)
The thing about vampires in general is, they're supposed to have this dark, frightening atmosphere about them: they have the ability to put you into the deepest pit of fear, and yet the saving grace is THEY HAVE A WEAKNESS. Maybe it's me and my tainted-by-BtVS mind, but I think vamps should always be able to be staked, if not destroyed by direct sunlight. This gives us lowly humans something to fight back with. But Meyer's vampires can only be killed by OTHER vampires-- as Edward said, to kill a vampire, you have to "tear him to shreds, then burn the pieces." A bit of a stretch, eh?
So while Meyer's vampires have some classic elements, like immortality/eternal youth, icy cold, pale skin and off-color eyes, they also go a step (or three) further:
* The eyes change color, often with mood (a total Sue invention)
* They don't really have fangs (how the fuck do they bite then-- human or animal!?)
* They have "classes," like "tracker," and such (RPG, much?)
The one interesting element Meyer introduced (for me) was the idea of vampire families: the idea that there is no one singular type of vampire because different families exist, which is why Polish vamps =/= Japanese vamps =/= Australian vamps, etc. It could make things nice and murky if they each had their own weaknesses and such, and the only thing they TRULY have in common is the desire to drink (human) blood.
What I hated the absolute most wasn't the language, but the LOVE STORY part of it. Seriously, it went from Edward glaring and hating Bella and Bella being all confused (and somewhat emo) about it --very teenager, so I was forgiving of the tone of voice she had.
I'm not a big fan of stories told in the first person, usually, and I thought "Twilight" could have been done better in the third person, even if we only had Bella's limited perspective (again, a'la Harry Potter). I felt that, even being in Bella's shoes, there was no real development of the romance. Honestly, bad Harlequin novels do better than "Twilight" did in that department.
One moment, it was "I hate you!"/"I'm confused!" and then all of a sudden, it was "I love you!"/"I love you, too!" I was honestly befuddled. Maybe this is just me, loving to write romantic entanglements where things like relationships are murky and sticky and require WORK, rather than just wangsting over whether Edward will make Bella a vampire or not (you know from the end of the first book he's going to give in eventually, even if it's not until the beginning of Book 4, when they get married-- btw, that's not a spoiler anymore, Meyer revealed it in a freaking interview! She said in USA Today that it happens at the beginning of the book, so it's "not even the most important detail.")
No, really: Edward's been around for more than 100 years, and in his 18 years as a human, he NEVER once felt anything romantic for another person? I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Even if he's lying, forgetting, or whatever, and as a vampire, reading everyone's thoughts kind of killed any potential crushes, him NEVER even being sexually attracted to another kind of blows my mind.
Bella, I can get. She's portrayed early on as a "not people person," but not exactly Miss Goth-Emo or anything like that. She's not viciously anti-social, she's just apathetic. I think this becomes clearer in book 2, "Eclipse," from what I've read of the first chapter (from the ending of "Twilight," as the preview in the back). She seems like the sort who, if she ever DID like anyone, she'd do it from afar, never bucking up the courage to say anything or do anything about it. She'd wallow in her misery as the person, unknowing, would hook up with someone else and move on with their life. I'm sure she's never been PURSUED, the way Edward basically did with her once he "gave up" on staying away from her.
You know how, in every relationship, there's someone who always seems to fall harder, fall first, fall faster? In Edward and Bella's relationship, I see that as being Edward: he has to struggle with having this ONE person who he can't read, who he can't understand. Then, stereotypically, she's new, so she's also mysterious, challenging, different. To top it all off, even if he COULD read her, and even if she wasn't so new in town, she's got that SUPER-SPESHUL-AWESOME "scent" about her. Apparently she smells like a cupcake to vampires: one of those orgasmic cupcakes, like that cake from "The Matrix."
I can understand why some people, even after reading the first book and seeing that Edward was quite plainly established as THE romantic interest, THE good guy, THE one who has changed and will change Bella's "life," some people jumped on the idea of Bella hooking up with Jacob. When he was introduced in "Twilight," I was confused: this was the guy people were arguing for Bella to be hooked up with? He seemed like a sidekick character, if anything, and had hardly any role in "Twilight" at all. He was merely introduced, and from what I understand, will play a more vital role in "New Moon," probably because he finally turns into a werewolf for what I presume is the first time. I think if he were already a werewolf during the events of "Twilight," the only thing that could explain his decent behavior re: Edward would be amnesia (whether drug-induced or not).
Are Meyer's werewolves immortal? If not, then that's more or less why I think Jacob would be better for Bella than Edward: everyone has that first, intense love, but let's be realistic: how often does it last? How often is it so perfect that there are never some REALLY rough bumps on the road to happiness? Jacob seems a lot more "normal" than Edward and the Cullens, if only because he's lived that "normal" life a lot longer than the Cullens have (in the sense that he hasn't been moving around a lot, collecting masses of wealth, and gone off on random sprees to who-knows-where, baffling the townspeople).
Meyer mentioned in the USA Today interview that she didn't understand why people were making a big deal over her being Mormon. I believe it's got nothing to do with recent interest in the religion over the fundamentalist sects in Texas and Utah and their incest cases, but in fact, her own familial situation: she's writing about a teenager's first love, and already said flat out that it's going to end up in marriage (and woe to s/he who hasn't read the wank reports: kid, too!). How is that the least bit realistic in today's modern world?
Well, to Meyer, it sure is: she's only 34 and already has 3 sons, the oldest of whom is 11. She's been married 13 years. You do the math. She married and had kids a LOT younger than the average, especially for recent generations. It seems like she's pushing Bella down that same path, if not younger. Who knows if Meyer dated a lot of guys beforehand, had a lot of failed relationships, before she met Pancho? (I think I got his name right.)
But even if "Twilight" was inspired by a dream (okay, I get that writers can get inspired everywhere, but that seems a BIT hokey, if you ask me. Not everything you dream is worthy fiction-for-the-masses material, and I think some things better left to the ether are actually included in the book), a certain amount of what she puts in comes from real experiences. And what people write about does, in part, influence the readers: people were saying that Ron and Hermione's relationship in the "Harry Potter" series was setting a bad example of relationships to younger readers, who might come to act (or think they should act) like Ron and Hermione. But the fact is, you can learn from other peoples' mistakes, even if those other people are fictional. The question is, do people know that Ron and Hermione AREN'T meant to be seen as perfect? I'd like to think so-- JKR seemed to do a good job at building them up and breaking them down in cycles. But Meyer? So far, she seems to be saying Edward and Bella are TEH DESTINY!!11!eleventy!!1 and they are/will be the perfect couple, whether immortal or not.
Sure, it'd be lovely to have someone who loves you passionately enough to want to die for you, but beyond that, what really makes them so perfect? What makes them so compatible, so enviable? I really can't say.
Some people -even those who are Meyer's age or older- are saying they can really relate to the characters, and I frankly don't see how. They never "come alive" for me, except toward the end, when I, like I think most of the fangirls (though I will never be as scary as them; I'd be downright ashamed if a celebrity ever told me my screams/shouts of glee/happiness were like the sound "at the gates of hell"), I was squeeing a bit over Edward and Bella. But only a bit-- I can honestly say I've squeed and swooned a LOT more over fanfiction.
Anyway, I had more quick thoughts on the story as I was reading it, but all that's lost. I might try and re-read it to recapture some of the points I have forgotten to include here, or I may just move on to book 2, "New Moon," and do it with that one.
Yeah, I am going to read the second one. "Twilight" did give me some LULz, and there were points when the writing was truly atrocious. The writing DID improve, but still not enough for me to want to buy the books for myself. I'll just keep mooching them off my roommate and then ripping them apart (in the metaphorical sense, of course) as I go.
I've heard a lot about the series, from my FL and off, from fans and wankers alike. My impression started out fairly negative: that it was poorly written, and should only be read for the LULz, that the main character was as close to a "canon Sue" as has ever been written, and the fans are even more delusional than the women that think they're married to Snape or Scott Summers.
Some reactions from outside:
-makani on DeviantART seemed to hate it (or just went along with the wank reports), and she got a torrent of commenters from all ages claiming they like/love the story, and just as many, if not more, that hate it.
-My roommate says she likes it because it's an easy read. She reads it in the 15 minute breaks she gets between shifts, but I've also seen her curled up with it on the couch when I get home. She got into it because of her 14-year-old sister, and disagrees with the opinion that it's meant for older readers than "Harry Potter" (even though Meyer herself said in a USA Today interview that the fourth and final book, "Breaking Dawn" is meant for ages 15+). She said it was more for 9-year-olds, but I think the language and tone is a bit more than that-- though I'm basing it off of things that were suggested to me when *I* was 9. The world's a different place, and I never read on my age level anyway-- I usually skipped a few grades in terms of booklists.
I actually had made another post a while ago, which included my reactions as I read the book in 20-30 page chunks. But it was lost, so here's my reaction to the first book as a whole, after I finished reading it earlier tonight.
After finishing it, I do have to say, Bella's not the greatest girl ever. I can't really empathize with her the way I might have with Harry Potter, Amy "Bugaboo" Haskel of the "Secret Society Girl" series, or other famous protagonists. It's not a matter of Bella being Sue-ish, really: as people have pointed out, she does have her flaws, and throughout the book, Meyer develops them to the point where they can be believable, rather than just two-dimensional. Bella started out very Sue-ish, in my book, because despite her being "plain" and "anti-social" and all these other things, her biggest failing is being a klutz, and yet it doesn't seem to stop so many guys from being interested in her, especially the hottest young vampire in boring ol' Forks, Washington.
But by book's end, her klutziness is more or less her saving grace, because if it wasn't SO bad (I'm talking on the level of Usagi Tsukino here, except without the comedic relief), she never would have been able to use it as the lie that ends up protecting the Cullens family and keeping them in Forks.
Now, addressing the other main parts of the story:
Vampire: Stephenie Meyer's vampires are quite unlike anything I've ever heard of or seen before. I do have to admit, my impression of "vampires" is largely colored by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," but that's mainly because I feel like Whedon did vampires RIGHT. Meyer's vamps... well, they need a bit of work. For starters, they:
* are super-strong (okay, this I think most vamps have, to some degree)
* have super-senses (smell I can understand, and perhaps even sight, but everything else, too!?)
* can run super-fast (it's getting weirder...)
* may have "additional" powers, such as mind-reading, foresight, or the ability to influence others' emotions (now we're just getting Sue-ish)
* sparkle (WTF!? I didn't want to believe this was true, and thought it was just a distortion of Edward's "ability" to "dazzle" people, especially women, but apparently it's true-- of all vampires, at least the Cullens)
The thing about vampires in general is, they're supposed to have this dark, frightening atmosphere about them: they have the ability to put you into the deepest pit of fear, and yet the saving grace is THEY HAVE A WEAKNESS. Maybe it's me and my tainted-by-BtVS mind, but I think vamps should always be able to be staked, if not destroyed by direct sunlight. This gives us lowly humans something to fight back with. But Meyer's vampires can only be killed by OTHER vampires-- as Edward said, to kill a vampire, you have to "tear him to shreds, then burn the pieces." A bit of a stretch, eh?
So while Meyer's vampires have some classic elements, like immortality/eternal youth, icy cold, pale skin and off-color eyes, they also go a step (or three) further:
* The eyes change color, often with mood (a total Sue invention)
* They don't really have fangs (how the fuck do they bite then-- human or animal!?)
* They have "classes," like "tracker," and such (RPG, much?)
The one interesting element Meyer introduced (for me) was the idea of vampire families: the idea that there is no one singular type of vampire because different families exist, which is why Polish vamps =/= Japanese vamps =/= Australian vamps, etc. It could make things nice and murky if they each had their own weaknesses and such, and the only thing they TRULY have in common is the desire to drink (human) blood.
What I hated the absolute most wasn't the language, but the LOVE STORY part of it. Seriously, it went from Edward glaring and hating Bella and Bella being all confused (and somewhat emo) about it --very teenager, so I was forgiving of the tone of voice she had.
I'm not a big fan of stories told in the first person, usually, and I thought "Twilight" could have been done better in the third person, even if we only had Bella's limited perspective (again, a'la Harry Potter). I felt that, even being in Bella's shoes, there was no real development of the romance. Honestly, bad Harlequin novels do better than "Twilight" did in that department.
One moment, it was "I hate you!"/"I'm confused!" and then all of a sudden, it was "I love you!"/"I love you, too!" I was honestly befuddled. Maybe this is just me, loving to write romantic entanglements where things like relationships are murky and sticky and require WORK, rather than just wangsting over whether Edward will make Bella a vampire or not (you know from the end of the first book he's going to give in eventually, even if it's not until the beginning of Book 4, when they get married-- btw, that's not a spoiler anymore, Meyer revealed it in a freaking interview! She said in USA Today that it happens at the beginning of the book, so it's "not even the most important detail.")
No, really: Edward's been around for more than 100 years, and in his 18 years as a human, he NEVER once felt anything romantic for another person? I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Even if he's lying, forgetting, or whatever, and as a vampire, reading everyone's thoughts kind of killed any potential crushes, him NEVER even being sexually attracted to another kind of blows my mind.
Bella, I can get. She's portrayed early on as a "not people person," but not exactly Miss Goth-Emo or anything like that. She's not viciously anti-social, she's just apathetic. I think this becomes clearer in book 2, "Eclipse," from what I've read of the first chapter (from the ending of "Twilight," as the preview in the back). She seems like the sort who, if she ever DID like anyone, she'd do it from afar, never bucking up the courage to say anything or do anything about it. She'd wallow in her misery as the person, unknowing, would hook up with someone else and move on with their life. I'm sure she's never been PURSUED, the way Edward basically did with her once he "gave up" on staying away from her.
You know how, in every relationship, there's someone who always seems to fall harder, fall first, fall faster? In Edward and Bella's relationship, I see that as being Edward: he has to struggle with having this ONE person who he can't read, who he can't understand. Then, stereotypically, she's new, so she's also mysterious, challenging, different. To top it all off, even if he COULD read her, and even if she wasn't so new in town, she's got that SUPER-SPESHUL-AWESOME "scent" about her. Apparently she smells like a cupcake to vampires: one of those orgasmic cupcakes, like that cake from "The Matrix."
I can understand why some people, even after reading the first book and seeing that Edward was quite plainly established as THE romantic interest, THE good guy, THE one who has changed and will change Bella's "life," some people jumped on the idea of Bella hooking up with Jacob. When he was introduced in "Twilight," I was confused: this was the guy people were arguing for Bella to be hooked up with? He seemed like a sidekick character, if anything, and had hardly any role in "Twilight" at all. He was merely introduced, and from what I understand, will play a more vital role in "New Moon," probably because he finally turns into a werewolf for what I presume is the first time. I think if he were already a werewolf during the events of "Twilight," the only thing that could explain his decent behavior re: Edward would be amnesia (whether drug-induced or not).
Are Meyer's werewolves immortal? If not, then that's more or less why I think Jacob would be better for Bella than Edward: everyone has that first, intense love, but let's be realistic: how often does it last? How often is it so perfect that there are never some REALLY rough bumps on the road to happiness? Jacob seems a lot more "normal" than Edward and the Cullens, if only because he's lived that "normal" life a lot longer than the Cullens have (in the sense that he hasn't been moving around a lot, collecting masses of wealth, and gone off on random sprees to who-knows-where, baffling the townspeople).
Meyer mentioned in the USA Today interview that she didn't understand why people were making a big deal over her being Mormon. I believe it's got nothing to do with recent interest in the religion over the fundamentalist sects in Texas and Utah and their incest cases, but in fact, her own familial situation: she's writing about a teenager's first love, and already said flat out that it's going to end up in marriage (and woe to s/he who hasn't read the wank reports: kid, too!). How is that the least bit realistic in today's modern world?
Well, to Meyer, it sure is: she's only 34 and already has 3 sons, the oldest of whom is 11. She's been married 13 years. You do the math. She married and had kids a LOT younger than the average, especially for recent generations. It seems like she's pushing Bella down that same path, if not younger. Who knows if Meyer dated a lot of guys beforehand, had a lot of failed relationships, before she met Pancho? (I think I got his name right.)
But even if "Twilight" was inspired by a dream (okay, I get that writers can get inspired everywhere, but that seems a BIT hokey, if you ask me. Not everything you dream is worthy fiction-for-the-masses material, and I think some things better left to the ether are actually included in the book), a certain amount of what she puts in comes from real experiences. And what people write about does, in part, influence the readers: people were saying that Ron and Hermione's relationship in the "Harry Potter" series was setting a bad example of relationships to younger readers, who might come to act (or think they should act) like Ron and Hermione. But the fact is, you can learn from other peoples' mistakes, even if those other people are fictional. The question is, do people know that Ron and Hermione AREN'T meant to be seen as perfect? I'd like to think so-- JKR seemed to do a good job at building them up and breaking them down in cycles. But Meyer? So far, she seems to be saying Edward and Bella are TEH DESTINY!!11!eleventy!!1 and they are/will be the perfect couple, whether immortal or not.
Sure, it'd be lovely to have someone who loves you passionately enough to want to die for you, but beyond that, what really makes them so perfect? What makes them so compatible, so enviable? I really can't say.
Some people -even those who are Meyer's age or older- are saying they can really relate to the characters, and I frankly don't see how. They never "come alive" for me, except toward the end, when I, like I think most of the fangirls (though I will never be as scary as them; I'd be downright ashamed if a celebrity ever told me my screams/shouts of glee/happiness were like the sound "at the gates of hell"), I was squeeing a bit over Edward and Bella. But only a bit-- I can honestly say I've squeed and swooned a LOT more over fanfiction.
Anyway, I had more quick thoughts on the story as I was reading it, but all that's lost. I might try and re-read it to recapture some of the points I have forgotten to include here, or I may just move on to book 2, "New Moon," and do it with that one.
Yeah, I am going to read the second one. "Twilight" did give me some LULz, and there were points when the writing was truly atrocious. The writing DID improve, but still not enough for me to want to buy the books for myself. I'll just keep mooching them off my roommate and then ripping them apart (in the metaphorical sense, of course) as I go.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-01 02:15 pm (UTC)Jacob, in the first book, is not really anything other than a friendly acquaintance - but that does change in "New Moon" and picks up even more in "Eclipse".
Eh. I'll keep reading. I'm not going to wet myself over it like I did with "Harry Potter" - frankly, it ain't nowhere near the same class - but I'll get "Breaking Dawn" sometime in the next few weeks.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-02 05:19 am (UTC)That's exactly how I feel about it, more or less. Same with the characters, but at least now I know why there's Bella/Jacob hype. It's funny though, because why would Meyer introduce Jacob as a foil to Edward but only do it in Book 2, when Book 1 so thoroughly established Edward as the de facto male?
Good thing for me: my roommate's already got the first 3 books and told me she's pre-ordered the fourth, so I can mooch off her! :D
no subject
Date: 2008-08-01 02:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-02 04:55 am (UTC)I agree with a lot of things you had to say; I disagree with a lot of things you had to say. But one of your points that you barely brushed on is the failure that irks me the most: the concept and extremity of love.
I'm an admirer of a lot of your works, and I truly appreciate that, although the main story is most likely a love one, the plot can deviate to incorporate different elements of genre (action, mystery, adventure). The protagonists focus on the new plot, and not too much on each other (in the excessive, sickening sort of way). The characters have their romantic moments, but they're distanced and therefore, 'worth it.' That being said, I believe that was Twilight's faults. It was always about each other, how I'll protect you, how we'll love one another for all eternity. Call me crazy, but people shouldn't be obsessed with one another in the way portrayed in this series. I don't know, you'd just think that they could think about something else for a change.
Yup! You'll most likely see the "Sue-ness" ensue for books to come. Haha, over in my time zone, "Breaking Dawn" is released in 6 minutes. I still can't wait to read it.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-02 05:27 am (UTC)Anyway, I figure the movie will cut out of a lot of the unnecessary stuff from the book and make it move faster, which was my main irk: if there was more conflict and tension -a real reason other than Edward for them to be thrown together and maybe fall in love- then their TWU WUB for each other by book's end would be much more believable.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-02 09:00 am (UTC)You'd like to know? Ah well...I'm just gunna list stuffs sporadically. I hope since you're looking into interviews and such, you're not afraid of spoilers, hm?
Disagreed:
-Meyer's vampires are exclusive to Twilight, and Twilight alone (no matta' how far-fetched). And in that sense, they needn't have to pertain to what this other story says a vampire should behave like or what society (in the book or in reality) believes a vampire is, based on years of myth or legend.
-Although irritating to some readers, I find first-person, I dunno, interesting. Instead of the omniscient narrator telling me everything I need to know, I learn all through the otherwise oblivious perspective of first-person narrator. Kinda like FFX?
Agreed:
+ The vampires are unarguably indestructible to an insane extent--what if this had been a story about humans vs. vampires? And what if there happened to be no friendly vampires? The handicaps simply are not balanced: totally unfair toward mankind.
+The love development DID have me going, "Wait...wtf?" In total agreement with ya there.
+ Jacob would be the better suitor for Bella I guess, he's more "human." I can't really say for sure, everything concerning him and Bellas was in New Moon, and, to be honest, I skimmed that book. Can't remember a darn thing in it...I'll stop now lest I continue with spoilers. (Twilight Fact: Werewolves exist as long as vampires are in the vicinity. Once vamps are gone, the werewolves ability of transformation and longevity subside).
Should I rephrase my sentence? I agree with you on a lot of things you had to say: I disagree with little you had to say. Most of the cliches you've written about bugged me too. :P
Definitely should be more conflict. It's not a real relationship if you don't fight, right? Non-symmetry has always been pleasing to the eye. And what are your thoughts on the movie?
(WDKY 26: Wow, Azurite, JUST got through reading it, pure excellence. Dude, the angst! I'm dream_fantasy10, btw)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 07:47 am (UTC)