It’s 11:53 pm. where I am, I have a big presentation due in a few days that I’m barely just starting on, and there are no 24 hr places in this tiny town of 250 k people! At this point I think Benu is my favorite place on earth!
Alright, I haven’t done a good rant about twilight in quite a while so this should be fun:
Before I even begin, let’s establish that the sentence ‘twilight is better than hp’ is a non sequitur, it’s like saying JayZ is better than a spark-plug: it makes no sense.
Now, let’s get started on Twilight the book (the movies I don’t mind so much because of the lulz, have you SEEN RPattz and Kstew trying to act?) :
I read the books because one of my friends whom I really trust with these things told me to read them because she had never laughed so hard in her life while reading anything, and that the embarrassment of being seen around town with it is worth the cheesy hilarity (it was).
Firstly, let’s establish that Stephenie Meyer does NOT know how to write. I compared one of the passages from Eclipse with my 7th grade diary and they looked about the same. I’m not a snobby reader, I am an open Princess Diaries fan, I even got my books autographed, but the thing is that I read those books when I was in middle school and trying to learn English. The Twilight series makes HP look like the work of Proust in comparison! Read one paragraph from the Half-Blood Prince and one from Breaking Dawn and see how you feel, go ahead.
Second: the sad truth is that most people would be ok with overlooking her inability to write well, if she was a good story teller, but as it is everything she tries to write is too long for no reason; the stories don’t make proper sense because her connections between things are shaky at best, the plot-if it ever shows up at all-is too trite and predictable, and there are so many unexplained little side stories or random facts that she could write a whole separate book explaining them.
Third: let’s talk about the ‘story.’ So it’s supposed to be about a girl who falls in love with a vampire, but he’s not dracula, he’s your friendly neighborhood vampire. Let’s talk about that for a second, here’s the thing: if you want to write fantasy books about mythical creatures and imaginary stuff, make sure to use your own damn imagination! Vampires were a creature long before she came along and bastardized the lore. You can’t take someone else’s imaginary character and give it new features: that’s called plagiarism, and she should be sued! You can’t just take a mythical creature with defined characteristics and personality traits and give it as many powers and superhero crap as you can throw at it and expect everyone to just go along with it because it’s a ‘made up’ character. Every story, whether it’s fantasy or non fiction, has its limitations; just as surely as no one can come back to life in Harry Potter, vampires don’t sparkle in the sun instead of DIE, drink animal blood, fall in love with socially awkward, average looking, repressed girls with zero self-esteem, or have superhero ‘powers,’ just to name a few. If she had called them Shmampires and said that they were a distant cousin of the vampires, bread differently or something it wouldn’t be so bad, but to fuck up hundreds of years of tradition is just inexcusable.
But fucking up the vampire part isn’t the only thing wrong with this story. Putting aside the obvious supernatural flaw, AND the unbelievable way bella and edward fell in love after only looking at each other a few times, and talking maybe twice, we come to the part where stephenie meyer, single-handedly, set feminism back at least a hundred years. Bella’s character is a weak, stupid, generic-at best-girl who gets bossed around by her boyfriend, her best friend, and her dad. In one scene Edward takes the engine out of her car so she can’t go see her friend that he is jealous of. Even the female vampires don’t get any respect: they’re not as strong as the men, never really lead any attacks, and one of them can’t stop thinking about wanting to have a baby. Bella’s friends are even worse: all they can do is gossip and talk about clothes and boys, there isn’t a single smart, strong, and independent female character in this story.
It’s been two years since I’ve read the books so I’ve forgotten some things that pissed me off at the time, but the one thing that I do remember is this: How can the vampires have sex? I mean biologically speaking they would need blood in their veins to get an erection, and vampires have no bodily liquids, and speaking of bodily liquids vampires can’t get anyone pregnant because THEY HAVE NO SEMEN! Who the fuck does she think she’s kidding writing this bullshit??
I for one would rather have my kid play video games all day then read this junk…until she is old enough to read it ironically so that she can appreciate good writing all the more.
Recently, I’ve really gotten into watching Psych. I think it started when the two main characters came to UT for a sneak preview into the second half the current season of the show. I watched it before, but only when I happened to catch it on TV, but when Netflix finally put it up for instant watch last month I couldn’t stop myself from watching all 4 seasons that were up, plus I finally figured out the deal with the pineapple that i was wondering about (the director or writer or whatever of the show hides a pineapple in the background of every episode, it can be pieces of one on a pizza, a paper cutout on the wall or even a smoothie) and I had to watch them all again to find all the pineapples (I couldn’t). Then last night, I decided to watch the first 3 seasons of Monk that I had missed and realized that the two shows are exactly the same: a really perceptive guy who solves crimes with the help of an assistant, while being hired as consultants by a police department in California. And when you really think about it (if you’ve seen both shows) certain episodes have the same build-up to a story, or at least enough in common to make me think of the other one and get the bad guys confused…so why is it that like Psych more than Monk? What makes one show better than the other if they’re both the same thing? Especially since Monk came first, shouldn’t Psych be the Carlos Mencia of this situation?
But the answer occurred to me as I was thinking about a topic to write for this blog: When you’re writing a paper it’s important to keep in mind who you’re writing for, I write differently when I’m writing a paper for Foley than one for my International Relations class, they’re different people with different expectations. The expectations part is the most important, when Foley asked us to write as if we were writing a scholarly article I couldn’t half-ass it and write each paragraph in a different style, it had to be consistent. The same is true of the shows: Psych is a comedy pure and simple, sure it has had a few serious episodes, but for the most part it has stuck to its guidelines of a comedy, whereas Monk can’t make up its mind on whether it wants to be a comedy or a drama, which makes it confusing for the audience. Notice that there are not comedydrama categories at the Golden Globes. It’s really hard for the audience to identify with a show when they really don’t know what to expect. It’s very difficult to write hour long comedy shows-even Tina Fay didn’t do it-it’s understandable, but you can’t have it both ways if you want to be really successful at what you do, because at the end of the day your show will go into one of the two categories, and if it’s really difficult to place it in a category then it’s not going to be the best of its kind.
As much as I love you Isaac, I’m going to have to disagree! Halfway through the film I started to look at my watch every 10 minutes to see just how much was left!
I can understand your sense of identification with the character as a performer, the movie was very well acted and I can see dancers, actors etc. understanding the character better than others, but a movie isn’t just about a character, there needs to be a compelling story, and while watching natalie portman masturbate in front of her mom is funny, it’s not a story. Maybe it was my own fault for going to see an Aronofsky film having only watched Requiem for a Dram, maybe I should have watched Pi or the Fountain before getting myself into this mess, but is it too much to ask for a movie you’ve paid $10 for to have a basic, reasonable plot? It starts out with Nina being shy and timid and one of those perfectionist freaks, her character doesn’t really develop at all though the movie even though she goes out with the new girl, gets drunk, and does speed…or some other drug I can’t remember, whatever ‘rolling’ is, has sex with random strangers, slaps her mom around, and lets herself get touched by the director, but still until the very end she’s as uptight as ever until about 10 minutes left in the film when in a ‘surprise’ ending she stabs someone that turns out to be herself in the very end (like I didn’t see that one coming a mile away).
What I’m trying to say is that there was no redeeming quality to this film for me, which is shocking because the previews looked so good. Usually I am an excellent judge of previews, I know exactly what I want to see in theaters and very rarely do the films I choose to go and see disappoint me. So if I have to give kudos to anyone for this ‘movie’ it would have to be the person who edited the trailer, who I think is a master rhetorician! He/she knew exactly which parts to pick to peak everyone’s interests, watching the trailer you can’t stop thinking what is really going on? Why is she so intense? Why is she turning into a swan? Is it real or is it all in her head? (and if you’re a guy) Natalie Portman makesout with that chick from That 70’s Show?!! Making a trailer is more difficult than making a movie: you have to condense a story into a minute to 30 seconds, AND make it seem appealing even if the movie is complete crap. I hope that guy gets my 10 dollars, because he’s the only one who actually earned it.
ps. just on a side note, I’m not this hypercritical of everything, in fact there are more films that I like than dislike, it’s just that I tend to be more vocal when I didn’t like something so it looks like I’m always complaining. it’s just that if I talked about everything that I liked, then we’d be here all day!
like a few other people in the class i was a little surprised when i got my assignment back a few days ago. sure i wasn’t expecting an A, but i didn’t think it was THAT bad. the one comment that i got consistently through my paper though, which i suspect had a lot to do with my grade, was ‘prove it’ which sounds pretty reasonable but when you consider the fact that i was writing for the opinion section of a news paper, proving my point doesn’t seem to be the biggest concern for an editor. here i do have to admit some fault, for some reason i managed to delete the part at the end of my essay that said where it would appear…serves me right for writing stuff so late at night that i don’t know what the hell i’m doing. anyway, what i was going for was a story purely based on my own ‘opinion’ (i use the quotes because i don’t actually believe what i was writing…but i figured for once i should try and write the opposite of what i believe) and it would be published in the editorial section of the paper, and all the papers i’ve written for before (not that many, and they all would have let anyone write for them, so it’s not really a big deal…or even a small deal) would have accepted that format. in editorial writing, the audience is YOUR audience, they read your column every week because they’ve grown to trust you and your judgments, they’re not reading for confusing statistics and data, they’re wondering what the columnist’s opinions on a controversial issue are, and that’s what i tried to do-not all that well admittedly, but i’m no maureen dowd!
ps. Catherine, if you’re talking about the Trubowitz paper, i did surprisingly well too, and considering the fact that i was expecting a C- at best, i was shocked!
So I have a bit of a problem with spelling, and if it wasn’t for computers and the red squiggly line, I swear I don’t know what I’d do! But every now and then even that squiggly line fails me because technically the word is spelled correctly, it’s just not what I meant to write, which brings me to my point: the thing you didn’t (or maybe did, but didn’t point out) catch was that in the first paragraph of my scholarly article I’d written blah blah blah in order to assess the situation blah blah blah, only instead of assess I’d written ASSES!! woops! Can you believe this isn’t the first time this has happened? You’d think by now I would have learned my lesson!
So i was reading through the HP wikipedia page to find something to talk about and i noticed a whole bunch of shit that people are saying about the book that, at least to me, seems like a stretch. For the longest time now i’ve been reading sparknotes and talking about literature, and discussing ‘the classics’ in english and lit classes and all the supposedly clever thing the authors have put in the books, but quite honestly i find more than half of that stuff bullshit, i hardly doubt that when rowlling was writing the series she had all these crazy governmental/religious theories behind every little fact of the book when she wrote it. people see the similarities in stories that they want to see, sure she purposely added the nazie allusions or the chamberlaine thing, but to assume everything people have written on wikipedia is true, and to consider the book ‘controversial’ because of them is presuming a little too much. Any time anything becomes as famous and widely popular as the HP series it automatically becomes controversial because every idiot sees it and they have to put their two cents and all this leads to a manufactured ‘controversy.’
and i’m not saying all this as a fan of the books, this is true of a lot of crap that we read in high school too, and a lot of those books were total crap (in my opinion). so maybe people should just shut up and keep their stupid ideas to themselves every once in a while!
if you disagree with this (please do) write something back so we can have a ‘dialogue’ because i really don’t think i have the 10 required posts!
Goebbels Goebbels Goebbels!
I would like to write like my newly found hero, Harrison Wagner, a Government professor here at UT. His articles are badass, and informative…if you’re smart enough to understand them! (they make me feel dumb, which is good exorcise in reducing the d-bag tendencies in one’s personality)
Dr. McDonald is also a good example to follow, he is less formal than Wagner, but still really smart. You just know what he is talking about. He is clear and concise.
I also wouldn’t mind writing like Waltz. He may be wrong about a lot of things, but he writes convincingly, and that’s really cool!
PAIS International is a good one to emulate, because they have a good variety of articles in their database, which makes them fun
So, as if I didn’t learn my lesson the last time, I came back to Bennu tonight to write my International Relations Theory paper, and to study for my English quiz tomorrow.
It was of course packed as usual, but I weaseled my way in a little spot with a wobbly chair, and sat down to research and write my paper. The internet is slow at best, and keeps stopping and starting like it’s 1999 and I can’t even google half the things I need to, or check blackboard. But I suck it up and stay, and after a few hours I go up to order my coffee, and overpriced pizza (which ends up being 7 dollars, 8 with tip) and as I’m waiting for my caramel/white mocha latte, I notice the barista, instead of using a thermometer to measure the temperature of the steaming milk, is using his HANDS cupped outside the pitcher! He then pours the overly steamed milk in my cup, where the espresso shots have been sitting for the past at least 15 seconds and are now dead and overly bitter, without a spoon to hold the foam back! Great, I now have a piping hot, bitter, CAPPUCCINO that I can’t even try to cool down by blowing on it because it’s COVERED WITH FOAM. Don’t get me wrong though, the people who work here are nice, but if you don’t know the difference between a Latte and a Cappuccino you need to re-train!
In retrospect I should have gone to the Spiderhouse, because there at least, I could order a pitcher of Shiner so I can at least handle all the hipsters around me.
Next time, if I tell you I’m planning on coming here, SLAP ME!
Hey guys, which one are we submitting our papers under? Because I don’t think i see a new one…is that just me?
I like them because of their attitude and their interesting writing style. I feel like I can read an article and feel better about myself!
This is clearly a leftist blog and has lots of scientific debate that i totally agree with, so reading it is like reading my own thoughts.
The tone of this blog is REALLY funny, and I feel that humor is always the best way to convince other people without them realizing they’re being convinced of something.
I LOVE her. ‘nuff said.
pictures are worth a thousand words! (but some are just bad)
I’m writing about evolution, creationism, and that religious people should just leave their pseudo science and other view points out of our children’s education system.