Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    It suggests girls are somehow turning to this to liberate them from the oppressive sexual frustration they're suffering from as a result of societal norms. Anyway, Meyer isn't some amazing revolutionary she's simply tapped into a female market which has always existed, a romantic tale where a dull, ditzy, pretty girl falls head over heels in love with a mysterious, handsome vampire isn't a new concept by any means nor is the level of sexual content in the novel. She's simply made a current version which appeals to the younger female audience, the entry level readers and the ones who - despite its lack of literary merit read it because there's such few alternatives in the market (or they are unaware of it). The success of Twilight is not something which reflects any change in society or female values and that's why I think it's pretty depressing. This template has been successful for hundreds of years hence why it is constantly being renewed and if in 20 years no-one has made a similar series of novels, an author will write a newer, shinier version with all the new gadgets and fads referred to and it'll be a roaring success like Twilight has been. I certainly do hope this is not the case but meh.
    Thank you.

    Chick lit has been around for centuries, so has the whole 'Slightly depressed woman meets attractive man with magical elements in it' genre. That is pretty much what victorian gothic is, except with less romance and more about monsters.
    I dunno why op is banging on about this being about oppressed women or oppressive society (women don't have fantasies in a non-oppressive society?).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If your writing a book / film about vampires you don't make them shiny.
    Twilight is just women porn shown in cinema's and women take their partners along, they wouldn't like it if their was porn for men shown in cinema and being dragged along to watch it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Charles Dickens & Jane Eyre

    FTW !
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The OP makes me despair for English Literature students, really.

    The success of Twilight has nothing to do with the books and everything to do with the movies. When girls go all gooey over "Edward", they're really going gooey over Pattison.

    Besides, my earlier points still stand. I was never talking about the quality of the works themselves, just that the fact that people, such as yourself, think that Twilight as books are tapping into something for the first time shows how badly read you and the defenders of Twilight are. Gothic literature and trashy Chick Lit novels have been doing that for centuries and the latter is relatively popular, consistently in the top sellers section of book stores, for example. I might add that Gothic literature is not a relic of the Victorian era, but still alive and well today. Meyer is just an example of a subgenre, Dark Romanticism, which has been about for a long time.

    Once again, the reason it's doing better than the others is all to do with the movies. The books were relatively unknown before R-Patz and that girl got on screen. Your theory on what that says about current social beliefs and trends is more apt for a Film Studies module than an English Lit one.

    Even if we say Twilight's popularity is down to the books alone, then it would not be worth remarking upon, to be honest. It would never have made headlines or caused a stir. It's not that popular.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've read it as a light hearted read on holiday. I'm constantly being given heavy reading with all sorts of feminist, political and dystopian values and sometimes it's nice to just have an escape. Even if it isn't a literary masterpiece.. I've read worse. It's okay for young teens. It's okay to read a book for fun.. even if it is a bit trashy. Then again, I've read some "literary classics" and not enjoyed it e.g Jane Eyre. Just felt dull and slow. If someone likes Twilight.. let them be. If they think it's amazing Lit.. then let them think that. You know that it's not. I can't deny I enjoyed reading them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I liked Twilight simply because I thought it was a good story. Its chaacters were the same age, its modern, and i like that it is essentially a love story but with elements of action, fantasy and drama thrown in. The fact that there are 4 of them helps too, as its more of a bigger deal, I mean I've read lots of amazing books but they were all just one book so less memorable, compared to twilight.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    The OP makes me despair for English Literature students, really.

    The success of Twilight has nothing to do with the books and everything to do with the movies. When girls go all gooey over "Edward", they're really going gooey over Pattison.

    Besides, my earlier points still stand. I was never talking about the quality of the works themselves, just that the fact that people, such as yourself, think that Twilight as books are tapping into something for the first time shows how badly read you and the defenders of Twilight are. Gothic literature and trashy Chick Lit novels have been doing that for centuries and the latter is relatively popular, consistently in the top sellers section of book stores, for example. I might add that Gothic literature is not a relic of the Victorian era, but still alive and well today. Meyer is just an example of a subgenre, Dark Romanticism, which has been about for a long time.

    Once again, the reason it's doing better than the others is all to do with the movies. The books were relatively unknown before R-Patz and that girl got on screen. Your theory on what that says about current social beliefs and trends is more apt for a Film Studies module than an English Lit one.

    Even if we say Twilight's popularity is down to the books alone, then it would not be worth remarking upon, to be honest. It would never have made headlines or caused a stir. It's not that popular.
    The books certainly weren't unknown before the movies. All four books had come out before the first movie and had stacked up millions upon millions of sales, and had already spent years on bestselling lists. Doh.

    I don't think they're tapping into something for the 'first time', I never said that. But for this specific market to react to a book in such an explosive way is a first for this generation.

    Even if we say Twilight's popularity is down to the books alone, then it would not be worth remarking upon, to be honest
    It's a shame that you're dismissing this huge cultural phenomenon, because I think it's things like this that tell us about our society, about how we're bringing up our next generation and about sexuality and gender issues in this generation. If you don't find it interesting then that's fine (although I'm not sure why you're posting) but to say it's not worth remarking on is to underestimate the importance of phenomena like this and what they can tell us about ourselves.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    The books certainly weren't unknown before the movies. All four books had come out before the first movie and had stacked up millions upon millions of sales, and had already spent years on bestselling lists. Doh.

    I don't think they're tapping into something for the 'first time', I never said that. But for this specific market to react to a book in such an explosive way is a first for this generation.
    Best sellers lists mean very little, especially in regard to books. If they had been that popular, we would've heard a lot more about them before now. The books had a minor following before the first movie came out. The market didn't react in an explosive way. Especially when you compare it to other Chick Lit out there. The market only truly expanded after the first movie came out, two years ago.

    To take a personal example, which isn't indicative of the market obviously but me and my mates read that kind of thing, I only knew of one person before the first movie came out who had even heard of Twilight. They just weren't that well known.

    It wasn't until after the first movie that the media, outside of literary critics, even started mentioning the books. All its success is directly attributable to the films.

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It's a shame that you're dismissing this huge cultural phenomenon, because I think it's things like this that tell us about our society, about how we're bringing up our next generation and about sexuality and gender issues in this generation. If you don't find it interesting then that's fine (although I'm not sure why you're posting) but to say it's not worth remarking on is to underestimate the importance of phenomena like this and what they can tell us about ourselves.
    I'm not dismissing it, I'm just shifting the focus away from the literature to the movies.

    Personally, if you really want to research how society views stuff, you should look at folklore and things like that, but that's my academical bias.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Best sellers lists mean very little, especially in regard to books. If they had been that popular, we would've heard a lot more about them before now. The books had a minor following before the first movie came out. The market didn't react in an explosive way. Especially when you compare it to other Chick Lit out there. The market only truly expanded after the first movie came out, two years ago.

    To take a personal example, which isn't indicative of the market obviously but me and my mates read that kind of thing, I only knew of one person before the first movie came out who had even heard of Twilight. They just weren't that well known.
    I'd heard about the books from several of my friends, several years before the movie came out. We can all say 'but I didn't hear about it'- anecdotes mean very little, the huge number of sales of the books obviously mean a lot more.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    It wasn't until after the first movie that the media, outside of literary critics, even started mentioning the books. All its success is directly attributable to the films.
    ALL of its success? Really? It's very difficult to have a debate with someone who makes such sweeping, inflexible claims as these, especially when you have very little to back it up with.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    Personally, if you really want to research how society views stuff, you should look at folklore and things like that, but that's my academical bias.
    Twilight IS part of contemporary folklore.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I'd heard about the books from several of my friends, several years before the movie came out. We can all say 'but I didn't hear about it'- anecdotes mean very little, the huge number of sales of the books obviously mean a lot more.
    No, but I did add that me and my friends are purveyors of such literature, so I would've expected to hear about it if it were that big. Of course it doesn't mean much, but when a book like Twilight isn't well known of in gothdom, it does say something.

    Care to provide evidence of this huge number of sales before the movies?

    As I've already stated, if her books had been as popular as you say before the movies, the media would've mentioned it.


    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    ALL of its success? Really? It's very difficult to have a debate with someone who makes such sweeping, inflexible claims as these, especially when you have very little to back it up with.
    I don't see you backing your claims up with anything. It's not difficult to debate with such statements if you can actually give evidence of your argument and have an argument which isn't shot down easily.

    Yes, all of its success, by which I mean the success making it worthy to be studied or taken as anything more than badly written fiction, which doesn't necessarily detract from its enjoyability, mind. The books were relatively successful before the movies, but they were nothing special; they only became special after the movies came out.

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Twilight IS part of contemporary folklore.
    No, no, it's not. Now you're just making yourself look foolish.

    Twilight is part of popular culture, not folklore.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Mmm, but that doesn't explain the success of the sequels or the films.
    Buying them just to find out what happens/how it could possibly get worse?
    I watch the films for the lulz, myself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    No, but I did add that me and my friends are purveyors of such literature, so I would've expected to hear about it if it were that big. Of course it doesn't mean much, but when a book like Twilight isn't well known of in gothdom, it does say something.
    Not really- Twilight's target market is teenage girls, not goths. Even though it has vampires etc in it's hardly a 'gothy' book, it's teenage chick lit.


    (Original post by Hylean)
    Care to provide evidence of this huge number of sales before the movies?

    As I've already stated, if her books had been as popular as you say before the movies, the media would've mentioned it.

    New Moon was published by Little, Brown in the USA on 21 August 2006 with an initial print run of 100,000 copies.[11] Demand for the book was so high that advance reading copies were being sold on eBay for as high as $380.[12] New Moon immediately rose to the #1 position on the New York Times Best Seller list for Children's Chapter Books[4] in its second week on the list, displacing popular children's authors such as Christopher Paolini and Markus Zusak,[13] and remained in that spot for eleven weeks. It spent over 47 weeks in total on the list.[14] New Moon also remained on the USA Today Best Seller list for over 150 weeks after entering the list two weeks after its release, later peaking at #1.[5]


    It's from wikipedia but the sources are sound. That's just new moon, it's similar for all the other books, but I'm not gonna clog the thread with wikipedia. This is all before the film, which came out Dec 08 I think.

    I don't see you backing your claims up with anything. It's not difficult to debate with such statements if you can actually give evidence of your argument and have an argument which isn't shot down easily.
    I can of course debate with them, and I've been giving evidence throughout. What particular radical claims of mine do you think need backing up? What I meant was that it's very difficult to take you seriously when you make such rash, sweeping claims as 'ALL twilight's success is due to the films', without backing it up, and ignoring the fact that these books were bestsellers before the film came out.

    What am I supposed to say to you when you resolutely decide to ignore any of the sales figures or anyone else's experience of it, and decide that because of your own anecdotal evidence of not encountering twilight before the film you MUST be right?

    Twilight is part of popular culture, not folklore.
    Then we have different definitions of folklore.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Not really- Twilight's target market is teenage girls, not goths. Even though it has vampires etc in it's hardly a 'gothy' book, it's teenage chick lit.
    Ha. You've no idea about gothdom then.


    (Original post by missygeorgia)

    New Moon was published by Little, Brown in the USA on 21 August 2006 with an initial print run of 100,000 copies.[11] Demand for the book was so high that advance reading copies were being sold on eBay for as high as $380.[12] New Moon immediately rose to the #1 position on the New York Times Best Seller list for Children's Chapter Books[4] in its second week on the list, displacing popular children's authors such as Christopher Paolini and Markus Zusak,[13] and remained in that spot for eleven weeks. It spent over 47 weeks in total on the list.[14] New Moon also remained on the USA Today Best Seller list for over 150 weeks after entering the list two weeks after its release, later peaking at #1.[5]


    It's from wikipedia but the sources are sound. That's just new moon, it's similar for all the other books, but I'm not gonna clog the thread with wikipedia. This is all before the film, which came out Dec 08 I think.
    Ironically, that says nothing about the amount of copies sold. :rolleyes: I did say that best sellers lists were not that good as evidence before. You know why? Cause it doesn't really take that much to become a best seller. Admittedly, it does say above that that the book sold 5.3 million copies, which is good, but that's in America, which is just over 1% of its population, so it's not that much. Hardly a phenomenom worth studying.


    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I can of course debate with them, and I've been giving evidence throughout. What particular radical claims of mine do you think need backing up? What I meant was that it's very difficult to take you seriously when you make such rash, sweeping claims as 'ALL twilight's success is due to the films', without backing it up, and ignoring the fact that these books were bestsellers before the film came out.

    What am I supposed to say to you when you resolutely decide to ignore any of the sales figures or anyone else's experience of it, and decide that because of your own anecdotal evidence of not encountering twilight before the film you MUST be right?
    You haven't given any sales figures. I already said that best sellers mean nothing. The majority of Chick Lit ends up being best sellers. That says nothing about sales figures or how popular something is. It is impressive how long they lasted in the best sellers lists for, but to truly know what that means you'd have to look at each week's list individually and see what the sales figures were.

    Hypothetically, a book could sell one copy and be the top of the best sellers list for that week if no other books are sold. Highly unlikely, but it's possible.

    Considering Twilight was not under media scrutiny before the movies came out, it wasn't a social phenomenom before the movies came out, it was relatively unheard of before the movies came out, I think there's enough evidence supporting my theory that it owes its success to the movies. Much like P.S. I Love You, as a novel, owes its success to the film adaption.

    Twilight as a phenomenom, as something worth being studied, as a fad/cult, etc. owes its success to the movies. Before them, the books were nothing special.

    So, I went and checked. The series has sold 100,000,000 copies, according to figures published in March this year. Let's assume each book has sold equal numbers, so roughly, 33,333,333 so far. In 2008, New Moon had sold 5,300,000. You're going to tell me that the sharp rise in sales isn't down to the movies? Really?

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Then we have different definitions of folklore.
    Given I'm studying Folkloristics at university, I'm going to go with mine. It's got the weight of an academic discipline behind it. Yours, well, I've no idea what yours has got behind it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Ha. You've no idea about gothdom then.
    No, I haven't, but if a book was being widely circulated in the teenage chick lit community and barely at all in the goth community, by your own admission, I think that says a lot about who the book was targeted at.


    (Original post by Hylean)
    that's in America, which is just over 1% of its population, so it's not that much. Hardly a phenomenom worth studying.
    And a significantly higher percentage of the population of teenage girls, so yes, imo definitely worth studying.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    You haven't given any sales figures. I already said that best sellers mean nothing. The majority of Chick Lit ends up being best sellers. That says nothing about sales figures or how popular something is. It is impressive how long they lasted in the best sellers lists for, but to truly know what that means you'd have to look at each week's list individually and see what the sales figures were.

    Hypothetically, a book could sell one copy and be the top of the best sellers list for that week if no other books are sold. Highly unlikely, but it's possible.

    Considering Twilight was not under media scrutiny before the movies came out, it wasn't a social phenomenom before the movies came out, it was relatively unheard of before the movies came out, I think there's enough evidence supporting my theory that it owes its success to the movies. Much like P.S. I Love You, as a novel, owes its success to the film adaption.

    Twilight as a phenomenom, as something worth being studied, as a fad/cult, etc. owes its success to the movies. Before them, the books were nothing special.

    So, I went and checked. The series has sold 100,000,000 copies, according to figures published in March this year. Let's assume each book has sold equal numbers, so roughly, 33,333,333 so far. In 2008, New Moon had sold 5,300,000. You're going to tell me that the sharp rise in sales isn't down to the movies? Really?
    Of course I'm not saying that- as with anything, a film version of a book is going to rocket sales and popularity. That doesn't mean the book wasn't a phenomenon before the film.

    Anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing this, whether I'm write or wrong doesn't really diminish my point, since I think of the books and movie as all being part of the same phenomenon with the same implications. This is just a side point and I'm just being pedantic.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    Given I'm studying Folkloristics at university, I'm going to go with mine. It's got the weight of an academic discipline behind it. Yours, well, I've no idea what yours has got behind it.
    If you want to persuade me then give me your definition- boasting about who's more expert at folklorism isn't really going to persuade anyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I read it, I liked it, that's all. Enjoy the simple things, no need to be deep and start a whole big argument. Life is a lot less complicated that way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    No, I haven't, but if a book was being widely circulated in the teenage chick lit community and barely at all in the goth community, by your own admission, I think that says a lot about who the book was targeted at.
    It's from a subgenre of Gothic literature, which whilst aimed at teenage girls, is still read by Goths and readers of Gothic literature. That it wasn't well known in the circle of people who read such novels is telling, if minorly so. It's a side point, though.


    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    And a significantly higher percentage of the population of teenage girls, so yes, imo definitely worth studying.
    To be fair, you can't make that statement at all. You've no idea who is buying the book, nor their age, and you've no way of finding out. That you assume it's bought predominantly by teenager girls is all well and good, but that's a bit of a bold statement to make. Hell, for all we know, it could be ancient spinsters who are buying the books more than anyone else.

    Twi-mums a-go-go. Creepy weirdos that they are.


    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course I'm not saying that- as with anything, a film version of a book is going to rocket sales and popularity. That doesn't mean the book wasn't a phenomenon before the film.

    Anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing this, whether I'm write or wrong doesn't really diminish my point, since I think of the books and movie as all being part of the same phenomenon with the same implications. This is just a side point and I'm just being pedantic.
    The fact no one even registered it as a phenomenom before the movies is a pretty good indication of it not being a phenomenom. Gods, I hate that word. True, it is a side point, though.


    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    If you want to persuade me then give me your definition- boasting about who's more expert at folklorism isn't really going to persuade anyone.
    Folkoristics.

    Ugh, that's not actually an easy question to answer. It's not overly well defined as it stands. The definition I prefer is from a book called Folklore:

    (Original post by Martha C. Sims and Martine Stephens)
    Folklore is informally learned, unofficial knowledge about the world, ourselves, our communities, our beliefs, our cultures and our traditions, that is expressed creatively through words, music, customs, actions, behaviours and materials. It is also the interatctive, dynamic process of creating, communicating, and performing as we share that knowledge with other people.
    Twilight isn't folklore because it is intended for the masses, as opposed to a predetermined "folk group". Whilst it does use folklore, quite heavily, and one might argue distorts it, that does not make the books themselves folklore. That said, aspects surrounding the phenomenom are examples of folklore, especially internet folklore, like the Twi-mums meme.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    To be fair, you can't make that statement at all. You've no idea who is buying the book, nor their age, and you've no way of finding out. That you assume it's bought predominantly by teenager girls is all well and good, but that's a bit of a bold statement to make. Hell, for all we know, it could be ancient spinsters who are buying the books more than anyone else.
    I think it's a fair assumption that if on average 1% of the popuation is buying the books, a high proportion of the people buying the books will be the target market. Unless you think that, I dunno, 1% of middle aged business men were buying Twilight.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    The fact no one even registered it as a phenomenom before the movies is a pretty good indication of it not being a phenomenom. Gods, I hate that word. True, it is a side point, though.
    Who 'registers' something as a phenomenon?


    (Original post by Hylean)
    Folkoristics.
    Soz.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    Twilight isn't folklore because it is intended for the masses, as opposed to a predetermined "folk group". Whilst it does use folklore, quite heavily, and one might argue distorts it, that does not make the books themselves folklore. That said, aspects surrounding the phenomenom are examples of folklore, especially internet folklore, like the Twi-mums meme.

    I wouldn't go as far as saying the books ARE folklore, I said they're a part of folklore, they interact with it. If we're talking about traditional beliefs, customs, myths, then I fail to see how you can separate Twilight out from these- they're both impacted by and impact on these things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I think it's a fair assumption that if on average 1% of the popuation is buying the books, a high proportion of the people buying the books will be the target market. Unless you think that, I dunno, 1% of middle aged business men were buying Twilight.
    Could very well be. We know how much they hate feminism after all. :yep:


    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I wouldn't go as far as saying the books ARE folklore, I said they're a part of folklore, they interact with it. If we're talking about traditional beliefs, customs, myths, then I fail to see how you can separate Twilight out from these- they're both impacted by and impact on these things.
    Can hardly be a part of folklore and not be folklore.

    It's the same way that the Disney versions of Snowwhite, Sleeping Beauty and the rest are not considered folklore. They are produced for the masses, not for a specific "folk group", which is essential for folklore. After all, if it's not produced for a "folk", how can it be folklore. This is why they fall under the rubric of "popular culture".

    The culture surrounding the book could be termed folklore, but not the books themselves. Much like Star Trek isn't folklore, but Trekkies and their world are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)

    Can hardly be a part of folklore and not be folklore.
    If the culture surrounding them is folklore, that's how they can be part of folklore but not actually folklore itself. Twilight isn't irrelevent to folklore, it's not completely separate from it, but it's not the actual thing itself. Is this a semantics issue? I've forgotten what we're arguing about anyhow.

    Edit- oh yeah, I've remembered. If like you say the culture surrounding twilight is folklore, then surely you're agreeing with me that it is a phenomenon worth studying in order to see what it says about our society, and about its readers and their generation?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    If the culture surrounding them is folklore, that's how they can be part of folklore but not actually folklore itself. Twilight isn't irrelevent to folklore, it's not completely separate from it, but it's not the actual thing itself. Is this a semantics issue? I've forgotten what we're arguing about anyhow.
    They're not a part of folklore, they're not folklore. They haven't been made with any particular "folk group" in mind. Much like Star Trek or Coronation Street, Twilight has been written with the idea of getting as many people to read/buy it as possible.

    Folklore isn't mass produced, it isn't made for just anyone, though anyone may partake of it, whatever it is. It's made by a certain group of people for that group of people, and isn't the creation of one person's imagination.

    If a culture arises around Twilight, then the people who take part in that culture become a "folk group". The books remain separate from it because the culture is more than the books and only uses them as an idea. The books would be akin to canon history, they would be "official" and "formal", whilst the culture would be "unofficial" and "informal" and would subvert, adapt, change Meyer's original ideas to suit their own. The culture would be dictated by the folk group, not by Meyer.

    You need more than one person to make folklore, so books like Twilight can't be folklore.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.