Ann Rice trolls Twilight

[RobRoy]

I am being a snob, of course. She's sold millions of books, but, judging by her readers I've witnessed on my commute, I would form part of her target audience as I'm male, married and below 40 (as is my BMI).

You would or would not? Just clarifying.

Obviously, I've read the books. Part of that was curiosity, part of that was because my wife had read them and wanted to talk to me about them. We both agreed they were mediocre literature, but had some interesting concepts.

I thought Whedon handled it well with Angel/Buffy and Spike/Buffy. Because of her unique role as Slayer, she already had a ready-made relationship with both of them (and a role that involved her in the ancient mythos to which the vampires belonged and set her apart from other humans) , and there's not a lot of difference between enmity and love.

Agreed, but then Whedon is a better writer/story-teller.

Bella on the other hand, were it not for the authorial interference, would be just another mopey teen in Edward's life.

That and Bella was "special" by dint of her lack of thoughts . . . I mean Edward couldn't read her thoughts.

There was room in Meyers' universe for Bella to be more than just a luck-of-the-draw mortal, and she did try to make it something like that, but never carried that theme successfully. Beyond "they're meant to be together" Meyers never went further. I think she can be forgiven that, as her chosen audience was Young Adult, so romance only needed to be present, not explained. But I do agree with you.

the problem is that her "different take" is "Vampires are just like they're depicted in other books, except without any of the character building weaknesses"

No, the problem is that they didn't have any of the standard "character building weaknesses". There were other weaknesses that she included in the stories. They just tended to be external rather than internal.

But I agree that there was little character building in general, with or without the weaknesses.

 

[Skepticemea]

From what I've read of the Sookie Stackhouse series, that started getting porny halfway through the first book.

Them's the True Blood source material, neh?

 

[RobRoy]

Them's the True Blood source material, neh?

Correct. Although, I understand that the show will surpass the material in the next season or so. Interesting.

 

[Damien Evans]

I thought Whedon handled it well with Angel/Buffy and Spike/Buffy. Because of her unique role as Slayer, she already had a ready-made relationship with both of them (and a role that involved her in the ancient mythos to which the vampires belonged and set her apart from other humans) , and there's not a lot of difference between enmity and love.

Bella on the other hand, were it not for the authorial interference, would be just another mopey teen in Edward's life.

Indeed. Buffy essentially has Vampire powers plus some, without any of the daytime or dietary drawbacks. According to the mythology of the show, she's a human with demon essence in her, whereas Bella is a mopey teenager with no discernible abilities of any kind.

 

[Damien Evans]

Correct. Although, I understand that the show will surpass the material in the next season or so. Interesting.

I thought they were still about 6 books behind?

It doesn't really matter given they appear to be quite happy to change things to suit the show, eg Lafayette not dying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

*If you've not read read "Let The Right One In" by John Lindvist, allow me to recommend it to you.

The Swede's made a great movie out of that story. The American remake, not quite as good even though they copied the first movie almost exactly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok...I've never read any of the books, and have seen about 5 minutes of the first movie on FX the other night. Maybe someone can explain this to me. Edward's skin sparkles in the sunlight...and he goes to high school..during the daytime. Why doesn't anyone notice his skin sparkling at school?

They don't sparkle on cloudy days and they ditch on sunny days.

There are many 'problems' in the books that are worse than the sparkly skin thing. They can run on snow without making footprints. They go through the woods like walking through a lawn with trees. If you've ever been to the Olympic Rain Forest, you know one does not simply walk through the woods off the trails by stepping over a few logs and pushing a few ferns aside. They have no circulation, their hearts are gone, but when they drink blood it makes its way to their eyes changing the color. Edward feels like a cold hard marble statue and Bella thinks that's peachy. No one notices this vampire quality in Dr Cullen who must feel the same when he examines patients or shakes people's hands in the hospital he works in. You have to burn the parts when you dismember a vampire or the parts will go back together yet when the wolves tear the vampires apart no fires are made and they don't eat the parts.

It's fantasy.

 

[RobRoy]

I thought they were still about 6 books behind?

It doesn't really matter given they appear to be quite happy to change things to suit the show, eg Lafayette not dying.

I could be wrong. It happens quite a bit.

 

[Mudcat]

the problem is that her "different take" is "Vampires are just like they're depicted in other books, except without any of the character building weaknesses"

I remember playing a vampire in D&D. I felt that the typical weaknesses of vampires were rather lame and transformed them from horrors into jokes. So I completely subverted those weaknesses for a different set of weaknesses though that mostly had to do with the issues arising from needing blood to survive. Otherwise whatever could kill a human could kill a vampire.

 

[RobRoy]

They don't sparkle on cloudy days and they ditch on sunny days.

There are many 'problems' in the books that are worse than the sparkly skin thing. [snip]

A lot of these problems are also suffered by other vampire stories. Meyers is not unique in this.

It's fantasy.

Exactly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a crack up from SodaHead: PUBLIC OPINION > Anne Rice's Vampires Are Way Better Than 'Twilight'

Your Horoscope Reads...

Zodiac statistics gave us a larger deviation than usual. Voters born under Sagittarius (between November 22 and December 21) are most likely to side with the "Twilight" vampires with 38% support, while Scorpios (between October 24 and November 22) only gave 6% of their vote to "Twilight."

There's a nice clarification from Rice in the video in the first comment on this page of SodaHead.

 

[Jono]

The Swede's made a great movie out of that story. The American remake, not quite as good even though they copied the first movie almost exactly.

My wife usually detests anything involving vampires, but she read the book at a friend's recommendation and just loved it as well as the movie. The american version she thought was a good and loyal conversion.

 

[FattyCatty]

From what I've read of the Sookie Stackhouse series, that started getting porny halfway through the first book.

I didn't think so, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Certainly nothing like the Anita Blake series.

 

[Belz...]

Lestat (from memory, it's a while since I was a literature-challenged teen) was a walking contradiction. Indeed, the books, "Interview With A Vampire" and "The Vampire Lestat" by Rice have two wildly different histories for Lestat, as he "narrates" the second book and makes himself out to be more interesting and less desperate than he appears in the first.

Cruise can barely manage superficial. He appeared childish instead of erratic, petulant rather than sad and powerless instead of commanding. The character (were it to be done "justice") required a little more gravitas that the couch-hopper can provide. Nothing against Cruise other than his unsuitability for the part turned a reasonable yarn into a pop video.

All my own opinion, obviously. People are free to portay Abe Lincoln as an alien come to Earth to learn seamstressing, but they would be veering away from the common perception of the man.

It seems to me like it's more a matter of direction than acting, but I see what you mean.

 

[Belz...]

I think I threw up a bit in my mouth.

Welcome to the club.

 

[Belz...]

the problem is that her "different take" is "Vampires are just like they're depicted in other books, except without any of the character building weaknesses"

Right. There's nothing wrong with it per se, but it does take away from the usual aura that vampires carry around with them.

"Oh, I'm sorry, dear. I can't go out in the sun. My sparkles don't agree with the cape."

 

[Skepticemea]

I have to admit that my bias against the depiction of vampires being lovely and well coiffured teens who are just a little bit angstier than your normal 25 yr old depicting teenaged angst may well stem from a love of the vampire genre from an early age.

I prefer my vamps to have teeth 1st and troubled consciences about 32nd.

 

[Damien Evans]

I didn't think so, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Certainly nothing like the Anita Blake series.

I haven't read any of them, so I can't compare.

 

[RobRoy]

I didn't think so, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Certainly nothing like the Anita Blake series.

I heard from a friend that Hamilton's most recent books revert to the original style. Is this true? I'm unwilling to shell more money for what is clearly an author delving in her porn-fetish side.

I prefer my vamps to have teeth 1st and troubled consciences about 32nd.

So no Angel for you then, eh?

 

[Skepticemea]

I heard from a friend that Hamilton's most recent books revert to the original style. Is this true? I'm unwilling to shell more money for what is clearly an author delving in her porn-fetish side.



So no Angel for you then, eh?

The "Angelus" persona was a "real" vampire. The Angel character was a simpering wet-end. I think that was the point though.