EDIT
First, much appreciated if you could respond to *all* the arguments, not just a few that are easy to dispute
Ah Kierkegaard. Very interesting writing. Where did he write that quote?
You realize that you are no longer addressing why people read the book, but instead, you are attacking the people reading the books to justify the your insults? (Fallacies of Ad hominem & Judgmental Language)
You’re trying to discredit any arguments given against the person by claiming they’re stupid for reading the books. Even from your initial message, you assumed that anyone responding would do so in ‘pseudo msn-lingo’, as though challenging the other persons capabilities of coming up with any logical argument. Not to mention already setting negatives against the books by calling the love superficial and pretentious and calling out the ‘plethora of stupidity’ of the book (Poisoning the well)
Your singular reason for not reading the books is wordy and is confusing. Do you mean that you don’t read the books simply because it’s ‘dumb entertainment’? And by ‘dumb entertainment’ you’re discrediting the argument by making it sound ridiculous and without any substance (Appeal to ridicule)
We do *not* clearly know that we are settling for 2nd best. Who decides what is best. Who decided that Anne Rice is light years ahead? These premises are not totally watertight. So deciding not to read something because of a belief that it is only possibly 2nd best is inane (Begging the question)
Your arguments against the vampires and love are just plain wrong. The details of every book are different. Who said the vampires painted in this story are the same as the ones in common lore? And how did you actually come to the conclusion that the love is not love, but lust instead? (Generalization and *** hoc ergo propter hoc)
What does conceding that being pre-teen equals stupidity achieve in the argument of why people read Twilight?
Most of your arguments seem like Trivial Objections. And why nitpick at the arguments you know you can definitely argue against? It feels like you seem to cherry-pick which arguments you want to argue, and leave harder ones out
And finally this entire argument is like a Red Herring Fallacy. Instead of arguing ‘why people read Twilight which has no literary credit and is garbage’, it’s turning into proving, ‘you’re stupid because you read x’. On the way there, it was a straw man fallacy
Before claiming that one is a ‘witty, intelligent hero’ being overcome by a ‘plague of idiocy, make sure that one’s arguments are sound and logical
Admitting that you’re exploiting stupidity in the face of lack of arguments does not prove your point either. (Ignoratio Elenchi) If that’s your true intention, repeating ‘stupidity’ and similar words again and again does not make it true(Argumentum ad nauseam)
Why you have chosen not to read: False Analogy. Those analogies are of *outcomes*. They don’t relate to a conclusion of whether a book is good or not. Comparing a whether a book is good to the chances of contracting cancer? You’re comparing apples and oranges here. Pudding tasting is where it’s at.
Choosing not to read a book because you feel that whatever evidence you have garnered on the internet is not enough. Can you do Darwin’s Origin of Species justice by garnering information from the internet?
Critics do have a job to read into books, but who their taste the same with yours?
And about the books ‘badness’ being like trying to test against gravity: you’re already setting yourself not to listen to any arguments. Why post this question up then?
I do, however, concede that the commercial success led to the popularity of the book, but popularity does not equal greatness
ORIGINAL
I feel as though you are very insulting, and your comments feel very derogative. However I did not point that out so that it would somehow merit me insulting you. I simply wanted to raise that point because I don't feel that it's necessary for you to demean others that way, for any reason. People deserve more respect for that, and people get respect for doing much lesser actions
I've realised that I've ranted at you, even though I did not mean to, but understand that I - and others - am offended by your disparaging comments
So now Twilight
First I'll do away with the negatives:
- The writing is not the greatest. In fact, I'd say it's poor. I think it's probably because the prose is quite simplistic, and at times the book seems to try to delve into deeper philosophy, but I don't think it lives up to that potential at all (Possibly because that just is not Stephanie Meyer's writing style. Not everyone can write like Plato, Charlotte Brontë, Anne Rice etc.)
- The overall plot is cliched. I won't deny this. The big picture encompasses the idea of a girl who finds and wins true love
- It won’t be a classic. It’s not a profound and deep book, but it’s something people enjoy
Why the stories are so popular, in my mind:
- This is an idea that appeals to a great majority of people: to be able to find and win true love. I think the idea is as simple as that. The lure of that idea is... like the song of the Sirens, I daresay. It's a book that plays on a person's emotion, makes them happy, makes it enjoyable. I suppose I've fallen into the same argument that it's for entertainment purposes, but in a way, I feel that it's not simply entertainment. It is like we are trying to fill the want and indeed need of having that unwaverable life companion, of knowing that it exists in some form. The attempt of doing that with any media seems futile, but it's better to realise that one has that need and to try to fulfill it partly, than not to try at all
- Marketing. No book, movie, song, or indeed any sort of worldview such as political views, religions, etc., to be in more of a general context, can be successful unless it is advocated for and publicized by a large number of people. And the more aware that other people are made of it, the more that idea, let us say, becomes commonplace, more accepted, more popular. That idea gains momentum and people will jump on the wagon
- It’s aimed at that age group of preteens. Can you blame them for liking it them? Can you not simply accept that the simpler writing is for their benefit? More on benefit on the next point. And hey, everyone has their own tastes in books. Simply because it does not fit my taste in books, does not mean it is "bad"
- The text is simpler - yes, this is both a negative and a positive. You can hardly expect a 12-year-old to read, enjoy, *fully* appreciate and - most importantly - fully understand the text
Some of the classics are written in a very fluid manner; in an extremely elegant and poetic prose; and in a very archaic, mature tone that is tailored to older and thus more sophisticated speakers and readers
Indeed some of the best written books today are quite wordy, for lack of a better word. And the difficulty is that sometimes the material is not suitable for younger audiences. Society dictates what is appropriate for whom. And it has decided what is appropriate for children and preteens to read. And bear in mind that the books and other similar media that become classics may not always be as widely advertised, and thus less well known and less likely to be read and enjoyed. E.g. So even though people may not have discovered Anne Rice, is not saying that they immediately think of her as a bad writer. One needs to have an open mind to be able to find the 'good' ones in any section. Hey some of the most famous artists today, to give an analogy, died penniless because their art was considered 'bad' back then like Van Gogh
Now I am not saying that preteens are generally incapable of reading these older books to be depreciating to pre-teens. Please do not just dismiss that as pure stupidity. Our mental capacities grow as we age - one can hardly deny that. Unless the child is a child prodigy - and how rare is that occurrence - that child is hardly likely to have a mind that comprehend as much as, say, a PhD student.
Let the pre-teen read those "more stupid". It would be a shame to rush through a classic and not glean any importance from it, simply from not understanding
Now remember, 'simple' books aren't always terrible books. One of my favourite books is "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time". It's very simplistic in my mind, but it's a very good book. Nursery rhymes. Simple stories, passed on for many, many years. Not much credibility there.
I write this long post to you, but I'm aware that the chances of making you read Twilight are nil to none. I can't and won't force you to read the series if you choose not to. However, simply bashing the books based on rumours of the book you have heard is illogical. One cannot make a fair judgement on any topic unless one knows enough about the material in and surrounding that topic. Key word : enough. You may feel that hearing bits of the plot and using assumptions is enough to judge a story. The big picture is enough, in other words. One needs to know the little details in order to make a fair judgement. In the case of a book, that means reading it. Again, you are not forced to read it. Some people read books they predict to be terrible, simply to affirm what they predict. Now, they can make a much fairer judgement.
In the end, every one is entitled to their own opinion, even if it goes against the grain
Btw I'm 18 yet I love Twilight. I’m still rereading the books. Please, don't feel the need to be derogative and belittle me by saying that I'm no better than a 10yo :)
That’s a bit derogative to the 10yo as well