Although I doubt Stephenie Meyer's Twilight is the worst book I've ever read, I'm hard pressed to think of something worse (I didn't finish the first book of the "Left Behind" series because it was so awful--don't know if that counts, though). Let us start with this quote (which was on the back cover of the copy I read):
About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him--and I didn't know how potent that part might be--that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.
Oh, where to begin? There are many reasons why I think this is an apt quote to use to explain my disdain for Meyer's writing. But let's start with the first vs third person approach to story telling. For those who don't know/remember/care, first person is "I". "I went to the store today." Third person is "he/she/it/they." "Joe went to the store today." (If you care, second person is "you" and is very rare in literature; it entails making the reader a part of the story). Most people use third person--in fact, I can't think of a book I've read in the last 6 months that's written in first person except for Twilight (I've probably read 50 books in the last 6 months). There are a lot of reasons for this, but I write my fiction in third person for two reasons. Firstly, it's really hard to be convincing in the first person voice. You really have to work hard to make the character seem believable, and you have to do it without the benefit of outside descriptions. It's really hard to explain emotions and moods without background, and it's difficult to naturally explain background within the first person voice. Secondly, the third person style of narration allows for the introduction of knowledge outside of of the protagonist's direct experience (obviously this ties into the first reason). Quick example that most people will probably know: Harry Potter is the protagonist, but occasionally J.K. Rowling will write a chapter following another character (Snape, the muggle PM, etc). Harry has no knowledge of these events, but we, as the reader, can know about these events because of the omniscient narrator that the third person voice provides. First person is limiting in these ways. I have written in first person (very successfully) but only once, and that worked because I was the protagonist (fictional story, but all based on people I knew), and I was essentially witnessing other events, and could thus explain them.
Right, back to the quote. As explained, it's in first person. This isn't inherently a sin, but if it's done badly, it's painful. I argue that Meyer did very badly. It's incredibly angsty and melodramatic, and overall, the book is filled with minutiae that no one cares about in my life, so why should I care about it in hers? Admittedly, the angst and melodrama isn't totally inappropriate, as Bella (female protagonist, and owner of the "I" voice) is 17, but Harry Potter was an emo douchebag in the fifth book, and I hated him, so why should I like Bella any better? This quote just epitomizes self-centered teenage melodrama, and pompousness to boot. Yes, I talk like that all the time, and I did even when I was 17. But it lacks believability to me. I'm not sure why, but the "I" takes away all credibility in my mind. Perhaps because she is 17, and who truly falls in love and finds their soul mate at age 17? If it were an outside, impartial narrator, I think the credibility would go way up. Compare the quote above with this one:
About three things Bella was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him--and she didn't know how potent that part might be--that thirsted for her blood. And third, she was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.
I still think it's a crap bit of writing, but in my mind, it does improve with the change in narration. I would also change the "and she didn't know how potent" clause to language less clunky, but we take what we can get (note, my fiction writing is cleaner than my blog writing; generally my clauses are more simple and less dependant).
Besides the voice and the generally appalling nature of her writing (this quote probably is the worst of it), what really bothers me is what Meyer did to a decent plot. It's not a brilliant plot, and it's certainly nothing new or unique, but it's a solid plot line: girl meets boy, boy is repulsed by girl, girl and boy fall in love, boy turns out to be vampire, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back, girl wants to be a vampire. In short: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. That's as basic and solid as they come. Yet Meyer destroys this plot through little things. First, teen love is not chaste. I'm not saying that Bella and Edward (vampire boy) need to have sex to make it believable--they don't--but it creeps me out how "pure" they both are. It's written in first person, and you have to hear Bella's thoughts on everything else, but nothing on how she wants more than a kiss and a little snuggle (you know she does). "But oooh," you say, "he spends the night with her several times." Yes, and that's just creepy. Vamp boy doesn't sleep, so he stares at her for 8 hours. If Adam did that to me, I'd be freaked out at his obsessive, stalking nature. However, I think this is a direct result of Meyer's religion (which also appears in how Edward believes he's evil, but hopes that somehow he can be forgiven or something...).
Even worse--and outside of mediocre, melodramatic writing--is what Meyer did to vampire mythology. There is a LOT to vampire mythos, and it varies. Some of it is even contradicting. But there's a solid, established base to work with. So what does she do? Ignores it. These vampires can subsist off of animal blood (fine), hate werewolves (enh, I only know that one from the Underworld movies, but it may have more basis than that), and have superhuman senses and strengths (fine, but she went overboard--they wouldn't sound like boulders crashing into each other, and hitting a baseball that hard would shatter the bat, but not sound like thunder), but they also glitter in the sun. What the fuck?! They GLITTER? In the SUN?
Seriously? That's what she came up with? Gah. I don't object to vampires being able to move about in the day, though the best books that allow that put some kind of restrictions/penalties in place to stay reasonably close to the established mythology. But there are ways it can be dealt with effectively. But glitter? Seriously, that's just bad. Really, really awful.
So there's my review of the book. If you long to read it, don't buy it. Borrow it from the library or something (or talk to me, I can hook you up), but don't put money in that woman's pocket. She doesn't deserve to be rewarded.
As for the movie: it might possibly have been worse than the book. The special effects were unremarkable (the glittering vampires didn't really glitter), everyone was emo, and Robert Pattinson's American accent kept slipping. You can say it's because he's supposed to be from a different era and it slips because of that (Bella says that he sometimes sounds like he's from a different time), but it's because he can't hold an American accent. Also, the plot mostly follows the book, but has some weird off-shoots that are confusing and unnecessary. I've definitely seen worse movies (and not just bad horror movies), but this one was pretty bad. Also, Robert Pattinson: not hot. Sorry, but he's not a super-attractive guy in general, and the way he's made up for the movie makes him extra not-hot.
