TWILIGHT - REVIEW 2

A Re-Write:

I have decided to re-write my Twilight review. Partially because I can be more objective now, having gained some perspective (i.e.: I didn't just finish the book this morning), but also because it looks bad to have my readers' reviews better written and more thoughtful than my own.

So,

Twilight is bad, let's make that clear right away. It's bad in three very distinct and bold ways, each blowing their trumpets loudly - competing with each other. As a result, I'm not sure which is aspect is the worst. So these are in no particular order.

1 - Story is unimpressive
2 - Characters are flat, simple, and worthless
3 - Theme is beyond ridiculous

The Story:

Everyone likes a good story, whether it's a gripping thriller novel, a cinematic masterpiece, or just a Dilbert comic, everyone likes to experience the lives of characters they can both relate to and fantasize being-like. We want to share their emotions, follow them on their adventures, in the best stories we feel what they feel, and we cheer for them when they succeed, sympathize with them when they fail, and fear for their safety when they are in danger.

In each novel a different story is told for each reader, rather - a new story emerges between different reader/author combinations. The writer creates the world and tells the events, but the reader is free to interpret and relate to them according to his/her own life, experiences, and tastes. So though the words of the story are the same, the journey can be different. Which is why it's generally hard to make a clear formula for what is a good story versus what is a bad story.

But that doesn't mean anything goes.

Imagine a story about a romance triangle set in picturesque 19th century England, we follow the lives, fears, and tenderness of two men competing for the same woman. Then, just as the tension is about to boil over - and we're hanging on edge, wondering who will win her hand, with only a few pages to go - aliens invade and use their rayguns to kill everyone in the town. Changing the story from romance to sci-fi out of nowhere, and rendering everything within the story (up until that point) completely irrelevant.

I think we can agree that this is an unsatisfying ending. It might appeal to people who don't care for romances, or people who think it's just a funny ending, but in neither case are they really enjoying the story and connecting with the characters.

So there are limits on what an author can do, and we can make a rough guess about how a story should be structured.

I highly dislike the structure of Twilight.

In the tradition of most story telling we establish character and setting, and very quickly introduce a problem that will continue to intensify until reaching climax, followed by a relief and a resolution. The story usually begins when the problem begins and ends shortly after it is resolved. This is the basic structure of a good story, or more specifically - a story arc.

Anything that doesn't directly contribute/relate to "the problem" is a stray away from the arc, a tangent. This is okay, for instance further setting development or character development might enhance the experience. But the more the writer wanders from the meat-and-potatoes, the more misshapen the story's arc becomes. In general, the tighter the story arc the better.

The problem with Twilight's story is that there is no arc. (Not really.) We are introduced to a character and setting right away, but it takes a while before we're introduced to "the problem" - which is the romantic tension between Edward and Bella, but that is resolved quickly, since, really, no tension exists. They like each other. No one is competing here, no one is trying to disrupt their mutual attraction. Once their feelings are public they leap into each others arms (probably about 1/4 of the way through the book) and what was once the problem (source of tension) is now, effectively, resolved.

But the story continues ... or rambles forward about the simple, boring goings on of their daily high-school driven lives. Once could argue the new "problem" is the strangeness of their relationship - their physical incompatibility for instance, but this problem never recheas climax nor resolves. It's mostly just a novelty ... she's in love with a vampire, okay, that's vaguely interesting... but not 400 pages interesting.

Because there is no real, practical endpoint for the book, Meyer gives us a rather pathetic offering by introducing a "villain" near the end of the book. Someone we don't know anything about, except that he's vicious, tough, and evil. But we don't care about him, because he hasn't been developed. Most good villains aren't flat, they are usually introduced early on and made (st least partially) sympathetic, or at the very least they are directly connected to the main story arc. This villain is nothing like that, he's flat, so he bores us, and we find this new conflict uninteresting because we're blind-sided by it from nowhere. And not for one minute do we see it as a serious threat.

It exists as a cheap, simple, thoughtless way to create cheap, simple, thoughtless tension. And just as we've swallowed it and are beginning to follow this new story arc, beginning to feel a trickle of tension, it resolves itself off-stage. And we wake up, completely unsatisfied - because the tension has built to a climax and we're never given any kind of relief. It's there at its highest point and then ... it's gone. This is a very dissatisfying and unusual way to resolve tension. And certainly not a good way.

It would be like seeing the X-wings in A New Hope on their way to attack the death star, and then a jump-cut to it blowing up and Luke flying away, practically alone. Using his communication to the base over the radio as a cheap device to hand us an info-dump about how he somehow managed to win. But we don't get to see him win. So we aren't satisfied, because we aren't allowed to experience it.

Another example, and perhaps a more relevant one. Let's go back to the romance story we came up with before, the one with the aliens. But let's omit our marsian friends and assume the story ends with one of the men ending up with the girl, and the other guy finding a way to accept that. So we follow every little intimate detail leading to this climax, the three of them are about to confront each other and then ... the book skips ahead to everything suddenly resolved ... and we don't get to be there when it happens.

We know what happens, because we're told vaguely through dialogue (the easiest of all literary devices to abuse) but we're getting it second-hand, which is never as exquisite.

So, on the grounds that the shape and flow of the story is irregular and dissatisfying, I think the story of Twilight is poor - at best.

CHARACTERS:

The story is loaded with minor characters, so I'm only going to focus on the major ones. Bella and Edward. Truly no one else matters.

Edward: In summary, Edward is a very powerful, practically omnipotent, alpha male. He can read minds, he has infinite money, he's supposedly handsome beyond all reason, he cannot die, he's charming, he's faster than a speeding bullet, he can probably leap tall buildings in a single bound, and he's completely ... flat.

There isn't much to him. He doesn't make any kind of major realization, he doesn't develop or grow in any way. He is not a dynamic character. He's completely static. The same at the beginning as at the end. The only difference is, he's found a joy toy. Which, to him, is all Bella is.

He knows a meaningful, lasting relationship is impossible, and dangerous. He even admits so within the dialogue. But he pursues her anyway, because, for the time being, she is the object of his obsession. But he must know that it is only a passing sensation. If he doesn't, then he hasn't learned much about the world in the last 100 years of his life.

He has more years behind him than Mr. Miyagi, but lacks the sagely wisdom that comes with age, instead his behavior and thought patterns are more like the 17-year old he appears to be. (Who, for whatever reason, chooses to retake the same high school classes ad infinitum - talk about hell)

He does not grow, he does not develop, and he does not catch our interest. Appealing only to those girls who fantasize about his body and out-dated charm. Which, incidentally, is what keeps money in Meyer's bank account.

Then there's Bella:

Bella is our Main Character, and our viewpoint, so while we may be let down by Edward, she is situated perfectly to redeem the story. It's her story, and it could be about her as a dynamic character, obtaining wisdom through experience, learning more about herself and the world, growing and become more than she is through both aspiration and perspiration. But she doesn't.

She's not only static but completely lifeless. She is an empty shell with very little personality, very little individuality, she exists only as a window for the reader to vicariously fall in love with Edward. Perhaps if she were even remotely developed, and molded into into an individual with distinct personality it would be harder for Meyer's readership to connect with her, and pretend she is they. Bella's emptiness may accidentally Meyer's pocketbook, but it doesn't help her story.

Bella is as flat as a character can be. Even Ziggy looks developed, dynamic, and interesting by comparison.

So while the journey (story) is uncomfortable and dull, our traveling companions (Edward and Bella) don't make the trip any pleasanter. Leaving only one hope left.. perhaps, just maybe, it's got a good message.

Too bad it dosn't.

THE THEME:

There isn't much of an intentional theme to Twilight et al, except for a brief fleeting reference to a belief in God, but otherwise it's simply the rambling story of a masochistic high-school girl and her all-seeing-all-knowing-blood-thirsty boyfriend.

But there is an accidental theme to the story, and a very very bad one. I don't think Meyer intentionally put this here, or if she did I doubt she realized the fullness of her actions. But this theme, better than anything, connects all the dots and threads the story together - since it is completely consistent from start to finish.

The theme is woman's dependence on man, and her "natural" submission.

I don't like that theme. I oppose it strongly. Which is why I recognize it so easily.

Bella, first of all, is a very bad role-model for young, impressionable girls. She is a push-over, always following Edward's ways and directions, fulfilling his whims and desires, and believing/following him without blinking, too obsessed with his physical, masculine greatness to object to him, or sneak out an occasional independent thought.

At one point she's described as revolving around him, literally, like the earth around the sun. Adjusting herself to better match him, and wanting--without guilt--to give up everything she has, everything she is, her very future and potential, to be with him, forever in his orbit. Forever dependent. She can't live without him.

A good female role model is a strong female, someone with bright ideas, talent, a burning sense of morality, and a hunger to assert herself and change the world. Believing... no, absolutely positive that she is as good as any man. But Bella is not this character. She only obsesses about Edward's superiority, accepting it wholly, and Meyer writes so that Bella is right, Edward is literally superior in every way. He's stronger, he's smarter, he's more clever, he's more rich, he's more attractive. He's basically flawless and Bella is lucky to have him. Their relationship is unequal, out of balance, and therefore a bad one.

She gives him nothing, he gives her everything. She depends on him completely. He controls her completely. And he does not respect her.

He spies on her without her knowledge or permission, watches her like a creepy voyeur, and he follows her around - exactly like a stalker. Were he sick-minded and unattractive Bella would hate him for it, at least she should, and so would the audeince. But since he's the epitome of Bella's desire she loves him for it, she's flattered by the attention. Not for one minute realizing that she's being violated, that she isn't being shown even basic respect for her privacy.

Edward simply does not respect her. And she idolizes him. Just one more way their relationship is unequal. Bella is a bad role-model, and their relationship - which is not love by any means, more like steamy, lusty, childish imitation - is unhealthy and wrong. But girls everywhere are carving hearts into their notebooks with bic pens, dreaming about how much they wish they were Bella, how much they wish they had an Edward to dominate them, and assert his superiority over them.

I object to that. I think it's horrible. And that is why Twilight is a bad book.

Russia vs Georgia: the Bloody Olympics

Georgia vs Russia, the contest the world is paying attention to during commercial breaks for the Olympics.

OK most of us westerners aren't very familiar with the politics of Russia and former soviet provinces, but the country Georgia has possession of a few regions that object to Georgian control, and have been given some degree of support from Russia - encouraging them to be independent. As far as I can tell this has been going on for a while, and tensions have steadily increased up until August 7th when Georgia made an aggressive move (an assault and artillery bombardment) to take back control of South Ossetia, a region that wants to split away from Georgia and either become independent or else part of Russia.

Russia responded to this aggression by marching an enormous and overpowering force into Georgia and more or less occupying it. Crushing through the comparatively small and disadvantaged Georgian police and military. The counterblow is criticized (rightfully) of being a display of overwhelming and unnecessary force. Hurting countless civilians who didn't need to be affected by this avoidable war.

Since then Russia has been slow in leaving Georgia and has made it clear they support South Ossetia in becoming independent or becoming part of Russia, it is up to South Ossetia. The west including NATO in general and the US in particular are in favor of restoring the original boundaries, borders, and troop locations as quickly as possible. Georgia favors this also. While South Ossetia wants to no longer be a part of Georgia.

Let's also factor in oil interests. Russia has been incredibly stingy with its oil, cutting supply which has directly hurt Europe who imports a great deal of their oil from Russia, which is also why Russia is becoming an increasingly wealthy country. The EU's oil interests in Georgia have to deal with a planned set of pipelines that will run through Georgia and help wean Europe off of its addiction to Russian oil. This would obviously hurt Russia. So the EU and the west are giving favorable treatment to Georgia, partially because of oil interests, and Russia is using South Ossetia as an excuse to disrupt Georgia, partially out of oil interests. That isn't the only thing going on here, but I believe it is partly involved. Significant enough to consider, at the very least.

So all players have their own self-interest involved with their pressure to either restore order how it was, or reorganize by splitting South Ossetia from Georgia, and no one is truly "right" about what to do. Because there really isn't a right answer, or rather, there really isn't an easy answer, but form an ethical standpoint a right answer may exist. It's just hard to spot without more information.

I've just told you the extend of my knowledge, so I don't claim to know what the right answer is. But in my opinion I think I can understand every position. And while I condemn Russia for its cruel and excessive use of force, I also can understand their support for South Ossetia. And while it really shouldn't be Russia's business, if the province of South Ossetia strongly wishes to be apart from Georgia, I don't see that as a bad thing. It really ought to be up to them to decide. And while the trumpet of preserving national sovereignty may be blown at my reaction, I will quickly point out that I see little difference between Russia's support of South Ossetia, and the US' support of Taiwan from China. China sees Taiwan as Chinese, they see themselves as independent, the US sees them as independent. Georgia sees South Ossetia as independent, they see themselves as independent, Georgia sees them as part of Georgia. I think this is a pretty sound comparison.

I support the idea that Taiwan is independent from China. Why? Partly because I believe they have established a better quality of life. But more importantly they strongly want to be independent, strong enough to fight if need be. So, they ought to be independent. By that same right and justification South Ossetia ought to be independent from Georgia. As far as I can tell. Which means I must also criticize out involvement beyond humanitarian aid and encouraging Russia to behave more fairly, I can see no reason why we should oppose their interest in South Ossetian independence. Provided they don't instigate a war. But remember Georgia attacked first, even if it was on its own land. Or what it saw as its own land.

Someone will probably point out that I fully support Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War, which seems inconsistent with my idea that a state ought to be independent if they want it bad enough to fight for it. And you're right, it is inconsistent. And perhaps I feel the way I do in part because of the result, it was worth it in the end. But I think a larger part of me supported the action against the confederates because of egregious human-rights violations. We can debate all day about whether it was justified to use military force to preserve the union, and I'll have mixed feelings about it (after all the colonies rebelled against the British back in the late eighteenth century - which may or may not have been justified). But one thing I feel absolutely convinced about is the Civil War was justified because slavery is evil beyond evil, and must be stopped at all costs. That might not be enough to get Congress to declare war, just like Congress seems cool with ignoring problems in Darfur, but I will always support well-thought-out action in defense of basic human rights no matter who they are or where they live. If Russia intended to make slaves of Ossetians, or if Russia intended to protect Ossetians who already owned slaves - slaves Georgia would free, then I not only would support aggressive action in the region, I might grab an M-4 and head there myself.

But that isn't the case. And I understand the Russian/South-Ossetian side of this, even though I disagree with their methods. In fact, make that strongly disagree. But methods aside, their argument does make sense. And should be listened to.

MOTIVATORS - BECAUSE EVERYONE "NEEDS" "MOTIVATION"

OK - So, you've all seen the "motivator" posters hanging up in various schools and businesses, right? (That was a rhetorical question, I know the answer is yes.)

Well, I'm at work staring at one right now, a particularly annoying one, and I got the idea to make a few of my own. No, bear in mind, these took me only a little over an hour to make (for the whole set), and my flashiest tool is MS Paint, so don't be too critical :P But, without further ado... prepare to be motivated.



















This one is a bit more political in nature, but I couldn't resist. Especially because I think he's both a complete idiot and a barely articulate boob.

The Cynic's Dictionary

I decided to begin a small, self-written dictionary. Here are a few excerpts.

Blogging - The art of expressing one's personal beliefs and opinions to an infinte swarm of people worldwide--who will never read them.

Chivalry - Male dominance over women since the 14th century.

Computers - Constantly out-of-date, magical boxes designed to break down and frustrate users.

Creationism - ... see also magic tricks.

Cynicism - A lonely and embittered glimpse through the crystal window of reality. See also sanity.

Faith - Forming any conclusion without sufficient reason, logic, or evidence.

Happiness - An elevated emotional level that seems to be the purpose of all life and existence. See also unobtainable.

Patriotism - The essential quality of knowing God values you and your neighbors more than people who live farther away.

Publishing - A process designed to find the worst writing and put it on the shelves.

Sadness - The antithesis of happiness. A state-of-being comprising 99.9% of humanity at any given time. See also employment.

Treasure - An attachment or dependence on any idea, object, or group of objects, that exceeds the need to live. See also gasoline.

A Question

This is a question that has been pressed on my mind as of late. It is one that is deeper than I previously thought, and I think neither side is immediately superior.

So I put it to you:

Which would you rather embrace? A painful truth or a pleasant lie?

Would you rather be happy and deceived, or in pain but wise?

Michael Bay and Citizen Kane

Having read several film reviews one thing has always been consistent. Michael Bay is always trashed on, whether it's his own film getting a bad review before it has even been seen, or whether it is some other director being compared to "drivel, like something Michael Bay would produce," it seems that nobody in the ever-so enlightened film community likes him.

I don't mind a group of people "in the know," collectively loathing somebody. That sounds fun. But I don't understand why it's Michael Bay. I liked The Island. I liked Transformers. I don't understand what the basis of this criticism is.

One reviewer is happy to point out that Michael Bay's "shallow" and "cliched" filmmaking is a far cry from the majestic art that is Citizen Kane.

Well, good! Because Citizen Kane sucked! I'm tired of critics raving about it, inflating its sense of awesomeness. It was dreadfully boring. I give Citizen Kane one star! Take that rosebud! It's about time someone pissed on your parade.

Indiana Jones and the Box Office Bomb

There is a new Indiana Jones film coming out, starring a much older Harrison Ford, and subsequently a much older Indiana Jones. I saw the original preview, a film series that used to be about subtle humor and fast action is being converted to cheesy, contrived humor and cheesy Adam-West style action.

I think I can close the book on how this will turn out.

It will do well at the box office, a lot of people are going to see it (even skeptics like myself.) The movie won't completely tank at the box office, despite the title. Enough people will se eit for nostalgia, or for Harrison Ford, or because they enjoyed the previous movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (which is one of my favorite movies of all time.)

But make no mistake, I fully expect this fourth movie to suck. The title Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is already a clue that it will be very, very hard to take this film seriously. And the preview didn't speak anything to the contrary. A lot of contrived "one-liners," mock-action, and perhaps the most ridiculous story so far. But hey, at least after this we'll stop complaining that Temple of Doom was the worst in the series. I expect this movie to suck.

Two stars at most (by reviewers who are predisposed to want to like the film), and 1 and a half from everybody objective.

Still, despite all of that, I'm going to go see the movie. How could I not? It's Indiana Jones!