Am I The Only One?

Am I the only person on earth who is not impressed with the "Twilight" series?

When I sold this book back to Hastings the guy behind the register told me I was probably the only person he’d heard of that didn't like the book. What? Why? Maybe it's because I'm not 14. I don't know?

Like many people, I was pretty psyched when I heard that there was going to be a new vampire love series. I had visions of Anne Rice meets Nicholas Sparks. I was excited for something fun to read. However, from only the first book it was blatantly apparent what was going on--any commercial author would milk this money train for as long as possible.

Oh the horror? Girl wants sullen, brooding guy. Guy pulls away. But wait! He can't resist her! She can't resist him! They'll face some scary obstacles in order to live together in quasi-vampire peace and harmony . . . I haven’t read the rest of the series, but I have a feeling this is what happens.

The "sullen, brooding" Edward just wasn’t menacing enough for me because Stephanie Meyers took everything that was vampire about him away. I mean, vampires are supposed to be scary. They don’t hunt animals in the woods for food. They hunt people. They don’t come out during the day (even if it is partly cloudy), and they most certainly do not attend high school!

OK. OK. I get it. He was a little scary. He had to really, really hold himself back from Bella. That sounds like any 14-30 year old male I have ever met! Only it's not called being a vampire--it's called hormones.

With that said, obviously this book isn't about vampires. Meyers just wants you to think it is. This is the classic formulaic story about the good girl who loves the unattainable bad boy--only this bad boy happens to be a vampire (and not a very good one at that). But this is exactly why this story works for so many people. It's a classic. And what "tween" girl hasn't had a crush on someone she can't have? Nay, let me rephrase, what person hasn't had a crush on someone they can't have? Stephanie Meyers is no Tolstoy. However, much like JK Rowling, she and her team are marketing geniuses.

Her target audience: Anyone who'$ ever loved $omeone they can't have. a.k.a You & Me.

Now don't get me wrong. I love a good vampire love story. One of my favorite novels is Bram Stoker's Dracula. Stroker never tries to tame Dracula or his evil ways. He never tries to hide his vicious side from the reader. His passion is raw and untamed. Dracula would never hunt deer in the forest for food and can you picture him borrowing notes from someone before gym class? "I vant to borrow your chemistry notes. Bwaa! Ah! Ha!"

I think the reason why I was so disappointed with this book is two-fold. First, I went in forgetting that this was a teen book. My bad. So in her defense, I don't think Meyers was at liberty to be as dark as, say, someone like Anne Rice. Therefore, my disappointment in Edward and his "vampire" family being un-vampire-ish is really something I'll just have to get over. I wanted something a little more original. Guess I'll have to read elsewhere.

Secondly, I'm saddened that this book is marketed to teens--teen girls in particular. I don't know, maybe I've been reading too much "He's Just Not That Into You" lately? But when a guy (vampire or not) tells you that he can't be with you (even though you think he's saying that to save you from any pain), maybe he really can't be with you. And Bella is the exception, because most of the time guys don't give you the "I can't" explanation, they just disappear into the mist with a faint "I'll call you", much like, well . . . Dracula.


Anyway, here are some other great mainstream vampire movies and books that I do like:

"The Vampire Chronicles" by Anne Rice: You want amazing vampire writing? She's got it down.

Bram Stoker's Dracula(1992): This is actually one of my favorite movies. I love the cast (Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing). Awesome. The costumes are spectacular. This movie is different from the original book, because it focuses more on the love story . . . perhaps the one time that I can say that the movie is better than the book.

Van Helsing(2004): The special effects are pretty sweet. I like how the movie incorporates werewolves and Frankenstein. Fun. The costumes are awesome. Kate Beckinsale's hair is always perfect! And. Well. Eh-hum. Hugh Jackman. Niccce.

Underworld(2003) and Underworld: Evolution(2006): Underworld(2003) is key in understanding Underworld: Evolution(2006), plus the costumes are cool and the theories, like blood memories, are sweeeeeet. Underworld: Evolution(2006) is special-effect-tacular (especially the scene with the helicopter). These are excellent renters. They aren't scary. I promise. Think action movie with vampires and werewolves(Lichen) kicking each others asses with silver nitrate and UV bullets. Flippin sweet. But DO NOT WATCH!!--> Underworld: Rise of the Lichen(2008)): This movie is a complete waste of everyone's time. I saw it in the theatre and almost walked out.

30 Days of Night(2007): The vampires in this movie scared the shit out of me. I'm nearing thirty and had nightmares. Plus, the contrast of blood on the Alaskan snow--let's just say it left an impression. Leave the lights on if you rent it. Bwwwaaa ahahahahahaaaa!

Sleep tight,
Nik