Alright, so what the crappola is happening here?
I never judge before I read. So a movement (be it literary, political, musical or other) has an annoying following, is that the movements fault? So Glenn Beck supposedly loves Jesus, is that Jesus' fault? No (it is, however, his problem).
Now, I read all 4 Twilight books last summer in a couple of days. They were delightful romance novels. But that's all they were. The minute you put them down, the facade crumbles (perhaps that is why fans never stop rereading them?). They're repetitive with almost no variation, filled with excruciating mistakes of reference (The Scarlet Letter is not a love story guys...), and never climax at all. Anticlimactic is too grand a ward, after all that's a legitimate style choice. The books thought they were coming to a climax, but they weren't. You gather an army for an entire book and then don't have a battle, or any satisfying substitute (hand to hand, peace treaty, marriage ceremony, virgin sacrifice, what have you), then the reader feels like starting a war.
My only real irritation around the series stems from the promotional efforts to compare it to Harry Potter. Adventure literature in the vein of mythology (with biting social commentary) is an entirely different genre than romance novel. Fantastic elements aside, they cannot be compared seriously. Again, however, this is not the books fault.
Literary criticism aside, they're enveloping books while you read them. The characters are stock but entertaining and a few of them ring true. The relational developments (father/ daughter, love triangles, sister/ friends etc) are recognizable and relatable.
So, why not a movie? Why is it that the books are so maddening when you are not reading them and why are the movies so dissatisfying.
I think the answer comes in watching the movies themselves. A book that is mostly written in such a way to give literature students nightmares should be perfect for a film. I mean, it's got all the elements and none of the depth to get in the way of the close ups. Cinderella story, overly buff male leads, pseudo sisterhood, and a moody setting (nature reflecting the emotions of a character is always a plus, "It's raining and I'm sad, how odd!")... so why is it that the movies barely ring true as sheer fluff let alone film? It even has two legitimate actors as leads!
It should be classic Hollywood. Twilight should, pardon the pun, sparkle.
I believe it's that when you project the book on screen all you are doing is illuminating it's faults and taking away the protection the book offers. Viewing audiences are better trained than readers nowadays. In literature we don't really make a distinction between a book and a film anymore- they're all narrative. But on the point of the audience (voyeur/ reader) response we've learned to recognize that the job is a bit different. With books you are forced to fill in any holes with your mind. This engagement of the imagination is what makes reading enjoyable. "Show, don't tell" is the most common (and freaking annoying) of all creative writing workshop criticisms. Twilight as a book pulls you in (if you let it) and then you supply the rest. When the dialog sours you hear it in the most romantic voice you can imagine, when the plot disappears entirely you supply it... all of this is personal preference of course. What sounds great to you may not to the next person and books allow us to indulge in our dreams while connecting to an author’s. We make a compromise that we cannot always make with a visual image.
Thus the problem with the movies: They match the book... but that's all it has. A good film causes you to leave and dream, since you cannot dream while being force fed images. When books are adapted readers always struggle with it not looking "exactly like they imagined" but that's not even Twilight's problem. Twilight as a film leaves no room for dreaming during (too many shirtless shots- after a while it's just plain boring) and there is not enough substance to the story to cause you to dream after.
The movies do not fill in the holes because Modern audiences (that is people born post-MTV) are better trained film critics than readers. We don't read as a culture, but we spend a hell of a lot of time shifting through images. We've become as highly critical of TV and advertising as Victorians used to be of the novel.
Even the fans feel elements of frustration that they cannot express. They wish to fill in the gaps with their imagination putty, and they cannot. Perhaps that's why the books keep selling even when the movie is quicker gratification.
As to the popularity, I need not go into mob mentality, teenage hysteria, and simple sex appeal. They're entertaining (though I worry about the lessons 12 year old girls are devouring... emotional blackmail as a matter of course in relationships for one...) and like I said above, have some merit in their characters if not in plot or style. In the end they share roots with ever Jane Austen or Shakespeare story ever (love and it's power to overcome society) and people will forever be attracted to that. But there's no denying that despite mostly a good cast and plenty of glitz the movies are rather a bust. I blame a lack of imagination on the directors/ screenwriters part for not playing with the original (otherwise it goes stale! it's a different medium, film must change the book) and most of all for not leaving room for us as an audience to play.
It's entertainment. Don't force it down my throat, let me join in the game.
...
[This is also why, as I learned in my Victorian Desire in Narrative class, why porn pales to novels. We like a little room for ourselves in the story and we like to work for it. Sick, but true]
