Being the Lonely Skeptic in the Room

[TheHuckster]

I'll admit, I'm tempted to roll my eyes when people bash Twilight. It's not because I am a fan of the books or movies, because I'm not. I haven't even seen/read most of them. It's because most of the people who bash it seem to fall into at least one of two categories.

1. People who bash it just because it's popular, and by talking about how much they hate it, they're pretty much saying, "Hey, everyone, look at how contrarian I can be!" In other words, trying to be cool by bashing what it considered cool.

I can't stand those people, and I agree there are those who are bashing Twilight just for that reason, and it's a wrong reason. However, I will tell you there are many legitimate reasons to bash Twilight; first and foremost being I've seen telephone poles act better than Kristin Stewart.

2. People who aren't in the target audience. Frankly, if you aren't a straight female between the approximate ages of 12 and 18, the books and movies really aren't being made with you in mind. Sure, you can still have an opinion, but imagine hearing me, a thirty year-old man, dissecting a Pixar movie and talking about how I didn't like it. I may have a right to my opinion, but since I'm not in the movie's target audience, it really isn't about me.

Except Pixar movies have been enjoyed by so many adults in addition to children, and in fact that's part of why those movies are so successful. You look at movies like Marmaduke, Underdog, and others which truly are only enjoyed by children for the most part, and you'll see they are just as much bashed for their poor execution.

Twilight's target audience is certainly teenage girls, but I certainly don't bash it for that reason. I bash it because of its subpar acting, somewhat sexist subject matter, and inane dialogue. Contrast that with another movie that appeals mostly to teenage and young-adult girls, such as Mean Girls, which has better acting, a good message, and better dialogue. I still wouldn't choose the movie by myself (I've watched it with my girlfriend), but I at least respect it as a well-done movie for its audience.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Twilight's target audience is certainly teenage girls, but I certainly don't bash it for that reason. I bash it because of its subpar acting, somewhat sexist subject matter, and inane dialogue. Contrast that with another movie that appeals mostly to teenage and young-adult girls, such as Mean Girls, which has better acting, a good message, and better dialogue. I still wouldn't choose the movie by myself (I've watched it with my girlfriend), but I at least respect it as a well-done movie for its audience.

I stay away from bashing the movies because I haven't seen them. The reason I haven't seen them is because I've read a good chunk of the books and I know that it's bad.

--------------------

Also, just because someone may not be in the "target audience" doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on everything that is bad in that book. Especially when there are other books that target the same audience that they can enjoy that have strong characters and a good story.

Harry Potter is one huge example of this. Its first book was targeted at elementary school children, yet people of all ages became fans of it. Why? Solid writing (I can find flaws but they aren't enough to detract), good characters, amazing story.

So just because a book may have a target audience doesn't magically remove it from criticism from those outside of said audience. Especially when the criticism isn't just straight up bashing, but actually pointing out real flaws with reasoning behind it. Not being in the target audience may be an excuse for someone to "just not like the book/movie," but not being in the target audience does not give the book/movie a pass on bad writing, bad characters/acting, or tired and overused conflict and plot.

[Nekojin]

With regard to Twilight, specifically, it's not just that it's popular. It's that it's crap. It's very bad writing in nearly every sense of the word, and converting to a movie didn't change the deep character flaws and atrocious plot elements.

The same applies to Eragon. It's subpar writing, with far too many out-and-out plagiarized scenes and settings. It's good enough for a teenager, no question, but it's not big budget quality, and the only reason that it ever got published in the first place is that Paolini's parents are in the publishing industry and were able to pull strings to make it a hit.

[guywithashovel]

Actually, I did say you could have an opinion if you're not in the "target audience." I was just saying that said opinion really doesn't mean much. Besides, the whole craze is falling by the wayside now, anyway, and soon there'll be another cash cow that all the teens and tweens will be running after.

[Lace Neil Singer]

What if you're concerned with how it effects the target audience? For example, in the case of the Twilight series, how it's basically one big rape fantasy featuring an abusive and controlling boyfriend.

So just because a book may have a target audience doesn't magically remove it from criticism from those outside of said audience. Especially when the criticism isn't just straight up bashing, but actually pointing out real flaws with reasoning behind it. Not being in the target audience may be an excuse for someone to "just not like the book/movie," but not being in the target audience does not give the book/movie a pass on bad writing, bad characters/acting, or tired and overused conflict and plot.

Agreed, to both. I don't bash the films, per se, cuz I haven't seen them. Altho I have seen clips which portray Kristan's totally expressionless face, so feel free to criticise that. However, I have read the books so feel I have every right to bash them cuz of how bad an effect it has on teenagers who are being compelled to believe that stalking = love etc.

There are loads of good books that teenagers can read; hell, if they want to read vampire fiction, they can read the Night World series by LJ Smith instead of Twilight. The Night World series has well rounded characters, well thought out plots and also believable romances. I'd prefer a teenager to read that rather than the dross that is Twilight.

I don't see how my opinion is worth less than that of a teenager's, simply cuz they're the target audience and I'm not.

[draco664]

Let's get down to the basics. You know what Alternative Medicine that is proven to work is called?

It's called medicine.

Tim Minchin, is that you?

What if you're concerned with how it effects the target audience? For example, in the case of the Twilight series, how it's basically one big rape fantasy featuring an abusive and controlling boyfriend.

Honestly, I haven't read the books or seen the movies, but I do enjoy the flamewars between the lovers and haters of the Twilight saga. I was in stitches when I read someone describe the series as a young girl's soul-wrenching choice between necrophilia and bestiality. I think it might actually have been on CS. It sounds like something Jester would say.

[Aethian]

I shared that from a post on my FB wall.

[Kaylyn]

I find myself in this position all the time. I'm only newly into the skeptical movement, but it seems like everyone I know is into some sort of pseudoscience. And I'm a horrible debater myself, at least face-to-face, so I'm sitting there screaming in my head, "NO NO NO!" as they're going on and on about whatever it is, just smiling and nodding because I know I'll just make myself mad and look like an idiot trying to explain that there is currently no evidence to support their views. Because of course they'll just say, "yeah but it works for me/my grandmother/my cat" and that's all that matters to them.

Just an example. I had a minor cold one week, and one guy at work was saying, "Oh, I take multivitamins every day and I never get sick!" and trying to pressure me into doing the same, to the point that I began to wonder if he held stock in a multivitamin company. I tried to politely say, "Thanks, and I'm glad you feel that works for you, but the studies I've heard of say that unless your diet has no variety at all, you're getting what you need from diet and supplements really don't do that much for you." I tried to say that. I kept getting interrupted with "Well, it works for me and it won't hurt anything even if it doesn't work."

I didn't even bother trying to tell him about vitamin overdose, which is frighteningly easy to do with the abundance of vitamin supplements and the lack of regulation of them. Too much of certain vitamins can actually be deadly...I remember the symptoms of vitamin A overdose being particularly nasty.

I don't attack or berate anyone when I do try to be skeptical. I just try to say, "Believe what you want, and if you think it works for you then whatever, but these are the facts if you want to do a little research and try to sort through false/skewed/manipulated/one-shot studies versus true double-blinded and duplicated studies. See for yourself, I'm not just talking out of my butt." And if they can produce such studies to validate their opinions and disprove mine, then I'm willing to accept that. But...I usually get flustered and can't get my words out, and just clam up and let them talk and don't offer anything. I wish I was better at this.

[depechemodefan]

I remember hearing 2 people at the library talking about how Cleopatra was black because she was an Egyptian. I interrupted with how she was Greek, since Ptolemy was a greek general of Alexander's who took over Egypt after Alexander's death...and they looked at me like how parents would look at their 5 year old who was talking about Scooby Doo. Or the time 2 cws were talking about how there were no paintings of Jesus w/o a beard. I told them the Last Judgement had him w/o a beard but I forgot the artist so I was kind of babbling, trying to remember the artist and they were looking at me like "aw, how cute, she is trying to think."

So I get how the OP feels like no one is respecting her opinion.

I don't care much for Twilight bashing. There are people I know who think Stephen King is a hack. I read War and Peace and I could not find anything great about the book. It was ok, maybe I missed things from the translation. But one char. I was interrested in, she was in the beggining. She knew about Peter's inheritance from his father's will, and she knew people were hiding the will, and she got ahold of it and at one point told Peter, without really telling him outright, he should be greatful to her for her finding the will. And Peter was clueless. And she was an interesting char., a lot could be done with her, but she gets dropped. I was so sad not the hear of her anymore. Then there was Peter's wife who was a fucking bitch, and she was interresting. But there are people who call War and Peace a work of art and I'm thinking "what the fuck? It's ok but not a work of art in my mind." But anyway, I read the TWilght series, I thought it was ok, I like Jacob and his chapters, but I've talked to people who make it sound like the devil wrote it himself to brainwash kids-and these same people havn't read even one book!

[Lachrymose]

^ I just looked up Cleopatra for the heck of it and found that "Philopator" is attached to her name.

I read it as "Philosoraptor."

[crashhelmet]

I don't care much for Twilight bashing. There are people I know who think Stephen King is a hack. I read War and Peace and I could not find anything great about the book. It was ok, maybe I missed things from the translation. But one char. I was interrested in, she was in the beggining. She knew about Peter's inheritance from his father's will, and she knew people were hiding the will, and she got ahold of it and at one point told Peter, without really telling him outright, he should be greatful to her for her finding the will. And Peter was clueless. And she was an interesting char., a lot could be done with her, but she gets dropped. I was so sad not the hear of her anymore. Then there was Peter's wife who was a fucking bitch, and she was interresting. But there are people who call War and Peace a work of art and I'm thinking "what the fuck? It's ok but not a work of art in my mind." But anyway, I read the TWilght series, I thought it was ok, I like Jacob and his chapters, but I've talked to people who make it sound like the devil wrote it himself to brainwash kids-and these same people havn't read even one book!

I feel the same way about Tom Clancy. So many people go on about how great of a writer he is. I think he writes just to read his own words. He's got Diarrhea of the Word Processor or something

For Twilight, I read the books to see what the craze was about. Yes, I'll agree that Stephanie Meyer can't write for shit. At the same time, they made for an extremely easy read, so I got through them quickly. However, there is a lot of societal and psychological undertones within the book when it comes to the character development that people don't think exists. While Edward has the stance of "I want better for you than I can provide," which in itself can be noble, he leans towards psychological abuse. Jacob, on the other hand, is the physical abuser. He's of the mentality of "I will make you love me even if it's the last thing I do." Like I said, it's shitty writing, especially the last book, but there are some cool undertones to look for and find.

[Nekojin]

Yes, but the undertones are accidental, not deliberate. Stephanie Meyers wrote those two characters with the intent that they be seen as noble and heroic.

[crashhelmet]

Yes, but the undertones are accidental, not deliberate. Stephanie Meyers wrote those two characters with the intent that they be seen as noble and heroic.

She's living proof of the monkeys with typewriters theory?

[Nekojin]

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose.

[wolfie]

^ I just looked up Cleopatra for the heck of it and found that "Philopator" is attached to her name.

In other words, a gal who loved her daddy. I wonder - was it in Electra's sense of the word?