Talk:Twilight (novel series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Twilight (series) talk page (Discussion page). (2007 - 2009) - Please Do not edit!

Welcome

Welcome to the new Twilight series page. This page is brand new and far from being perfect, so please feel free to contribute. Raven23 22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

should there be more summary for the books , or should we just let those who visit follow the links to the book summary pages? i'd be happy to write a (slightly) more detailed summery for each. any other improvements i'd like to help with as well. Sophiakorichi 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

I think we're okay with the summaries we've got now. Anyone looking for a more detailed summary can just click on the links to the book pages. Raven23 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

one more question: should there be a breaking dawn page? i know there's very little information about it as of now, but as there's a midnight sun page...( i wasnt exactly sure where the best place to ask this question is...) Sophiakorichi 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

disreguard that last comment; there already is a breaking dawn page. its...bad, though. Sophiakorichi 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

There really shouldn't be an article for "Breaking Dawn" until we get a lot more information on it. All that's known about it right now is the title, the publisher, and the release date; that's not really enough for a good article. Raven23 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Character Pages

I have a question about the ages in the Character pages. For the immortal characters, should we be referring to their ages as 'physical' ages? Wouldn't it be better to do their ages by when they first came into existence (ie human birth). Putting their physical ages is inaccurate because (particularly for the Cullen family) their ages change. So Carlisle can be anywhere between 20-35 at times. Edward is listed as 17 although by the end of Breaking Dawn he's supposed to be around 19.

The other possible way to do it would be to state it (where appropriate) as 'Age at death'? Canez (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with this, but their should be a section on how thebooks are better than the films {well better than he one filmhas been made} does noone else think the twilight film was incredibly diassapointing after the book?? for one thing bella in the book is quirky happy and different but in the film she is lifeless boring the whole book revolves around bellas quirkiness without it it was boring and begs the question in our mind why would edward want to fallinlove with bella? the books also revolve around the love for the two obviously , part of us girls loving twilight so much is due to intense romance but in the film that romance is lost they meet they fall inlove - so what? in the book it devolopes the tension andlove between the two. However the film has one upper hand against the boook -shallow as it may sound- in the book you dont get to see robert patersons gorgous face :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikkabum (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fifth/Sixth Book?

Reference? God, if it's a hoax I'm gonna put the person who wrote it on a hitlist Iceness (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LACK OF OBJECTIVITY?

There is obviously a problem with objectivity in this article. there is no notice of the fact that these books are extremely popular and have a cultural significance. The reviews I have read have been definitely mixed. not overwhelmingly one way or another. What is the problem here? I would like to understand why there is no attempt to present the more positive reviews. I will look them up and reference them if I am given time, but this is very disturbing. There are at least three sources already listed for the book sales so please stop taking that information out as it is relevant. I am not sticking up for the book, but it is clear that the author is in some way exceptional. Anyone that can conncet with that many readers has something to offer. Something more then good grammar. If someone wants to add the concerns that people have with the book, they shouls also add the groups (like the Twilight Moms) that feel the book is positive to give a balanced account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.128 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it to be satisfactorily objective, though I do admit fears of it being written as suggested above. Most do not believe it to have any cultural significance, but merely entertainment. MissMeticulous (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Any cultural significance would be the re-popularization of vampires in pop-culture. Machine chouette (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is the appropriate subtopic to discuss this on, but I saw the notation for "Midnight Sun" and the question of whether it was relevant in the Twilight page. My argument would be that yes, it is, because it exists and is available on Stephenie Meyer's website. It is almost half of Twilight written from Edward's perspective. It was leaked, which is why it has not yet been finished or published, but the chapters as written are available and clearly a part of the series of books. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.13.205 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Vampire and werewolf information

Does anyone else think we should create separate pages for vampires of the Twilight universe and werewolves of the Twilight universe? As it is, we have the information repeated in nearly every character article other than Bella's, which is a mite annoying. Raven23 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I created the article Vampire (Twilight)- If its lacking anything essential or if it needs any more "meat" added to it, feel free to do whatever ^^ --PolarWolf ( sign ) 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys are doing a great job- Stephenie Meyer's work is pure genius. It is possibly the best love story ever in creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.71.204 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a Werewolf (Twilight) article is definitely in order, especially since after New Moon and Eclipse we know a whole lot more about them. I am (for whatever reason) deathly afraid to even create a page (much less edit anything besides typos O.O ) but maybe i could help...collaborate? Rochelle CMN (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

the article is great,theres a lot of food for thought there...but havent the vampires in the series been created into essentially "perfect beings" sort of figures? 59.178.215.145 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)fan fiction

Plot possibly inspired by Psyche and Cupid of Greek mythology?

Did anyone notice that this story compares drastically to the story of Psyche and Cupid in Greek mythology?

• Shiloh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.161.52 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, that sounds like original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Raven23 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

yes the story theme is inclined towards psyche and cupid but only a bit as the baseline has been changed... 59.178.215.145 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)fiction fan

Not that I care all that much, it's just that the apparent lack of common sense applied in Wiki articles is becoming apparent to me. If you cannot cite original research, then nothing by anyone is acceptable. What differs someone who has a degree in history to someone who knows an equal amount, but lacks the degree? The piece of paper by some university stating that he/she knows what they're talking about. If Wikipedia doesn't include an area for speculations or 'not 100% accurate because it's not by someone who thinks they're above someone who knows more because their opinion "matters"', it will never be able to accomplish its goal of providing the most accurate information available, as the people's opinions and research matter too. For a journalist, is it not helpful to know the people's consensus on a political figure as it is to know things about the figure himself/herself? I believe opinions need to be considered, at least in their own articles. Annihilan (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Twilight (series) vs. Twilight Series

Is there some way we can lessen the confusion between the Twilight (series) meaning the books and the Twilight Series, a bicycle race? Could we put a "This article is for the cycling race. For the young adult novel, see here." Something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.168.148 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. ~ Bella Swan 02:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I mean the plots are quite different although I see why somone would think that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.238.25 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I've been considering putting the Twilight series wikipage up for GA nomination, but first, a lot of things need to be cleaned up. The grammar and phrasing are pretty sub-par and it couldn't hurt to spruce up the sections for each book. I'll be going around cleaning up character pages, doing link-checks,redirects confirmations and the like. Any one who would be interested into getting this as a good article can post a message on my talk-page and I'll get you a list of what needs to be done. Hope we can get this as a GA!

Things You Can Do Right Now 1. The entire section on "Sybolism" needs to be cleaned up in the next week or so. I really don't want to delete it because the books do hold alot of symbolism, just not the points mentioned in the section. I'm reading "Twilight" right now so I really don't have an extensive knowledge of it but if someone could be a savior and swoop in and do some fix ups, that'd be great.

2. All the charecter pages have a big in-universe style to them which needs to be fixed. I'll be doing the best I can with them but, agian, my knowledge only spawns as far as the first couple chapters of "Twilight"

3. Grammer and gender specifications need to be fixed.

4. I'm working on creating a WikiProject:Twilight because they are a phenomenal series of books and I think that thier Wikis should be as up to par as they are. Keep an eye out for it, m'kay!Broadway4life155 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's anywhere near GA status to be honest. I don't even really see the point of the article at the moment. -- Stacey _{talk to me} 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. First, let's find some things on critical reception. With these books' popularity, it can't be so hard. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

is it just me or was the symbolism section stolen from a 4th grade book report?

would anyone object to me flat out deleteing it, or do you think there is some way to salvage it? --69.152.250.190 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have strongly considered deleting it myself. The only reason I haven't yet is because I feel like I could find some better symbolism to discuss in that section... But I haven't gotten around to that yet. Andrea (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I took it out. If anyone wants to write a proper section on Symbolism, they are welcome to. Andrea (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof that humans hate trees

During my many years as a literate human, I've read at least a thousand novels. This one was by far the worst. I've complained at length to anyone who'll listen about the laughably amateurish writing style, abject lack of a plot, painfully cliché characters, and violation of the most basic rules of writing as learned in any freshman college course. Conversations with other adult readers have revealed that many others share my sense of outrage that Stephenie made money on this novel without using a hollowed out copy to beg for change in the park.

I feel your pain..I just read this crap and I want those hours of my life back..honestly..no wonder people call Twilight fans Twitards..118.95.2.130 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one. Then again, it's subjective thoughts like this that screws up Wikipedia so much. This page has been locked probably because of all the vandals out there who have been editing this page to say "Edward is a butt-head" in 50point font. Please, in group effort, let's just leave comments like this for places where it might do good. www.twilightsucks.com is a great place for that, where many anti-twilight people have put together good ways at attacking the book without leaving annoying garbage in random blogs and places. I do wish trees can be saved, but there are some things we just can't do. Let's just hope this phase is over-kill and it disapears into obilivion like most teenage drama. Thank you No Stahr (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like someone with perhaps a less subjective eye to mention this in the article. I understand objective content is difficult to keep posted with so many die-hard fans, but I think this is an important point that adds value to the entry when people come here for information.

Some of the greatest writers in history have had absurd and technically incorrect writing styles. Faulkner has championed the run on sentence and would probably recieve a C- from the average English teacher. Style can be taught. The thing that the greats have is an inborn ability to grab the reader. Meyers has it. I don't care for the books, but you have to be objective here. if you wish to have a section about groups that have concerns about the influence of the Twilight series, you should also include the groups that feel that Twilight is beneficial. There is a group I have heard of. Mothers who bond with their adolecent daughters over the Twilight series and use it to help with conversations about relationships and abstinence. it is called Twilight moms. There are likely others. People come to Wiki to get information, not opinions. Please, please less subjectivity here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.128 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Rupp 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced line about it being popular among young adults. Now there is nothing subjective in the article about how "good" or "bad" the books may be. Your opinion is not reputable and therefore does not belong in the article, but I agree that a "Critical reception" section that offers both negative and positive critical reviews might be a nice addition. Andrea (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that perhaps it would be worthwhile to note some of the backlash against the nature of the relationship depicted, as many find is reason for concern. I know there is at least one facebook group [1] that addresses concerns that this relationship is perhaps abusive and depicts a weak heroine and that it is worrying that so many soon to be young women and even young women are practically worshiping it. However, a facebook group probably isn't the most reliable source (obviously), so if someone was able to find a more reputable article or something of the sort addressing these concerns to site in the article, I think that would be very good. The article on just the first book has an area of Critical reception, but it seems only to go from neutral to positive, without siting any reviews addressing any of the concerns expressed above. -Rachel June 24 2008

I think, in a way, what you're asking for is a 'critical reception' section about each of the books, that addresses the negatives and positives of the book series. We wouldn't have that sort of a thing on this page itself, but rather on the each individual book's pages. I know that I've started one on the Eclipse page, and would be willing to do the same for the rest of the novel's pages. Hope that addresses your question. ~ Bella Swan^? 19:28, 24 June 2008

Many people, especially girls at high school, absolutely looove this series of books. Three people in my class at school talk about it all the time and i moan to them that 'oh, all you love is Edward because he's this perfect guy'. I mean, the character, as said above, could not be more cliche'. No offense to them though, like the book all you want, they probably think the type of books on my shelf are rubbish. Oh well, but get over it girls... Plus, the films that are due to come out won't help with anything, except for making money. Having Rob Pattinson as Edward? Sure, that'll help them get over their film star crush. One of the girls i mentioned earlier has him as the screensaver on her phone. Now whenever she closes her phone, she is sat there for about a minute saying 'Aaaaaaaaaaww, so pretty'. Not helpful at all film producers. Tut tut. LR.

Bella Swan - I disagree. Though I believe it is important for each individual novel to have their own critical recep page, I also think that a crit recep page on the Twilight (series) page would be good to see the general reaction to the series as a whole. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really have problem having a critical recp on this page, but the only reason I thought that we shouldn't have it on this page was because I thought it might get repetitive, but I dunno. If we could make the cric recp like this at the Harry Potter page, it might work. The section lists the history of all the praise and criticisms that the series got, starting with book 1 and continuing on. If we could do something like that and summarize all the reviews in one, it could work. ~ Bella Swan^? 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, but a section that size wouldn't do well in comparison with the rest of the page. At the same time, I don't think we'll have as much to put on Twilight, so it probably wouldn't be a problem. It'd be nice to have a page to see how reception changed and progressed from book to book, yeah. I'm not sure what you mean by 'summarize all the reviews in one', though. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant, was that we should summarize the reviews from the respective books in the series, and give a breif bit on how they each individually did, and then do a bigger piece on how the series did as a whole. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This line of query is not objective. It borders on discouraging people from reading the series. Most reviews of the first book are favorable, except for some rather conservative sources which you would expect to take issue. The book doesn't cause any harm to anyone. It certainly isn't misogynist. If you don't like it, of course don't read it. But let others make up their own minds. There is no reason to either pretend it isn't very popular, or to try to keep it from being popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.128 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Playlist

Should we really list all the songs for the playlists of the books? I would like to do it, but I'm afraid of it being really disorganized and crufty. Any ideas? ~ Bella Swan^? 16:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it looks very nice when they're all listed here, and it seems a bit over the top in terms of detail. Maybe just a mention of the playlists and links to where they're listed on her site? Andrea (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We might have an issue if we listed all the songs, I think Andrea's solution is good. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I started a new article and copy/pasted all the playlist in it. I agree that it looked 'too much' on the main page. Iceness (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That was not a good idea. The playlists aren't covered in WP:NOTE, and cannot be made into an article. Appreciate the enthusiasm though. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales count of series

That is the sales count. I checked at Barnes na Noble. Honest. I was curious too. . I guess its proof that people enjoy reading books that critics enjoy slamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.128 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can we get some sort of objective and accurate sales count?

I'd found the fifty million sales count rather exaggerated, no offense, it is a book that has sold well, but not THAT much. I did some research, and I could find like only three sources citing 50 million, while I found many more credible sources citing a much lower number, 8 million, perhaps give or take a million or two with the release of Breaking Dawn. So, I edited the page, attaching three out of the many sources I found on it, however one user (see page history) has been repeatedly reverting the edits back to fifty million, and he/she has attached only one source, which's accuracy is questionable. The date of the source he/she has attached is also much earlier then those I found, so it's unlikely to be the issue of an old sales count.

Much appreciated if someone could try to find a source that can definitely confirm the sales count, perhaps figures from the New York Times bestseller list? I'm pretty sure 50 million isn't accurate, and it's going to be very confusing and disinforming of viewers if it keeps flipping between 8 million and 50 million. The same user has also been repeatedly re-adding Twilight to the list of bestselling books, under the claims of fifty million portion-I've reverted the edit, until we can get something confirmed, I don't we should just put it up there. I don't mean to accuse he/she of vandalism, it's just not accurate and it comes across as a little bit of something rather overzealous- and it's affecting the accuracy of the article.

Thanks,

--Chinensis (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, as one of those not-as-crazy Twilight fans, I really don't want to bother myself to look into this, however, it is an important fact, and I will try to look into it. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course we get some sort of objective and accurate sales count. I have added three sources citing that the books have sold in 50 million copies. Three sources are enough. And I am also adding Twilight to the list of bestselling books since now there have been three sources. Thanks, Blytonite (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chinensis. I keep reading articles that state Twilight sales at below 20 million worldwide. I think it's possible that 2 of the 3 sources got their figure of 50 million from the first one (the MTV article), where a mistake could have been made. The reason I'm bringing this up again now is that I recently read one article and watched one video which both named the count at over 17 million. I know there are many more sources out there that agree with this as well. Obviously if 3 sources say 50 million but 10 say less, we should believe that the correct number is less. Andrea (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Far more sources state the sales count as lower than 20 million. All sources that aren't very recent but from a few months ago (pre-Breaking Dawn) say the count is at 10 million, or often even lower around 7 or 8. I follow this series quite carefully, and there is no way the books have sold 5-fold more copies since then. Also, all sources have been consistent in saying that the US sales count is around 8 or 9 million. They are most popular in the US, and I find it very hard to believe that (despite popularity in other countries) the total count can be so much higher than the US count. There is obviously a discrepancy in the sources, so someone must have made a mistake somewhere. That means we have to use our best judgement to decide which makes more sense - I think 17 million is much more plausible than 50, and I have found enough sources that state this number. If anyone has a logical explanation as to how the books could have sold so well in such a short time, then they should state it here. I am changing the article back to 17 million, unless someone can give a good argument against it. Any other opinions? Andrea (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Official figure: 17 million. I emailed the publisher to settle this confusion, and got the following reply: "Hi Andrea, Our current worldwide sales figure for the Twilight series is 17 million. Thank you for checking. Best, Little, Brown Books for Young Readers". I invite others to email publicity@lbchildrens.com with this inquiry as well if they would like their own confirmation. Andrea (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Official figure: 25 million. Little, Brown has recently released the official sales figure of the Twilight books only yesterday. Over 25 million copies of the books have been sold worldwide and oh yes, I have found about eleven to twelve latest sources citing this sales figure - you may wish to contact the publishers too. And to settle the confusion of the translations, Steph Meyer HERSELF has made it clear that Twilight has been translated into 38 languages in the Ellen Degeneres show. You can see the sales figure article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/en_nm/us_twilight_books

Thank you for your cooperation. Blytonite (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to assume I'll fight you on this- that is a plausible increase in sales count considering the recent spike in popularity. Andrea (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Blytonite (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Official figure: 40 million. Little, Brown has recently revealed the latest sales figure of the Twilight series in a recent USA Today article. I have added it on the main page.

Thanks. Blytonite (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Twilight Task Force

This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan^? 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that under the Reception and Influence heading, there is actually no information regarding the series' reception. I believe that in the spirit of fairness and objectivity, this section should include information regarding critics' reviews and thoughts on the series. Both the negative and positive aspects of the book should be highlighted in order to provide a more informative and well-rounded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.128.131 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to inquire, the best thing to do would be to make a new section. However, I'll answer your question; I made the section because I knew that the series has influenced people. I'm planning on adding reception (as well as book counts), but they have to be reception for the entire series, and not just one book in particular. Singular book reviews are placed on the book pages. I have a few reviews in mind, and will add them when I get the time. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler?

Er... Can wikipedia give so much information about the plot? It's Spoiler! Aldam Gradel (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the rules for Wikipedia is our spoiler policy, which states that you should use common sense when looking at articles, and know that an article about a book is going to contain a plot summary of it. ~ Bella Swan^? 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I only read the first book of the series, ans I now know that they'll have a baby, Jacob is a real werewolf, and that they'll get married. COME ON! I didn't want to know that! I am still gonna read the next books, including the upcoming "Midnight Sun", but it will be mostly spoiled. Can ANYONE change that? I don't usually have enough time to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelineDeStar (talk • contribs) 11:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As already stated in the post above yours, you should read Wikipedia's spoiler policy. We do not delete information because someone thinks it spoils the plot. Obviously an article about a book series will talk about what happens in the series. Andrea (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Andrea, but could maybe someone put in brackets 'Contains spoilers' or something similar? I think this would definitely be a good idea. Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.96.149 (talk • contribs) 20:27, December 1, 2008

No, no, we don't do that anymore. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone feel like the critical reception...

Is a little too critical? There's not one good word in about Twilight in there. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.201.85 (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception for an individual book can be found on each book's page. This section is for the series as a whole (which also includes overall writing style and such). If people can find and reference good reviews about the entire series, then sure they can add them in, but citing a review that says Twilight is good doesn't make much sense if there are other books. The possibility of it declining in quality or adding strange/disgusting/illogical plot elements is also there. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I take both of your points. May do some research. Seems a bit weighted, but I don't know. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It does seem weighted, but honestly...I've never seen a positive review that was about the whole series. It's actually hard to find many reviews about the whole series at all, maybe because the series only ended a few months ago. I'll do some research as well, but I'm not very hopeful. However, I will say that the second review mentioned is about Breaking Dawn and not really the series, and the last one was written by someone who only read Twilight. So maybe those 2 don't belong. Andrea (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEING TOO CRITICAL. THIS BOOK IS BAD AND GETS BAD REVIEWS. OH THE HUMANITY.--200.69.211.21 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as if there were positive reviews that were edited and replaced with negative reviews, and the negative reviews are all referenced. As previously stated, if a positive review regarding the series as a whole can be referenced, include it; but if it can't be found, that doesn't negate the neutrality of that section. It seems like a moot point to have the neutrality disclaimer up. --65.201.56.133 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be both positive and negative reviews posted on this article, despite what you guys personally think of the books. As a side note I agree with what Gina R. Dalfonzo wrote in her review but don't think it's relevant, as reviews are supposed to tell you how well the story is written, not give feedback on what parts you don't like. --88.115.63.242 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the root thread. This section is neutral in its writing, although the content is itself not neutral. (In a section entitled "Reception," neutrality should not ever be found in the specific content anyways.) Since the material in the section is amply referenced, then it is the duty of those displeased with the slant of the content to find positive reviews (Need I add "from reputable book reviewers" as a caveat?). The original author and redactors do seem to have referenced a respectable spread of well-respected book reviewers; they should be praised for this. All this comes down to one thing: sometimes popular items are not good literature/cinema/etc., and vice versa. James Joyce's Ulysses has been called as the best novel of the 20th century by Random House's Modern Library publishing group, and it cannot be called 'popular' by any extent of one's imagination. Outside Wikipedia, then, there should be a discussion on these seemingly contradictory patterns, but I motion that the tag of non-neutrality be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.115.10 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag, but I'm also taking out the 2 reviews that I stated above that aren't actually about the whole series. Also, the reference for Edward-being-abusive is actually from a blogging community and is not a notable review, so I'll take out the ref but will leave the sentence in for now (since I'm almost certain I've seen a valid review that says something along those lines). Andrea (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can claim it's neutral when it states it has received mixed reviews but only negative reviews have been posted in the article. Simple as that.88.115.63.242 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that it has received mixed reviews. To quote the article directly, "The series as a whole has received relatively negative reviews from critics". Andrea (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that I just read the Critical Reception article and it seems extremely balanced and neutral. I am one of those so called die-hard fans, who feels pain when I'm not reading it and putting aside my incredible biased-ness it was the perfect amount of for and against. Haecandrome (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the writer had found as much of the critical receptin as they can. Personally, I agree with the majority of the critics, and it would seem that the article, to me, was as far from biased as it could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.30.200 (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merchandise

I removed the Merchandise section on the grounds that it violates WP:ADVERT and WP:EL. The mentioning of Hot Topic and Torrid's collections is entirely appropriate, and using their webspace as links is a form of linkspam. Unless there is something truly notable about these stores stocking merchandise that could be backed up by a secondary reliable source, it shouldn't be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate Character Pages?

Are they really necessary? I don't see enough info justified to have separate articles. They basically chronicle what each character does in the different books. Shouldn't that be left for the plot summary on the actual book pages? I can see "List of Major Char" and "List of Minor Char," but the other three pages (Bella, Edward, and Jacob) can easily be removed with good reason. Languageleon (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists for Major and Minor characters (separately) are not needed, and the Minor char. one would fail notability. As for the other three, Edward and Bella fit WP:N. Jacob...I didn't merge because he's considered one of the main love-triangle characters and there's a possiblity that more info. will be available. If nothing comes up, the page will end up merged eventually. Right now, no one has really attempted to clean up the articles, but they are not in really bad shape compared to others. Bella Swan has a nice sized concept/creation section and a large reception section. Edward Cullen (Twilight), though lacking concept/creation and reception notes, has a large Film Portrayal secrtion. Jacob Black really needs work, though. Personally, I'd like people to work on the actual list. It needs reception and concept/creation notes, not to mention referencing from books and dialogue. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think so. Stephenie Meyer realistically spends too much time writing about how gorgeous Edward looks (seriously), and even if she had described her characters in more detail, all the character articles would be classified as stubs. There's really no need for so many stubs when we can condense them all into fewer pages. Clem (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Olympic Coven

In the back of Breaking Dawn, where notes on all mentioned covens are writen, the Cullens' information is under 'Olympic Coven' should this be mentioned anywhere? Haecandrome (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete "if published" (paragraph 2, sentence 2)

Go to "June 2008 Update" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qzex (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Meyer announced that the book was on hold after that June update, in August 2008. Andrea (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Would this be a valid source for criticism? blastmagazine.com

The columnist analyzes the Twilight series and calls into question the books' overall writing issues, story and character development, and controversies in how it presents gender roles and how those could negatively affect the young fanbase. I know the source is a blog, but if the writer (Kellen Rice) had credentials that made her article valid, would it be a good source? I can't seem to find her credentials, though, so any help would be appreciated. Jackal Killer (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Twilight explicitly described as 'porn'

• Leavines, Linnie (March 8, 2009), Juxtaposed Notions: ‘Twilight’ is cleverly disguised porn for women, The Daily Reveille, retrieved March 25, 2009

Something to the effect of the frequently surfacing description of Twilight as "softcore porn", "girl porn", and similar should be added to the section on critical reception. 78.34.180.107 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the opinion of one person who writes for a school newspaper is worth noting. Andrea (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And I presume you're googling your fingertips off trying to find another source for the claim. 78.34.132.44 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you have to admit that in Breaking Dawn people were expecting a love scene. So it's kinda like you have the porn magazine but no pictuers inside. Link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.2 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter versus Twilight

A passionate debate has raged online and in many teen circles about which is the "better" fantasy book series: Harry Potter or Twilight. Team Read, an after-school literacy program in Seattle, recently conducted a student debate where two teams hashed it out. Afterward, a panel of judges and the standing-room-only audience voted 120-40 that the Harry Potter had won the debate. In a separate vote not related to the debate, the audience also voted overwhelmingly that Harry Potter was the better series. --ThreeGGGG (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeGGGG (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Until it gets covered by a newspaper or something, it's not notable enough to include on Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with the debate is that there isn't enough data to be considered unbiased. Whenever a website has something like this, it's usually tallied by online readers/users. How can we be sure that multiple accounts are being used, that these people are unbiased, that the site is blocking out votes? We can't. That why asking actual people works well, especially to avoid the rabid fangirls/boys. People who have actually studied literature and other authors are also another alternative. Stephen King commented on both books, and thought HP was better (it's in the critical reception section). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow

http://twilightsucks.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fangirls&action=display&thread=5175&page=1

Take a look, just thought it's interesting, and perhaps can be used in this article somewhere. At the least it's a strong look at the growing obsession surrounding these novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.104.158 (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was not spamming links, to who ever removed what I said, I was trying to be a little bit helpful. If it wasn't, then you could at least be polite, and comment back to what I said stating why it wasn't. I don't expect that sort of rude behavior after trying to be helpful.KarmaAndroid (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because Wikipedia is not a forum. This isn't a place to discuss things like that. Take your links somewhere else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Take my links somewhere else? A person tries to be helpful by providing a possibly useful link, and you just tell them to go away? You sir disgust me, I suggest you learn some manners. I am WELL aware that this isn't a forum, and nor was I using as such, I was providing an interesting and related link that I thought may be of some use, not trying to discuss it. You are a very rude person.KarmaAndroid (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to forums are of no use here, as what is written on them is not notable. Andrea (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Andrea, thanks for the informative reply.KarmaAndroid (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So you dismiss a forum with links of several attacks, which are highly descriptive and several that supply visual proof? I am against giving these attacks their own article, but they deserve a section of the Twilight article, perhaps controversy or their own chapter in the article.Annihilan (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, a forum is not a notable source, no matter how descriptive its posts are. Andrea (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget rule #1, assume good faith. Let's show some respect for each other. "Take your link somewhere else" is belittling. Even though the link should not exist, we can explain the reasons in a more polite manner.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise is in order? If I can get a victim to release medical records that accompany stories of attacks, will you call it 'notable' then? Or perhaps we could have a 'speculation' tag or some other thing as most wikia sites have. It's just plain rediculous not to include this as a problem or controversy. People are in all likelihood being hurt, and leaving it out of the largest info site is insane. Annihilan (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal stories are not notable and medical records would not details the circumstances of the event. I am not even sure a police report could really be used since it is an accumilation of opinions on the series of events. If you could find a news article, that would better support your interests.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The first wikilink

The article start "Twilight is a series of four vampire-based fantasy/romance novels by the American author Stephenie Meyer." The link in question redirects to List of Twilight characters, so I don't think it is very helpful here. A far more relevant link is vampire literature, which also mentions the series. 77.4.60.79 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it specifically links to the section of List of Twilight characters that explains the series' take on vampires. Andrea (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog used as a source

I've tagged in "Praise and Cultural impact" a blog called "LoveVampire" for a credibility check. It looks like a personal blog that is used to review vampire romances. Not at all a notable news source. I simply recommend deleting it as it isn't notable enough to be used as a critical review source. --Pstanton (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I removed both of the blogs in that section because neither are particularly notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward was 17 when he was transformed into a vanpire by Carlise Cullen. His mother new Carlise's seceret and when both Edward and his mother were dying from the spanish influenza, his mother asked Carlise to change Edward as her dying wish. Carlise did as she asked but still wonders if it was the right thing. He is happy to have Edward as his son now though and five other vampires have joined coven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96Aliya96 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead Links

There were a bunch of dead links in the refs section and I'm pretty sure I've weeded them all out, but some things I had to remove because the link was dead and I couldn't find it anywhere else. I think the only place I had to do that was in a part of the 'Criticism' section, there was a reference to an article and it apparently was removed from the site and I couldn't find it anywhere else. If anyone sees any more dead links, feel free to tell me and I can fix them. VioletShadow (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

fansites

Could we not add some reference to the hundreds, if not thousands of twilight fansites...notably hisgoldeneyes.com and twilightlexicon.com

PLease? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlingtonninjas (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia's external links policy, specifically the WP:ELNO section for information. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine...don't add links, but atleast mention them, lexicon is mentioned in the hardcopies of the book by Meyer herself, surely they deserve some recognition here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlingtonninjas (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The title should be Twilight Saga (series) instead of just Twilight (series)!

Ok, I'm a really obsessed Twilight fan and it drives me crazy when people call the Twilight Saga the Twilight Series or something like that. If you call the series Twilight there's no way to distinguish the name of the first book from the name of the series. However, if you say Twilight Saga (which is the correct name) it is clear what you're talking about. I don't have a Wikipedia account so since the page is semi protected I can't make any changes myself, but I beg anyone who can to make the necessary change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.212.145 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the name of the series is "Twilight", and the addition of words like "series" or "saga" are just ways of clarifying that you are referring to the set of books (as you mentioned). For this reason, I wouldn't necessarily count "Saga" as being part of its title, as well as because it is at least equally (or possibly more often) referred to as the "Twilight series" or simply as "Twilight". According to Wikipedia naming conventions, the first choice for an article name would just be its title ("Twilight", in this case, or "Harry Potter", as another example) without any further distinction. However, in cases like this one where multiple things (the time of day, the book, the film, the series) all go by the same name, we disambiguate by adding words in parentheses such as "(series)" or "(novel)". I hope that clarifies some things about how articles are named on Wikipedia. Andrea (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It would also be incorrect, as the books are a series, not a saga. It's only called a saga as a marketing tool.--76.99.145.180 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Twilight is NOT A SAGA. I read somewhere that a sage is something with a hero who has to complete a task or something. I may be wrong. But I'm definitely hundred percent sure that Twilight is not a saga. FYI, I don't like Twilight. And I won't discriminate on Wikipedia, but I have to say some fangirls are way too obsessed. Ribbedebie (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception: Hate

In addition to adding a section about the extreme fangirlism of some twilight readers, would it not be appropriate to add a part to the article about how much extreme hate there is of the series?--WoodPaperPlastic (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if there are notable sources describing it--TParis00ap (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's 3am, and I haven't got the mental capacity to fix it myself (at the moment; also, this Wimbledon final is killing me), but without straying into 'extreme hate' territory, I think there's some merit in fleshing out the criticism of the novels. The positive side perhaps repeats some of the 'reception and influence' section above it, but mostly it's strong - which the negative side is not. I am not interested in scorning the novels and I am not arguing to remove the praise. I am interested in criticism, however; I read the books, and I even enjoyed them, but there is a lot to be said about their flaws. At the moment, we have about ten articles heaping superlative praise on the books. We have two on the negative side; one is accompanied by Meyer's rebuttal, the other is a sophisticated 'not very good', though the fact that it's from King probably makes it worth including. Overall, it isn't particularly neutral. In addition, I'd begun this comment thinking the topic of Twilight hatred was irrelevant, but there has been a relatively strong reaction. It often isn't measured criticism, though, you're right; possibly a sentence or two on backlash, under phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.137.89 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then technically no such sub-section can ever be added. Opinions are not factual, and therefore not notable, which is absurd considering that the existence of aforementioned opinions IS notable. The mere existence of www.twilightsucks.com should be enough notability to prove the existence of hatred of the series just as there is insane fanaticism. You could place the article in a section of psychology, because they're more akin to opinions. If you want to get within to-the-letter rules, the Bible can't be allowed as a source. The Bible was written by men, who had their own opinions formed at a consensus of Christ and God, therefore nullifying it as an opinion. If you allow the Christianity article to have possible sources lacking notability, why not create a separate article with a disclaimer saying that the following texts and sources are matters of opinion and may be fictional, but are deserving of attention? Annihilan (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: structure and genre

Where it claims Twilight vampires differ from vampire lore, this is misleading. There is no one traditional vampire; every writer gives theirs a different combination of traits. Only a few traits are universal, and Meyers is not the first to have vampires that can survive on animal blood. Machine chouette (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Meyers makes it a point in her novel to note that her Vampires are different.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are Vampires in lore. Vlad Drac was often considered to be the first Vampire, and several beyond that were called Vampires, but differ greatly from modern Vampires. It is therefore not misleading. The Arguer 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Family tree

Okay um, I think we need a family tree on this. Anyone here could probably make one in Paint on their own, but the issue is, do we use an image or a very convoluted, handwritten text family tree? I'll be making one and posting it soon. Clem (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Extreme fanaticism?

http://www.examiner.com/x-4908-Twilight-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Twilight-fan-cliffdives-where-Bella-did-Quileute-Nation-not-responsible-for-the-incident I think this very accurately summarizes the extremism in the fandom of Twilight. It's notable, considering it's published. I doubt this is fabricated. Does the fanaticism deserve its own section now? The Arguer 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not considered by most to be a reliable source, as they recruit locals to write for them and there is no editorial oversight. There are some long discussions about the site here, here, and here, if you want to read more about it. However, in terms of the event you're talking about, I'm pretty sure I read about it in an article that would be considered reliable/notable. Though I'm still not convinced that an entire section should be created based on the foolish actions of one fan. Andrea (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's enough to at least mention it. I will not rest until a section gets put in. I don't care if I have to wait until another article comes out, I'll be all over this article until people know that there is equal violent fanaticism as there is praise. Not trying to sound hostile, but I'll be on top of this article until it gets a section. It will be fair though. If Examiner isn't a reliable source, I'll look around for some other sources and post them. The Arguer 04:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have no idea what sites are considered notable and which aren't. Are the sites that are/aren't notable listed on the notability article? The Arguer 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather new here, but I think notabiity of sources is based on personal opinion and consensus of the group as well as history of the source.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA

I've decided to nominate the article for GA status. While a lot remains to be done, we can fix the issues before the review starts. Minor issues can be attended to later. Pmlineditor 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article review

I've read the article and it seems good overall so I am passing it. Great work! --Anhamirak 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Checklist:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Arabic translation not mentioned

Resolved

 – I've changed my mind about mentioning the concerned reaction of the Arab media/the publishers rushing out an Arabic translation. Just having the image caption seems enough, as the whole issue has sort of disappeared from the headlines--as yet, there have been no new articles on the sales milestone or Meyer's popularity in general. Ottre 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it needs to be mentioned that the series has now been translated into Arabic. Concerns have been raised in the media that over 100,000 copies of the books in English have been sold in the United Arab Emirates, completely dominating the market for youth fiction. See for instance:

Shaheen, Kareem (2009-09-12). "Search for a new chapter in Arabic youth fiction". The National. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-09-12.

Ottre 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't really say that there is specific concern about Twilight sales; the series is just listed as an example of the Western titles that are dominating the bestseller lists. The article is moreso discussing the general problem of Western books (such as Twilight) being much more popular than Arabic ones, as well as the lack of Arabic young-adult literature. Andrea (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrea. However, I recently took a picture of an Arabic Twilight promotional poster at a bookshop in Dubai and I've added the sales figure in the caption of the picture to prove Twilight's popularity in the UAE and also act as a more reliable source.Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the recent additions to the "reception" section

I've noticed a few additions to the "Reception" section on this page. On Wikipedia, we welcome and appriciate your contributions, BUT - I'm afraid a few of these aditions are superfluous. Literary criticism (in a nutshell) is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature and the section only includes what the various critics have said about the Twilight books (including both positive negative criticism). Some of the recent additions to the section have NO basis in literary criticism. For example, the paragraph about the Twilight Moms have NO basis with either the criticism of the BOOKS. This section deals with the four books and not the fandom or the films or the merchandise. Middle aged women having cut-outs of Pattinson and Lautner also has no basis in the criticism of the Twilight books and are just commenting in a satirical way on the FANDOM. It has nothing to do with the acclaim and evaluation of the books. Lautner on Jay Leno is commenting on a fan who asked him to sign her panties and is also considered trivial information since it has in NO way related to the books or Meyer's prose.

The popularity of the names of the characters has also nothing to do with the acclaim of the books so I am removing that, too. The Rifftrax link only comments on the movies and not the books so its completely extraneous. However, I am keeping the snippets that have the basis on the criticsm of the books and comment on Meyer's writing. If anyone has any issues, feel free to reply here or just contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Mo HH92 ^Talk 09:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In pure continuation of what you have started, "Influence" should be edited out of "reception, influence and controversy", as well as the parts in that section that deal with the fandom being like a "cult", the celebrity and first daughter references, the similarities in popularity to the Harry Potter series, and the effect the series has had on Forks. Not an ounce of that is standard literary criticism. If a singer and an actor are suddenly notable literary critics, any Craig Ferguson mocking of the Twilight book and film series is equally worthy of mention.

However, I definitely think these things should be moved to a new section dealing only with "influence", as well as several of the recently removed portions. I think the removed parts should be sorted out, but all equally considered nonetheless. Like you said, Jay Leno was definitely unessential information. But on the other hand, there were also two references about the series effecting relationships that I would like to see in this suggested section that were removed. The Rifftrax references should be on the New Moon and Twilight movie articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodyfun (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Praise and cultural impact

These two things should be separated the way "criticism" is from them, opposed to being lumped together. I sorted them out. Goodyfun (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun

Looking at the section again, I think it looks sloppy without "Cultural impact" labeled. If any of you see a problem with what I do, please tell me here what looked iffy about my edit if you decide to change it (it's the best way for me to learn). Goodyfun (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun

First of all, praise and cultural impact is basically the same thing. The sections that you have divided say the same praising quotes about the influence of the series. HOWEVER, there *is* a difference between CRITICISM and BOOK CHALLENGES. A book that hasn't recieved a lot of criticism can be challenged and vice versa.Blytonite (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a fallacy. The impact something has does not support its quality, nor does mentioning its impact equate to praise (I.E. someone saying "porn is very popular" does not make you think "high praise"). As an example of what I was doing, the Harry Potter article has social impact and critical response divided, and is more neutral. I'm going to edit the article back to how I had it. Don't change it again until we discuss this further since nobody likes an Edit War. Remember: this is a neutral wiki, not a fan site. I also never mentioned book challenges. That is fine as it is. Goodyfun (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun

However, ALL of the cultural impact and influence of the Twilight books have been positive. And of course, we are well aware that this is not a fan site but generally for sections that deal with the acclaim and praise of the books, we HAVE to include snippets of praise to justify them with sources. The article *is* neutral as it also contains a criticism section. If anyone has a problem with the edit I have made, please comment here instead of just editing the article without any reasonable response. Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been doing a little bit of research on this. Cultural impact is when when something has had SOME kind of influence on popular culture. So far, Twilight hasn't had any. For example, Twilight (till now at least) hasn't really had any kind of references in popular culture. Take a look at Cultural impact of Star Wars and the "cultural impact" section of Lord of the Rings if you want to know what exactly is cultural impact. The cultural impact section here just mentions various critics commenting on Twilight and the popularity of the books and the influence it has had on the tourism of Forks. I am once again going to edit this article and submerge the three sections together as it is done on various pages of other series. It will also give the article a more neutral tone just like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. If anyone has any objections, feel free to reply here or write on my talk page. Mo HH92 ^Talk 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism

There's no mention of the media criticism of the books and movie as a form of promoting Mormonism. 203.87.64.214 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source? Andrea (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[2]

[3]

Quote "Meyer insists that she does not consciously intend her novels to be Mormon propaganda, promoting the virtues of sexual abstinence and spiritual purity; but she acknowledges that her writing is shaped by the values she learnt from her family and the church. “I don’t think my books are going to be really graphic or dark, because of who I am,” she said. “There’s always going to be a lot of light in my stories.” from the above source, The Times uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk • contribs)

Neither of those articles criticizes the books for "promoting Mormonism"; all they say is that Meyer's religious and moral values have clearly influenced her writings, though Mormonism is never mentioned. Andrea (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Meyer cites that she is a Mormon, and the links above clearly cite her religion strongly influences her writing. Noteworthy? I guess being "complete" and accurate aren't a requisite goal here. 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This article also mentions that she is Mormon and that her religion has influenced her writing, under the "Inspiration and themes" section. Andrea (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: The NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/books/review/Schillinger7-t.html

"What subversive creature could dream up a universe in which vampires and werewolves put marriage ahead of carnage on their to-do lists? The answer, of course, is a writer of steamy occult romantic thrillers who happens to be a wholesome Mormon mother of three — a category of one, solely occupied by Stephenie Meyer. The author is well aware of the jarring contradiction between her real and imaginary lives. On stepheniemeyer.com, her Web site (created to satisfy her ravening fans), she admits, “I have been asked more than once, ‘What’s a nice Mormon girl like you doing writing about vampires?’ ” Lucky for her, while her religion’s teachings may frown on caffeine and alcohol for humans, the Word of Wisdom has a flexible attitude toward human blood for monsters; and there’s no ban on big love in the mythical world."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.158.214 (talk • contribs)

Stephen King's comments

I think readding Stephen King's comments about Meyer's writing ability (removed here) should be considered. It's true that the statements are his own opinion, but so are the comments of any critic. King is definitely a person of note within the writing field, and has also occasionally worked as a book critic for Entertainment Weekly. I think that's enough to make his opinion notable enough for inclusion. Thoughts? Andrea (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that such comments are generally not relevant in an article about a popular book. Literary quality is not a particularly important consideration for a bestseller, so unless a popular book is so bad that it's a popular discussion topic on its own, such comments should in my opinion not be included. Obviously, the book is written well enough to be read and enjoyed by millions. I personally enjoyed the book (though my initial interest was for ideological reasons) and think it's readable. It's not something I would recommend for literary reasons, but it's not bad.

Now let me state my core argument:

1. There is no indication that the supposed badness of Meyer's writing is a big discussion topic.

2. It doesn't seem that objectively the quality of her writing is bad, since the opinion that her writing is bad is not particularly widespread and the book are quite popular and generally highly rated.

3. It's not unusual for one author to dislike the works of another. For any book you can find a famous author who would criticise it. Tastes differ.

Because of that the opinions of Stephen King are not particularly important, relevant or interesting. Paranoid (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the books are bestsellers are not, critical commentary on the writing should absolutely still be included in the article. Even though millions of people have read (and perhaps enjoyed) the books, we can't ignore the fact that the series has received its fair share of criticism. Wikipedia articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, and so both positive and negative commentary should be considered equally. The only issue here is deciding whether or not Stephen King's opinion on the books is notable. I think it is, for the reasons I stated above: he is a very prominent writer and actually writes as a critic for a notable magazine. Andrea (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that you didn't answer my argument. It's not about whether King's opinion is notable - that's a secondary consideration to whether the subject of literary quality of the books is important/notable enough. For example, if you look at the article about the Bible, you would notice that the subject of literary quality is completely absent from the article. Why? Perhaps because it's not very relevant. Ditto for the US Constitution. But it's more than that - on most book pages that I read there are no comments about the writing style. Why is it so important in this particular case whether the Meyer's books are well written? Please explain your opinion. The second question is, of course, why do you think Stephen King's opinion is representative? Paranoid (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did answer your argument. Critical reception (including negative) should absolutely be included in an article about a series of books. The end. Are you really comparing Twilight to the Bible and the Constitution? They are hardly in the same league. Twilight is a form of entertainment, unlike your examples, and notable commentary on its literary quality is without a doubt relevant. If you look at the most-often compared book series, the Harry Potter article contains a literary criticism section that includes both positive and negative criticism that the series has received. Why are you specifically fighting King's comments, and not the rest of the "Criticism and controversy" section? If you are therefore not against the article having such commentary (contrary to what your arguments are suggesting), then I have also already explained why I think King's opinion is notable. Andrea (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen King's statements in many places (newspaper articles, magazine articles, online), and think that they're quite notable. Given that nearly every other entertainment article, from film to television to books, has a "criticism page" (including Stephen King's own) I think it is important to include his comments. If there are any notable responses to his comments they should, of course, be included as well.Jhfortier (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A criticism section is relevant, due to the nature of the books to polarise readers into either "Good" or "Awful" camps. It may be hard to deny but as someone earlier said, there is quite a fair share of criticism due to Myer's writing amongst other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.248.44 (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The best comparison is the situation with The Da Vinci Code, which was also a bestseller but had its literary critics. --70.122.122.131 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Love vs. immortality - POV danger

Andrea (User:Sergay), I think your edits to the intro tend to represent the point of view that love is more important than immortality. This is a value question. Some people do think that immortality is more important in general and that it was as important to Bella as Edward himself. An argument can be made that what was displayed by the author as merely a teenage crush turned into infatuation only after she learned that Edward was immortal and held a key to Bella's potential immortality. Her insistence on getting to live indefinitely is shown throughout the books in several ways:

• She is willing to approach any vampire to get transformed, not just Edward.
• She is willing to do anything to get transformed, agree to any conditions, etc.
• She sometimes considers living with Jacob as a couple, but she never considers choosing human life and death over immortality (when having the choice).

More arguments can be found in the book on series' philosophy (in the references), but I think it's clear enough that Bella's quest for immortality is indeed very important topic. As one of the ley topics, it should be mentioned in the intro. Also, "charts the period in life" is convoluted and doesn't add any info. Any book charts a period in life. It's better to say what happens there straight away, e.g. "It tells about the murder", "it tells a story of a bus", or "it tells about the transformation". That was my reason for that edit. So I suggest

• a stylistic change to the sentence to make it better than "charts the period in life"
• a mention of the immortality topic in the intro to avoid the POV of emphasising only the love part of the story.

Yours, Paranoid (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether love or immortality is "more important". The series is primarily a love story, and there is no shortage of sources to back this claim. I'm not saying that themes of mortality aren't also present in the books, but it's definitely not the focus. The entire series is a story about Bella and Edward's relationship, while her transformation is only a key issue in the final book and is only briefly touched on in the rest of the novels (and when the topic is discussed, it is always linked to her relationship with Edward anyways). Contrary to your opinion, I think that choosing her transformation as the most important point to mention in the intro is what violates WP:NPOV. If it is very widely agreed that Twilight is a love story, then there is no reason not to emphasize that aspect. It seems as though it is your personal opinion that immortality is such an important theme, perhaps based on the one book that you provided as a reference in the "themes" section. Andrea (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An open encyclopedia is a good idea. Too bad it doesn't work, thanks to stupid people with too much free time, Andrea. Personally I do have a life and more important things to do than argue with a wikiaddict. Paranoid (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your response is kind of rude. The popular conception of the series is a love story, so that gets stressed. To add what you want you need reputable sources that discuss the theme of mortality as important. Go find some then add the info to the article instead of complaining about other users. On it's own your theory is nothing but Original Research, which wiki is against, which is why you need sources. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sales

In a recent Time article, it says that the Twilight series have sold 45 million copies in the USA and an additional 40 million worldwide bringing their total sales of 85 million. I'm adding it to the article and plus updating the New York Times figure. Blytonite (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Porn?

You've got to be kidding me. I have removed the "abstinence porn" quote because first of all, the source is not very reliable. The fact that the Twilight books are porn is just mere OPINION and cannot be counted as constructive criticism. Abstinence porn does not define if Twilight is poorly written etc...

If you look at the dictionary defination of "porn": "films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal."

So, I completely disagree. There is not EVEN ONE explicit sex scene in the whole Twilight Saga. Bella and Edward do have sex in Breaking Dawn but it isn't described at all. So, Twilight is not abstinence porn.Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'd say that the reason the series is so popular is largely because of sexual arousal. Any given book contains at least some scene of a shirtless male mythical creature, described in intense detail for the demographic of teenage females to enjoy. Chances are without such scenes and detailed description the books and films wouldn't be as popular as they are. 'His face startled me – his expression was torn, almost ... pained, and so fiercely beautiful that the ache to touch him flared as strong as before.Blood boiled under my skin, burned in my lips. My breath came in a wild gasp. My fingers knotted in his hair, clutching him to me. Mylips parted as I breathed in his heady scent'.

Someone describe the point of these outside of sexual arousal? I certainly don't find them interesting, but then again, I'm a straight male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.227.110 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is fairly well known feminist magazine. Whether you agree with that particular criticism or not is completely irrelevant as to whether it should be included. All criticism is essentially opinion. Surcer (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think "abstinence porn", which is a contradiction itself, is something of a veiled joke at this kinda stuff. Did anyone see that promise ring episode of south park and the point they were making in that episode? They say that the hugely-profitable, family-friendly, wholesome entertainment industry (ahem...Disney) constantly implies sexuality and lust to excite its viewers, but avoids criticism by blatantly championing abstinence in a contradictory way. This is how you have it both ways. Twilight features a cast of young sexy teenagers, but ironically seems to emphasize the idea of sex to a high degree via the sexual tension (Edward and Bella cannot comsummate their love). By putting a complete ban on something, people will take an interest in it and want it more. --99.177.104.99 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• As the first post put it, "intended to cause sexual arousal" counts as porn. Ciobanica (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Box office/Critical reception tables

The tables that were added to the article here are lovely, but this page is meant to focus on the book series and should not go into so much detail about the films. Since there are two movies now, I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to create a "Twilight (film series)" article. Such tables would be more fitting there, but I don't know if two films are enough to warrant creating a new article. Thoughts? Andrea (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that created that table (a few hours ago). I must say I was shocked to see that Twilight didn't have its own (film series) article. Well the third film is in the works, so it will become a trilogy sooner a later. I say the films merits its own article, as it seems to be successful (box office and critically) enough. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the table is really good. Well done! There are already two films now and Eclipse will be coming so it is a trilogy. Narnia has only two films and it has a seperate article: The Chronicles of Narnia (film series). So, I'll see if I can create a (reasonable!) article about the three films. Of course, I'll need Andrea's help too! XDMo HH92 ^Talk 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: *takes a deep breath* OK, I've finally created this page: The Twilight Saga (film series). Thoughts? And once again thanks for the tables, Mike Allen. XOMo HH92 ^Talk 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the page. Question -- where did you get the source for New Moon's production budget? So I can add that to the references in the table. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the budget source from here: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newmoon21-2009nov21,0,7638993.story Mo HH92 ^Talk 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism outside the general media...

Why is none of the Twi-hate online added on this page?! My god, it's like its own fan base, but it's...it's an ANTI fan base! I really think more of that should be in the criticism section, especially when you have websites like twilightsucks.com THAT ARE COMPLETELY DEVOTED to hating Twilight and pointing out the flaws in the book. 70.171.230.185 (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue with that is finding a reliable, third-party source that discusses the online criticism. Because original research is not allowed, an editor's observations can't be included as encyclopaedic content. If you have a magazine article, newspaper clipping, or other reliable, cited source that discusses the online vitriol, please feel free to add it (with references). Jhfortier (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate a paragraph (or two) on the abusive relationship red flags of Bella/Edward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.222.220 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC) You've got a point there, in my humble experiences, Twilight has gotten overwhelming negative criticism and bad buzz here. It also has a 56% from Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes, and a 5.7/10 on imdb as well. I'd like to see some more balanced views here, as this page just seems to gush in its own pride. I know there is a large cult following (...of young girls) over Twilight, but there is also a huge backlash among most peoples that should be acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.104.99 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to Paranormal Romance?

I'm interested that the Paranormal Romance Wikipedia page makes no reference to the Twilight series and this page makes no reference to the paranormal romance genre. Should there be a link? There seems to me me to be a strong connection.--Plad2 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)