I read all four. They are truly as bad as they're made out to be.

I've read it. It was terrible. All 4 of them.

Twilight thread, check.

And here we see a proto-troll. Note the obvious image coupled with a backhanded insult to mimic originality. Of course, we no longer feed these type of trolls, prefering neo-trolls for their more robust savvy.

Read the first one, wasn't impressed, didn't read the sequels.

I've read them all. The first one was alright, then they just got progressively worse.

Read the first one. Looked on the cover and re-read the New York Times Bestseller text... and died a little.

I've read them all. They all suck. They are crap. They are beyond crap. They are the kind of books that shouldn't exist. They don't deserve to be called books. They are an insult to literature. They suck.

>>318417
Really?
I thought that the first was the most enraging.
The second and third books were just boring.
The fourth book swung wildly between utterly rage-inducing, and boring.

Before all the internet bullshit, my friend was like OMG READ THIS ITS SO GOOD!!!!1!!1!
Read the first one. My reaction: :|
Realised Stephenie Meyer was a master troll, read the rest for the lulz.

>>318471
>>318412
>>318408
>>318404
>>318403
People who never read it again

I wanted to know what was the fuss all about, so I read it with my cousin... we did a funny dramatic reading because the first was boring as hell.

I still wanted to see if it got better later on, but my cousin refused to read any more (she hated it from the get go), so I kept going. It was horrible...

I read it. I still hated it. It is terrible

I simply do not understand how a spastic tween can sit down and read all 4 of these books. The writing is so damn tedious and boring it kinda makes all the hawt undead action not worth it.

I dont really care about the message. A book isn't necessarily bad because I dont agree with what it's trying to tell me. A book is bad when the way it's trying to get it's message across make me want to gouge my spleen with an icepick.

Otherwise, it's a pretty unremarkable book (read the first one). Standard young adult literature gobbledygook.

Read all 4, hated the first 3, loved Breaking Dawn.
I don't know either, something to do with falling in love with babies.

I've read all four, I've read The Host, I've read what there is to Midnight Sun.

The only reason I did was so people can't tell me I haven't read them.

>>318620

>>318625

Fucking lol'd

I doubt anyone in this thread has read them. If the first was so goddamn shitty, why would you waste time reading the sequels?

>>318641

People kept buying them for me. D:

I feel bad if I don't read a book someone gave me as a gift.

I struggled valiantly through the first few chapters of the first book, and in my rage threw a large fistful of pennies at my child.

>>318641

I did read them, because when they first came out, I was a dumb teenage girl and I thought it was ~romantic~ and shit. By the time the last one came out, I didn't like them anymore and I was working at a book store. We were doing a midnight celebration, so I thought I'd read the last one just to see how it ended.

Now I hate them with a bloody passion. But I'm glad I read them, so that I can call out Twihards when they're being retarded.

>>318661

This, only instead of child, aunt, and instead of throwing pennies I was too polite to say anything.

>>318404
>>318403
>>318471
>>318486
i agree with whatever they said and with anyone who doesnt like them
this craze will be over soon..i hope

I lol'd at the mastertroll who created this thread and the faggots who pretend they have read the books and hate them for /lit/ cred

I wouldn't read it because it's bad.

Some things you just have to dismiss outright.

I read a few excerpts and concluded it wasn't for me.

Three things stop me from reading this saga:

1. My ADD makes it almost impossible to read three books in a row.

2. It's written by a woman who isn't Ayn Rand or Jo Rowling.

3. Sexually repressed 13-yo emo girls love it. There IS something they love that isn't smeared in shit (but my cock)?

>>318739
>>318715
>NOT ELITE ENOUGH FOR ME xD

I'm afraid of it and someone on Scribd had the balls to say it was science fiction...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19665176/Twilight

They're bad but nothing new, it's just precisely the kind of trashy 'romance' that 14 year old girls who've never read a book before would enjoy.

>>318398
I've read up to the part where he starts to sparkle [I think they were in a medow?] after the I just quite.

I don't thinks it's as bad as people make out there are worse books out there. It's a bit of mindless fluff. However, my issue has never been with the book but the fandom, inculding the so-called 'antis'.

IN MY humble OPINION

The worst part isn't the shitty writing, the disregard of centuries of vampire mythos or the target demograshit.

The worst part is that it's bigger than it should have been, and it's taking space of other authors, both classic authors who saturated the market with their style or new authors that need space to grow.

It's the very definition of the cancer:
It starts as a small odd cell.
This cell grows to the point it can't sustain itself, so it start absorbing other cells to get bigger and bigger everytime, killing it's host and turning all matter it touches into dead tissue. The bigger it gets, the more cells act like it, until all cells are now useless and lethal.

>>318781
Care to back that up with some examples?

I've read part of it. Ok writing, but not brilliant. Bella is a frikin' pussy.

>>318789
"Authors" like Laurell Hamilton, other female writers passing off what are essentially romance novels as Urban Fantasy, alternative romance etc.

>>318781
Of course, dear anon.

Modern art.

Before the modernist movement, art was art. People used to spend whole lifetimes in training and study to make their art perfect and flawless, to the point that the mere sight of their works could cause awe and bliss on everyone.

Then modern art came, and now I can scan the toylet paper I wipe myself every morning and call it 'Euphemism of Life and Death', give it a bland meaning and people will buy it by dozens.

Why? Because anyone here can ask his Down cousin to fuck with MS Paint and make a piece of 'modern art', but barely no one can paint a true breathtaking landscape/portrait/venus anymore.

>Bunch of people who say they read it
>Noone actually comment ANYTHING in plot
Yeah, right.
>>318768
This one I believe. The rest are obvious lies.

Read it. Bad, but not as bad as the critics say. I think most of them are confusing bad writing with the way women's minds work, as with "Pride and Prejudice".

>>318789
Mormo bitch makes novel about pricky teenager who drips wet for a rapist vampire.

SUDDENLY, 3871982374109247 NOVELS ABOUT ABUSIVE VAMPIRES EVERYWHERE

>>318822

Sadly, I agree with you. Of course, not all woman writers are like this.

>>318828

SPARKLY DICKS EVERYWHERE

>>318818
>Why? Because anyone here can ask his Down cousin to fuck with MS Paint and make a piece of 'modern art', but barely no one can paint a true breathtaking landscape/portrait/venus anymore.

I've always wondered why people who think this aren't out selling their shit to galleries for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Perhaps because you don't have a clue what you're talking about, POST-modern art is a far more complex field than you give it credit for, and you're basically a gigantic tool?

>>318789
Just like politics.

After they let women, poor people and niggers into politics, it all turned to shit and liberal hijinks.

>>318822

While we're on the topic of women's hilariously implausible fantasies...Ayn Rand.

>>318842
Yes, as much as Twilight is MUCH MORE deep than Lord of the Rings.

Don't even try and make people believe a fucking can of beans has 'deepur meeningz' than classic works.

>>318637
>>318630
>>318625

Moar like this.

>>318842
Well, that's like your opinion man. I still believe modern art is a worthless dime-a-dozen shitstain on art history.

ITS OK IN A WEIRD WAY. THE ONLY BOOK I ACTUALLY LIKED WAS THE THIRD ONE. THE REST WERE AVERAGE. BUT THE GAY SHIT WAS THAT THESE SERIES WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD IF THEY WERE WRITTEN BETTER. STEPHENIE MEYER SAYS SHE HAD A DEGREE IN ENGLISH BUT SHE THERE ARE FLAWS...DONT UNDERSTAND, IM SURE WITH ANOTHER AUTHOR IT WOULD HAVE MORE POTENTIAL.

She doesn't properly characterize her characters, glorifies abuse, sexism, peophilia, ephebophilia, and bestiality, relies on purple prose and cliches, can't develop a plot, thinks her crappy books are better than every other book ever written, refuses to take criticism (no matter how constructive), has been a big baby about the Midnight Sun leak, and treats her fans like ****. Plus, she only spent three months writing and editing Twilight, and it really shows in the book. Smeyer wrote the entire series in less time than it took J.K. Rowling, a great author, to write Harry Potter and the Philosipher's Stone. That difference in effort really shows.

There is a 'Dark Romance' section in my local bookstore that is taking up valuable shelf space. It is full of Twilight and Twilight ripoffs. This cannot be tolerated.

>>318879
caps-lock is cruise control for mediocre opinions.

I read it at the behest of my wife, and it was absolutely horrible. Terrible excuse for literature.

You know what?

I think it was okay for a YA book. It's not a classic by any means, and despite having a vagina I don't understand why girls gobble it up, but I've read worse vampire romances.

And to be quite honest I find the anti-twilighters who run around going "LOL RPATTZ AND SPARKLEPEEN" worse than the "Team Edward" or "Team Jacob" fantards. Possibly worse than /b/tards too.

Dont expect any /lit/ cookies from me for bashing Twilight. What kinda faggot seriously and with a straight face goes on a tirade against a young adult book? srsly gaiz

>>319076
Nothing can seriously be worse than a man that reads and enjoys Twilight, if you can even call IT a man.

>>319076
>having a vagina
Then wtf are you doing on a literature board?

>>319110
>Guise I hate twilight too, am I cool yet?

No, because I don't like teen romance books. I think it's pretty stupid to read a book from a genre that you know you don't like just so you can justify not liking it.

>>319123
>Implying I wasn't cool before

>>318398

I never read the books but my wife took me to the movies. I find the idea of sparkling vampires a spit int he face of every other vampire anything ever.

Hard to swallow. What's next vegan zombies?

my mom picked it up in a book store thinking it was a cheesy adult romance novel.

>> implying I wouldn't want a submissive bitch like Bella to make me sammiches and suck my undead cock

>>319161

Cell.

>>319182
Undead as in undead, because vampires can't pop boners.

>>319194

well Sparkle boy sure can. In fact his boner knocked her unconscious (or something like that). Hell, he can even form babbi

>>319166
It was a cheesy adult romance novel

>>318398
I've read it
Actually I've read every one of them. The actual writing was terrible in my opinion. The last book had suck a terrible ending that they aren't worth another glance.

99.999% of all books written I will never read.
I'm not even a third through the classics yet, why waste time on this?

>>319309
Because it's much better than classics if you're a teenage girl

You don't have to taste a piece of shit to know it's a piece of shit.

I read Twilight. Shit sucks.

>>319363
>NOT ELITE ENOUGH FOR ME xD

I read
saged

>>319076
Thank god I'm not alone! I can not stand most of these fricking 'antis'.

there was a thread on /r9k/ i think where they replaced "vampire" with "morbidly obese faggot" and "blood" with "lunch" or something similar and i have to say, it made the books god tier.

>>319455
Well you go ahead and try suicide for me then, and tell me if it's any good.

Never read it but I saw the movie.

I read it.
Poorly written, poor plot, poor EVERYTHING.
Hate these books.

The writing is average, at best. The plot is boring and fails to pull you along, the characters are annoying and flat, the setting and the world presented before us is bland and uninteresting but you know what takes the cake?

The fans. They are why I hate twilight so damn much.

>>320683
>The writing is average, at best.

"When I got home, I decided to make chicken enchiladas for dinner. It was a long process, and it would keep me busy. While I was simmering the onions and chilies, the phone rang. I was almost afraid to answer it, but it might be Charlie or my mom."

Just listen to that tension that builds up from Bella's fear to answer the phone. What wondrous insight we get into the character from her passion for the culinary arts.

>>320683
Who's more annoying the fans or the 'antis'?

>>320709
The fans most definantly because if it wasnt for the fans and their over the top worship for this travesty of a novel, you wouldn't get all the anti-twlight people bitching about it all.

>>320709
I'm not the guy you're talking to, but they're almost equally retarded. I remember writing an article on Twilight for ED, and by the time the movie came out and its popularity skyrocketed, the article was regularly being shat on by a bunch of unfunny anti retards who clearly didn't read the books at all or had anything interesting to say other than "lol dis book sux lolololol ^__^". Currently the article is a cesspool of fail.

Read and reread the first, after the nineteenth description of Edward, i put it down for good

>>320743
I've seen that article. If it makes you feel any better I've heard the anti's are now being viewed in the same lights as twitards. Aww...I love fandomwank.

>>320743
Why are you writing for ED?

>>320888
because that website has some of the most frightening trolls alive, and I love the idea of e-stalking some moron with illusions of grandeur who posts art/journals illustrating their mental instabilities.

>>320922
Nice...

its tweenie pulp fiction, nothing more, nothing less.
as a comparison, gamer girl is less

Read the first 3, didn't finish 4th.

It was OK in parts. Might read again and see if I loathe it or not.

>>320913
>>illusions of grandeu