They are an emotional mystery. They represent a puzzle to be "fixed" and brought out into the "light" so to speak.
Anne Rice Trolls Twilight
- Thread starter Vulagr
- Start date
They are an emotional mystery. They represent a puzzle to be "fixed" and brought out into the "light" so to speak.
I'm female, and I'd rather see a vampire story like that, vs moping around high school eternally. That's my problem with The Vampire Diaries. The characters think in such limited terms.
Meh. I have no patience for that type.
I figure that Twilight and TVD are female power fantasies, in this way: you have these vampires who could be up to all sorts of cool shit - being able to control people's minds + immortality = they should all be multizillionaires by now, with each being the dictator of some banana republic - but instead, they choose to hang out in some glum little town with the female protagonist, because she is just sooooo special.
Oh and PS, getting bent out of shape about the definition of pedophilia is boring and beside the point of this thread.
J
Jetfire
Guest
You forget Temis that in TVD Elena is special 
...she is the Doppelganger...both of the bros were in love with Katherine...who Elena looks exactly like.
...she is the Doppelganger...both of the bros were in love with Katherine...who Elena looks exactly like.
Anne Rice is just pissed that none of her vampire movies made as much money as the Twilight movies. I'm sure she would have gotten a bigger paycheck if they had done way better.
225 million in 1994 dollars isn't all that bad for "Interview with the vampire".
Not to mention a similar number of book sales. I doubt Rice's comments are the result of envy.
Anne Rice is just pissed that none of her vampire movies made as much money as the Twilight movies. I'm sure she would have gotten a bigger paycheck if they had done way better.
225 million in 1994 dollars isn't all that bad for "Interview with the vampire".
You forgot to mention that Queen of the Damned made a low 45 million worldwide. Of course, you probably thought that one sucessful movie means that it can somehow be compared to the Twilight franchise.
Unless either is getting a cut of the profits, it doesn't really matter. The studio pays a license fee to the author and/or the publisher, depending on their contracts.
It's common knowledge that the studio behind Queen of the Damned rushed it out because their licensing deal was near expiration. I'm sure Rice was more keen to have the rights reverted to her than she was in the film's success.
It's common knowledge that the studio behind Queen of the Damned rushed it out because their licensing deal was near expiration. I'm sure Rice was more keen to have the rights reverted to her than she was in the film's success.
The difference is Summit actually kept Twilight's author very involved in the production process when the first movie was being made. They obviously wanted to do a good job and satisfy the fanbase.
The people behind Queen of the Damned didn't give a crap about making the movie good, ignoring the author, and even the fans ended up hating the movie.
The Twilight author almost definitely gets profits from the movies.
There is probably a little envy going on right here.
Last edited:
I doubt it, is all I'm saying. We're talking about a woman who felt secure enough to drop her lucrative vampire/witch lines altogether in order to write about angels and Jesus.
She probably saw one of the hundreds of commercials airing once a day and decided to be snarky.
Stephen King has been critical of Twilight, and I sincerely doubt he's envious at all.
She probably saw one of the hundreds of commercials airing once a day and decided to be snarky.
Stephen King has been critical of Twilight, and I sincerely doubt he's envious at all.
Isn't that the dream of a lot of girls? Having a powerful man give up (or ignore) everything around him for her. It's part of the reason this fantasy is so powerful for some young women (along with the whole bad-boy/make work project aspect).
King has also insulted other sucessful writers like Dean Koontz and James Patterson. The guy is a dick.
He also needs to learn how to not write disappointing endings for his novels.
Rowling and Meyer don't trash other authors because they are professionals.
This is the same reason bad boys attract chicks. The girls thing think they can fix him.
Rarely happens in real life though.
I disagree about him being a dick, but to each his own. I don't think making disparaging comments about terrible work makes one less professional. Nicer, sure; more political, maybe. For several years, King wrote his column about pop culture in Entertainment Weekly. So, for a while, commenting on good and bad work was kind of his gig.
I don't know much about Koontz, but I know James Patterson doesn't write his work anymore. He comes up with the idea and his staff fills out the details. His job is maintaining his brand. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, technically, but I can see why it would bother authors who write all of their own work. It's not dissimilar to why cartoonists like Bill Watterson don't care for the way Jim Davis does his job.
Anyway, writers are people, so they have all sorts of different opinions that they express in just as many ways. Terry Pratchett said bad things about JK Rowling, while Orson Scott Card thinks Meyer's writing is excellent. Different strokes, etc.
All of that said, again, I doubt Rice envies Meyer for the success of her films. It's a (barely) snarky comment made on Facebook. I say that as someone who's not particularly a fan of her work.
The Internet simply likes to make these things bigger than they should be (even using language like "trolls" and "slams").
I don't know much about Koontz, but I know James Patterson doesn't write his work anymore. He comes up with the idea and his staff fills out the details. His job is maintaining his brand. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, technically, but I can see why it would bother authors who write all of their own work. It's not dissimilar to why cartoonists like Bill Watterson don't care for the way Jim Davis does his job.
Anyway, writers are people, so they have all sorts of different opinions that they express in just as many ways. Terry Pratchett said bad things about JK Rowling, while Orson Scott Card thinks Meyer's writing is excellent. Different strokes, etc.
All of that said, again, I doubt Rice envies Meyer for the success of her films. It's a (barely) snarky comment made on Facebook. I say that as someone who's not particularly a fan of her work.
The Internet simply likes to make these things bigger than they should be (even using language like "trolls" and "slams").
I've never known King to speak disparagingly about Koontz. He has, on occasion, in his own works, quoted from Koontz's "Book of Counted Sorrows" (back when that work was wholly imaginary) and written an intro to at least one of Koontz's books. The only reason I ever took notice of Koontz's work, is because of positive comments King has made about him over the years. Perhaps he's said some unflattering things about one or two of Koontz's more derivative works, but then again, so has Koontz himself.
The only real complaint I've heard King make about Koontz of late, is that the bastard hasn't finished the third installment of "The Moonlight Bay Trilogy" of books about Chris Snow, which he's been promising to get around to finishing for over a decade now.
The only real complaint I've heard King make about Koontz of late, is that the bastard hasn't finished the third installment of "The Moonlight Bay Trilogy" of books about Chris Snow, which he's been promising to get around to finishing for over a decade now.
Last edited:
You know, by this point in the Vampire Diaries book sieries Ellena had been turned into a vampire, killed, and brought back to life as a super-powered 12-winged Japanese demon (it makes sense in context) and is a pawn in various power-plays amongst members of the celestial bureaucracy. And it's still mostly just a teen romance.
I sincerely hope not.
Last edited:
Interesting results of the Anne Rice Vampires vs Twilight vampires poll on Soda Head (take a look at the demographics).
So many people on this forum and in other places are saying that Twilight books are crap - and most of them have no reason to feel envy of Meyer, any more than of any other successful author. Why is it so hard to imagine that Anne Rice feels the same?
I'll say one thing: brooding tends to be much more attractive to teenage girls, than to adult women, because most boys their age are really immature, cracking stupid jokes and indulging in lots of idiotic macho boasting; and brooding guys may appear to be mature and deep, 'the strong silent type'. Which some are; others are not, but by not saying much they aren't showing that they're as stupid and immature as the others. They can appear mysterious, and the girl than imagines all sorts of thoughtfulness, depth and sensitivity that might not actually be there. (Think of Angela Chase and Jordan Catalano from My So-Called Life.)
On the other hand, yes, Rochester from Jane Eyre is portrayed a bad boy (man) with a heart of gold.
I'm not sure what this has to do with brooding men though, since none of the Byronic main male characters from Emily's and Charlotte's novels are what I'd call "brooding". They are all very in-your-face, especially Rochester who just can't stop talking. Jane is far more brooding than he is. Heathcliff is withdrawn and brooding as a child and teenager, but as an adult, he's more... anti-social and overbearing?
And Buffy certainly thought he was unselfish when he preferred torture by Glory to revealing that Dawn was the Key, that's why her opinion of him changed in Intervention.
In season 5 of AtS, he was also saving people, which was Angel's original job. If that doesn't count as good, then Angel didn't do much good either in 5 seasons of his show, apart from stopping Jasmine.
Or maybe she just thinks Twilight books are crap? If she does, why wouldn't she say that? It's not like writers have to stick together and support each other through a writer's union so that evil critics wouldn't put them out of their jobs or have them starving.
So many people on this forum and in other places are saying that Twilight books are crap - and most of them have no reason to feel envy of Meyer, any more than of any other successful author. Why is it so hard to imagine that Anne Rice feels the same?
Some do, if they are attractive, and if they appear to be intelligent and deep. Others are just dull. Same thing as with the extroverted guys, some might seem like annoying idiots, others as super-interesting, charming and charismatic people.
I'll say one thing: brooding tends to be much more attractive to teenage girls, than to adult women, because most boys their age are really immature, cracking stupid jokes and indulging in lots of idiotic macho boasting; and brooding guys may appear to be mature and deep, 'the strong silent type'. Which some are; others are not, but by not saying much they aren't showing that they're as stupid and immature as the others. They can appear mysterious, and the girl than imagines all sorts of thoughtfulness, depth and sensitivity that might not actually be there. (Think of Angela Chase and Jordan Catalano from My So-Called Life.)
Whoever drew that must have been influenced by whitewashed movie portrayals of Heathcliff. Heatchliff from the novel is portrayed as a brutal, ruthless man full of hate, who destroys the lives of two generations of two families because of revenge, and the other characters in the novel consider him a horrible person, including Cathy, who loves him. Cathy actually mocks naive Isabella's romanticized view of Heathcliff and warns her that he's not some bad boy with a heart of gold, which Isabella learns all too well after she marries him.
On the other hand, yes, Rochester from Jane Eyre is portrayed a bad boy (man) with a heart of gold.
I'm not sure what this has to do with brooding men though, since none of the Byronic main male characters from Emily's and Charlotte's novels are what I'd call "brooding". They are all very in-your-face, especially Rochester who just can't stop talking. Jane is far more brooding than he is. Heathcliff is withdrawn and brooding as a child and teenager, but as an adult, he's more... anti-social and overbearing?
No, actually it was because he felt guilty for hurting Buffy and wanted to be "the kind of man who would never..." He got to the point where his identity crisis reached its climax because he realized that he wasn't able to be a "monster" anymore but was neither able to be a "man" either. (Because a "monster" wouldn't feel any guilt for trying to rape the woman he loved, and a "man" wouldn't have done it.) If it was about getting a soul to make her love him, he would have done it during season 5.
I'm pretty sure that helping Buffy and the Scoobies at the end of season 5 was good, as was patrolling with the Scoobies and taking care of Dawn during the summer. For the latter, I don't know which selfish reason he could have had. Was he trying to get into the pants of Buffy... who was dead and rotting in the grave?
And Buffy certainly thought he was unselfish when he preferred torture by Glory to revealing that Dawn was the Key, that's why her opinion of him changed in Intervention.
In season 5 of AtS, he was also saving people, which was Angel's original job. If that doesn't count as good, then Angel didn't do much good either in 5 seasons of his show, apart from stopping Jasmine.