Just so everyone knows—I am not the kind of person who likes to think or talk about interracial tensions. In fact, I delight in the idea of interracial harmony. I also enjoy reading and viewing fiction about interracial romances such as in Save the Last Dance, The Joy Luck Club, Othello, The Last of the Mohicans, Spanglish and Legacy, among others. At present, I am writing two.
So I don’t like these stories (real or fiction) about Filipinos being bullied outside this country; but neither do I like hearing Filipinos complaining about it with unnecessary pride and passion. As a Filipino myself, I understand that my people have been treated unfairly in the past, and it’s a cause for some righteous anger. But I think it’s no reason for us to be unreasonably angry with our ex-colonizers OR revere them for a reason that I totally do not know.
Growing up in a country where colonial mentalities remain to be the diseases of society, I am extremely thankful that my family and I do not have the same perceptions about foreigners, especially white Americans. But to our disappointment, the residue of such behavior could still be observed in the people around us. We don’t want to say we are ashamed to be Filipinos, but we see that there isn’t much to be proud of either, because the pride that some of our countrymen is showing is confused with vanity and arrogance.
I am not going to talk about how many Filipinos brag about how we are the best. I think too many foreigners and some intelligent folk from this country have already complained about that so I leave it to them.
But let me share you three events that my family experienced recently: two were my father’s personal experiences, and one was my sister’s and mine.
In a not-so-distant past, my father was boarding a bus home. The bus wasn’t full, so he spotted many unoccupied seats there. When he chose a good one, somebody in the bus told him to get another seat because “Americans are sitting there.” My family—we don’t think of people of other colors that way. To us, people are people. If somebody—regardless of race—leaves a good seat in a bus vacant, we would gladly take it unless the person previously sitting there made it clear that they don’t want anyone else sitting there (e.g. leaves his bag there). But the “Americans” just left the bus to buy something and left the good seat vacant, so my father sat there. “So what?” my father said. “Did they tell you to keep this seat empty? This is a public place; I can sit where I want.” The person who told him to leave the seat spoke no more. The two “Americans” did not complain when they returned. My father was even more annoyed that the two Caucasians were actually French (or perhaps French-speaking Canadians).
In a more recent event, Papa was temporarily assigned in Clark Air Base when his international and domestic flights would be from Clark and back, not Manila. Cebu Pacific arranged with the local Holiday Inn to accommodate Cebu Pacific pilots. Being a former US Air Base, Clark still has a large percentage of Caucasians in the population. But my father noticed a peculiarity in the behavior of the employees of Holiday Inn: at the dining area, when the guest is a foreigner, especially when white, the employees would be warm, greeting the guest with a ready smile, even guiding the guest to his table without being asked. My father wasn’t treated the same way, although he was as much a guest as any big white American in the hotel. “What kind of training are you giving to your employees?” he asked the manager irritably when he complained about it. The manager, a Filipino, graciously thanked him for the comments and promised to do something about it.
About two weeks or so later, Papa was assigned in Clark once again. This time, he took Mama, my little sister Coleen and me with him.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, our second day, my sister and I went to the pool in the back of the hotel. The shallower end of the pool was full of people; since we were used to swimming in a pool with only our relatives, we chose to step into the empty deeper end, which was just four feet deep. To our surprise, the employees who are watching the pool guests told us to join the other guests in the shallow end, and we obeyed. I speculated that they were going to clean up the surface of the water at the empty end, but they did nothing anyway. My sister and I aren’t rule breakers by nature so we stayed with the strangers.
Then, about half an hour or so later, a brown-haired white man entered the deeper end of the pool with his kids, and nobody stopped him. I don’t understand it—why were my sister and I told to join the strangers and not that guy? But this gets worse: his son, who must be about eleven years old, handed him a glass of mango juice while he was still in the water—food and drinks are not allowed in the pool. Again, nobody stopped him.
My sister, who is a passionate anti-racist, was fuming.
But we didn’t tell this to our parents, because we knew that it would be our father who would complain. We didn’t want our father to get a reputation at the hotel for being such a frequent complainer. Besides, it wasn’t that big a deal; there could a good reason why we weren’t allowed in the deeper end of the pool. Maybe there was a schedule, I dunno…
Anyway, regarding all three instances, we all have the same thoughts: Why do Filipinos tend to be so nice to foreigners and not their own countrymen? If we want foreigners to respect us as a nation, we should start respecting each other and ourselves. I think the reason why foreigners think we’re slaves is because we act like such—putting Caucasians on the pedestal as though they’re so much better than us. I don’t believe they’re not, but us treating them with unnecessary reverence gives them an impression that we don’t value ourselves as much. And now, it’s becoming too real. We don’t value ourselves properly anymore.
Seriously, I don’t know where our society’s going at this rate.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
On Predestined Love
Personally, I do believe in predestined love. I do believe in the concept of soulmates. I believe that there is somebody out there that would someday make me feel complete.
According to a Greek myth by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, humans once had complete souls. They had four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. They were great in mind and body, and attempted an attack against the gods, who became angry (I forgot why) and cut the humans in half and scattered them all over the world. In effect, the humans would spend the rest of their lives looking for “the other half.”
According to Indian philosophy, soulmates are two souls that are destined to be together; consequently, these pairs become lovers in several (if not successive) lifetimes. In modern Christian belief, God supposedly chose one specific person for you, to someday fall in love with and eventually marry. Unfortunately, many people have misconceptions about this romantic destiny, and it is manifested in published works of fiction or else misinterpretations of them.
Some people tend to take love at first sight as an indication that what a couple has is predestined love. I don’t believe in love at first sight. For starters, people cannot “love” one another without knowing each other first. One cannot “fall in love” after having just glimpsed a potential partner. Love at first sight means instant attraction; attraction is essential, but attraction alone is not love.
A famous example of this is the affair between Romeo and Juliet. People tend to point this out as the epitome of romance. They do not realize that Romeo and Juliet is a satire of how rash young people can be; the tragedy of the “star-crossed lovers” is magnified by their sheer immaturity combined by the feud between their families.
Many like to point out how strong Romeo and Juliet’s love was by citing how quickly they decided to get married and how upset both were upon each partner’s death. But Shakespeare’s eloquent writing had everybody fooled: these actions are exactly what made Romeo and Juliet so stupid.
The love at first sight part is out of the question: they were smooching before even knowing each other’s names—even people who actually do that would count it as a mindless encounter with the purpose of satisfying their lust. In other words, Romeo and Juliet were just struck by each other’s beauty that their hormones got ahead of them. They were just so horny that they wanna have sex right away so they decide to get married, as is the custom of the times. It was smart enough of them to get married, but even that wasn’t good: seriously, who would tell somebody, “Let’s get hitched,” after just knowing the other for only a few hours? (It seemed like minutes in the play.)
According to psychic experts, love at first sight/instant attraction could signify a romantic relationship in a previous lifetime, meaning that a couple who bond just moments after meeting each other just might be “meant to be together.” But let’s get real: just because you meet someone and immediately imagine a lifetime together doesn’t necessarily mean (s)he’s the one. Maybe you’re just horny.
As for the suicide part, I understand that it’s devastating to have somebody you hold dear die, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have to die, too. I realize it’s hard for some to imagine a life without the significant other, but the fact that you are still living just might mean there could be more in store in live even without your lover.
Dependency is a tricky component of love. Possessive lovers in particular usually prefer the continual presence of the lover. Especially those new in the venture of romance feel a strong desire to be with their partner. These are the ones who claim they “cannot live” on the occasion of the beloved’s departure. To claim that the beloved is the “reason to live” would be healthy if it’s ‘coz life with the loved one is great. But letting yourself go when it doesn’t work out is over the top. I’ve never actually been in love so I don’t know what it’s like. So I wonder, is this pain enough for some people to give up living?—to start harming themselves with drugs and/or alcohol?—or even kill themselves? I don’t think it has to go that far, so that’s where we draw the line. It’s okay to grieve and mope; but don’t start getting yourself hurt under the excuse of a broken heart.
Besides, isn’t love all about giving what’s best for the other person. So what’s with the lines like “I can’t live without you [because] I need you”? It sounds selfish to me. Love means becoming a better person for the sake of the partner. If you love your departed lover so much, isn’t it better to pick yourself up and keep living?
Taking the events of New Moon into account, I think it is selfish on Bella’s part to start putting herself in danger so she could hear Edward’s voice in her head, when he left because he didn’t want her to be in danger in the first place. She should know better to take care of herself because that’s exactly what Edward would want.
Also take note that although it is reasonable for Edward would leave for the sake of Bella’s safety, the decision falls short of being the right thing because he knows how dependent Bella is on him. He could have talked it out with her and settled for a compromise instead of making the decision without even telling her beforehand. But no, Stephenie Meyer wanted an excuse to have a hot guy (i.e. Jacob Black) rescue her “strong and independent” lead character.
Sorry for the outburst.
Going back to the topic at hand, some people like to imagine that a person cannot fall in love before meeting the soulmate or that a relationship cannot work out if it is not between soulmates.
With the first issue in mind, I am citing the idea that Edward Cullen never took interest in ANY woman in his 100 years until Bella arrives. If he’s really 17 or as old as 25, I could still find it romantic. But at 101 years old, he seems too picky. For a guy, that’s greatly unrealistic.
Edward’s situation is similar to Landon Carter’s, who never had a serious relationship before meeting Jamie Sullivan. But compared to Edward Cullen, Landon is so much more believable. At 17, he has had many girlfriends, although almost all of them become playful flings that eventually end. But when he meets Jamie Sullivan and falls in love with her, he discovers a new meaning to romance: that love means becoming a better person not only for your partner but for your own good.
At the same age, it is equally understandable if Edward is not the type who is interested in getting into a relationship. But it is unbelievable that he wouldn’t at least steal a glance at a pretty girl nearby if it isn’t Bella Swan. He’s a guy! Men don’t stay dormant when it comes to girls once they reach adolescence. Besides, it’s not like Bella is the ONLY one who could be worth his time. And Bella isn’t even the best girl you could possibly meet: she is a superficial, killjoy bitch who catches everyone’s attention simply because she is beautiful.
From that, I would relate the second issue which would be applicable to the relationship between Bella Swan and Jacob Black: despite the fact that Jacob comforted Bella when she was depressed over Edward’s departure and protected her from Laurent, she chooses Edward because he is her “true love” and not Jacob.
Even psychic experts would disagree with this: I have read that people may not marry their soulmates and still be happy. Sometimes, your soulmate is not the only person who could be good for you. Just because he’s the best choice doesn’t mean nobody else could possible make you happy, too. At times, people never know for sure it they person they’re in love with is their soulmate. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not a couple is destined to be together, a healthy and meaningful relationship in which each partner could grow as individuals is all that is necessary.
According to a Greek myth by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, humans once had complete souls. They had four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. They were great in mind and body, and attempted an attack against the gods, who became angry (I forgot why) and cut the humans in half and scattered them all over the world. In effect, the humans would spend the rest of their lives looking for “the other half.”
According to Indian philosophy, soulmates are two souls that are destined to be together; consequently, these pairs become lovers in several (if not successive) lifetimes. In modern Christian belief, God supposedly chose one specific person for you, to someday fall in love with and eventually marry. Unfortunately, many people have misconceptions about this romantic destiny, and it is manifested in published works of fiction or else misinterpretations of them.
Some people tend to take love at first sight as an indication that what a couple has is predestined love. I don’t believe in love at first sight. For starters, people cannot “love” one another without knowing each other first. One cannot “fall in love” after having just glimpsed a potential partner. Love at first sight means instant attraction; attraction is essential, but attraction alone is not love.
A famous example of this is the affair between Romeo and Juliet. People tend to point this out as the epitome of romance. They do not realize that Romeo and Juliet is a satire of how rash young people can be; the tragedy of the “star-crossed lovers” is magnified by their sheer immaturity combined by the feud between their families.
Many like to point out how strong Romeo and Juliet’s love was by citing how quickly they decided to get married and how upset both were upon each partner’s death. But Shakespeare’s eloquent writing had everybody fooled: these actions are exactly what made Romeo and Juliet so stupid.
The love at first sight part is out of the question: they were smooching before even knowing each other’s names—even people who actually do that would count it as a mindless encounter with the purpose of satisfying their lust. In other words, Romeo and Juliet were just struck by each other’s beauty that their hormones got ahead of them. They were just so horny that they wanna have sex right away so they decide to get married, as is the custom of the times. It was smart enough of them to get married, but even that wasn’t good: seriously, who would tell somebody, “Let’s get hitched,” after just knowing the other for only a few hours? (It seemed like minutes in the play.)
According to psychic experts, love at first sight/instant attraction could signify a romantic relationship in a previous lifetime, meaning that a couple who bond just moments after meeting each other just might be “meant to be together.” But let’s get real: just because you meet someone and immediately imagine a lifetime together doesn’t necessarily mean (s)he’s the one. Maybe you’re just horny.
As for the suicide part, I understand that it’s devastating to have somebody you hold dear die, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have to die, too. I realize it’s hard for some to imagine a life without the significant other, but the fact that you are still living just might mean there could be more in store in live even without your lover.
Dependency is a tricky component of love. Possessive lovers in particular usually prefer the continual presence of the lover. Especially those new in the venture of romance feel a strong desire to be with their partner. These are the ones who claim they “cannot live” on the occasion of the beloved’s departure. To claim that the beloved is the “reason to live” would be healthy if it’s ‘coz life with the loved one is great. But letting yourself go when it doesn’t work out is over the top. I’ve never actually been in love so I don’t know what it’s like. So I wonder, is this pain enough for some people to give up living?—to start harming themselves with drugs and/or alcohol?—or even kill themselves? I don’t think it has to go that far, so that’s where we draw the line. It’s okay to grieve and mope; but don’t start getting yourself hurt under the excuse of a broken heart.
Besides, isn’t love all about giving what’s best for the other person. So what’s with the lines like “I can’t live without you [because] I need you”? It sounds selfish to me. Love means becoming a better person for the sake of the partner. If you love your departed lover so much, isn’t it better to pick yourself up and keep living?
Taking the events of New Moon into account, I think it is selfish on Bella’s part to start putting herself in danger so she could hear Edward’s voice in her head, when he left because he didn’t want her to be in danger in the first place. She should know better to take care of herself because that’s exactly what Edward would want.
Also take note that although it is reasonable for Edward would leave for the sake of Bella’s safety, the decision falls short of being the right thing because he knows how dependent Bella is on him. He could have talked it out with her and settled for a compromise instead of making the decision without even telling her beforehand. But no, Stephenie Meyer wanted an excuse to have a hot guy (i.e. Jacob Black) rescue her “strong and independent” lead character.
Sorry for the outburst.
Going back to the topic at hand, some people like to imagine that a person cannot fall in love before meeting the soulmate or that a relationship cannot work out if it is not between soulmates.
With the first issue in mind, I am citing the idea that Edward Cullen never took interest in ANY woman in his 100 years until Bella arrives. If he’s really 17 or as old as 25, I could still find it romantic. But at 101 years old, he seems too picky. For a guy, that’s greatly unrealistic.
Edward’s situation is similar to Landon Carter’s, who never had a serious relationship before meeting Jamie Sullivan. But compared to Edward Cullen, Landon is so much more believable. At 17, he has had many girlfriends, although almost all of them become playful flings that eventually end. But when he meets Jamie Sullivan and falls in love with her, he discovers a new meaning to romance: that love means becoming a better person not only for your partner but for your own good.
At the same age, it is equally understandable if Edward is not the type who is interested in getting into a relationship. But it is unbelievable that he wouldn’t at least steal a glance at a pretty girl nearby if it isn’t Bella Swan. He’s a guy! Men don’t stay dormant when it comes to girls once they reach adolescence. Besides, it’s not like Bella is the ONLY one who could be worth his time. And Bella isn’t even the best girl you could possibly meet: she is a superficial, killjoy bitch who catches everyone’s attention simply because she is beautiful.
From that, I would relate the second issue which would be applicable to the relationship between Bella Swan and Jacob Black: despite the fact that Jacob comforted Bella when she was depressed over Edward’s departure and protected her from Laurent, she chooses Edward because he is her “true love” and not Jacob.
Even psychic experts would disagree with this: I have read that people may not marry their soulmates and still be happy. Sometimes, your soulmate is not the only person who could be good for you. Just because he’s the best choice doesn’t mean nobody else could possible make you happy, too. At times, people never know for sure it they person they’re in love with is their soulmate. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not a couple is destined to be together, a healthy and meaningful relationship in which each partner could grow as individuals is all that is necessary.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
And Speaking of Constructive Criticism.......
I've also been viewing anti-Twilight rants on YouTube again. Strangely, I don't get tired of it. For some reason, it fuels not only my passion against nauseatingly horrid writing but also my desire for good literature not only from authors who have taken their place in culture and humanity but from myself.
Yeah, I write, too. I'm also not ashamed to admit I'm not bad at it. Upon watching a video on YouTube about how mean Bella Swan is to her friends (especially in New Moon and Eclipse), I noticed that Bella seems to love to use the word "evil" out of nowhere. I don't like how she uses the word. What is evil anyway? From how I look at it, Lauren Mallory and Jessica Stanley never seemed to have done anything to be called "evil." As the YouTuber had said, anybody who disagrees with her is immediately cast as the bad guy. To me, that's just wrong.
(For reference, see this video. You can check out the rest of the playlist, if you like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBRT1GdG8kk&feature=PlayList&p=C889B504E14888E7&index=24)
Yeah, I write, too. I'm also not ashamed to admit I'm not bad at it. Upon watching a video on YouTube about how mean Bella Swan is to her friends (especially in New Moon and Eclipse), I noticed that Bella seems to love to use the word "evil" out of nowhere. I don't like how she uses the word. What is evil anyway? From how I look at it, Lauren Mallory and Jessica Stanley never seemed to have done anything to be called "evil." As the YouTuber had said, anybody who disagrees with her is immediately cast as the bad guy. To me, that's just wrong.
(For reference, see this video. You can check out the rest of the playlist, if you like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBRT1GdG8kk&feature=PlayList&p=C889B504E14888E7&index=24)
My Thoughts on Tsip Chao
While I was in the hospital getting ready for surgery, I watched the news with my mother. One night, we encountered this much hyped news about a Hong Kong based Chinese journalist named Tsip Chao who supposedly talked trash about Filipinos, calling us a “nation of servants,” incorrectly translated in the news as “bayan ng mga alipin” (alipin = “slave”).
Yeah, even I would say that was mean. But I wasn’t angry ‘coz it’s true, but it seems my people seem to be going on a rage about it for the same reason. The politician who was most passionate about it (I forgot his name) kept saying, “I want to see him come to Manila. Let’s see how he likes it.” I was like, “Dude, that’s like the stupidest thing ever!”
What pisses me off most about it was that my people, especially the OFWs were so mad that they threatened to boycott Hong Kong, as if to show “let’s see how you’ll do without us!” People, Hong Kong would survive pretty well without Filipinos. It’s us who need them to employ us.
Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks about the issue this way. Yesterday, on my way to an appointment with my surgeon, the radio was tuned in to DZMM, in which Korina Sanchez was speaking at the time. She was saying, “Are we angry because it’s rude, or are we angry because it’s true?” Apparently, she’s feeling the same way I do.
Open your eyes, people. There is such a thing as constructive criticism. If somebody says something mean about you, maybe you should look at yourself first before lashing out.
Yeah, even I would say that was mean. But I wasn’t angry ‘coz it’s true, but it seems my people seem to be going on a rage about it for the same reason. The politician who was most passionate about it (I forgot his name) kept saying, “I want to see him come to Manila. Let’s see how he likes it.” I was like, “Dude, that’s like the stupidest thing ever!”
What pisses me off most about it was that my people, especially the OFWs were so mad that they threatened to boycott Hong Kong, as if to show “let’s see how you’ll do without us!” People, Hong Kong would survive pretty well without Filipinos. It’s us who need them to employ us.
Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks about the issue this way. Yesterday, on my way to an appointment with my surgeon, the radio was tuned in to DZMM, in which Korina Sanchez was speaking at the time. She was saying, “Are we angry because it’s rude, or are we angry because it’s true?” Apparently, she’s feeling the same way I do.
Open your eyes, people. There is such a thing as constructive criticism. If somebody says something mean about you, maybe you should look at yourself first before lashing out.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
On an Anti-Twilight High
I've been spending today browsing online anti-Twilight articles, including professional reviews and amateur (even immature but not incorrect) reviews of the book and the entire series, text and video form alike. Considering that I hate the so-called Twilight Saga right now, these articles entertain me a lot. I think I'm just feeding my hate against the series so it would grow. I know it's a bad thing, but I can't help it. Like fellow young readers who are ranting against the series on YouTube, I admit I am jealous of Stephenie Meyer and her success. (I misspelled the author's name in a previous blog entry, I apologize.)
I've read less than half of the first book of the series, and let me just say that I don't need to read the entire "saga" to know that it's nothing but poor writing. Don't get me started on explaining why; I already did on the previous entry. I know what I said there isn't enough. But I wouldn't be able to explain everything in detail because nearly everything in the book is so badly written that I do not intend to read the rest of the series unless I want to bash it.
What's really bothering me is that I don't understand why such an abomination to literature is gaining this much fame and commercial success whereas the best pieces of literary art is barely even heard of. Yes, I understand WHY and HOW Twilight is appealing to young fans (particularly teenage girls); what I don't understand is why the series is getting so much attention that it doesn't deserve.
I'm jealous because I know I write better. As far as I'm concerned, if Meyer gets this much fame and fortune for something she doesn't even have talent with, I think I should get more than she does when I get published. I'm almost sure my own novel will not be as popular, but does Twilight have to be? I don't think so.
I've read less than half of the first book of the series, and let me just say that I don't need to read the entire "saga" to know that it's nothing but poor writing. Don't get me started on explaining why; I already did on the previous entry. I know what I said there isn't enough. But I wouldn't be able to explain everything in detail because nearly everything in the book is so badly written that I do not intend to read the rest of the series unless I want to bash it.
What's really bothering me is that I don't understand why such an abomination to literature is gaining this much fame and commercial success whereas the best pieces of literary art is barely even heard of. Yes, I understand WHY and HOW Twilight is appealing to young fans (particularly teenage girls); what I don't understand is why the series is getting so much attention that it doesn't deserve.
I'm jealous because I know I write better. As far as I'm concerned, if Meyer gets this much fame and fortune for something she doesn't even have talent with, I think I should get more than she does when I get published. I'm almost sure my own novel will not be as popular, but does Twilight have to be? I don't think so.
Monday, April 13, 2009
On "Little Ashes"
I recently saw the trailed of this new movie called Little Ashes, which tells the story of the homosexual love affair between two of my favorite artists, painter Salvador Dalí and Federico García Lorca. In case you don't know, Salvador Dalí was a surrealist painter who is known for his The Persistence of Memory, which is a strange picture with melted clocks and what looks like half the face of a man
on the floor. Federico García Lorca was a poet and playwright; his play The House of Bernarda Alba is an allegory of the cruelty of the Spanish government. García Lorca's cruel death was the subject of the 1997 film The Disappearance of Federico García Lorca (also known as Death in Granada, as a reference to his poem "Lament for Ignacio Sanchez Mejías"), with Andy Garcia as the revolutionary poet.
on the floor. Federico García Lorca was a poet and playwright; his play The House of Bernarda Alba is an allegory of the cruelty of the Spanish government. García Lorca's cruel death was the subject of the 1997 film The Disappearance of Federico García Lorca (also known as Death in Granada, as a reference to his poem "Lament for Ignacio Sanchez Mejías"), with Andy Garcia as the revolutionary poet.I am ashamed to admit I did not know about this relationship between Lorca and Dalí. But when I saw the trailer, and confirmed it through a wikipedia article, I was thrilled. I really want to see this, and it's not because of Robert Pattinson, ha-ha!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Dracula's Rival - NOT!!
Since I first heard of Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight around last year through murmurs in the dorm, particularly through a dorm-mate who likes reading chick lit. I came under the impression that Twilight is chick lit; chick lit for me is highly unsophisticated and unworthy of my eyes, which I think should be exposed to classical and canonical literature, including those I haven’t finished yet, like Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables and Homer’s epic The Iliad, which, in the words of Lisa Simpson, “practically started the whole Western literary tradition.” (I paused reading the epic at Book 11, just halfway through the entire story.)
I'm not really sure how I came to the subconscious conclusion that Twilight might not be good for me. I'm guessing that because of its being just another vampire novel made me think: “So what’s new?”
Later, I learned that it’s not exactly chick lit; at least not like books like How to Survive a Breakup or Between Dinnertime and the Morning After, which I hear are awful. After all, considering how many people actually love Twilight, I guess it might not be as bad as I think. I don’t believe that many people can be so stupid to fall for something that’s not worth reading, if Twilight is that bad.
So around September or December last year, I thought Twilight could be worth a shot. But in case it was bad, I was unwilling to spend a peso for it. To my delight, my roommate sensed my curiosity and was generous enough to send me the e-books of the entire series.
I’ve read only at least two pages of the first book Twilight and I was unable to continue. The writing was only as good as the average online fan fiction, meaning it’s not even good enough to be published as an expensive book and distributed worldwide.
I think the appeal of the books come from the fact that the characters are attractive and its premise is something that any teenage girl would fall for. But even that is an undignified quality if applied to any proper book. A good book can get anybody’s attention; an excellent book can attract more than its target audience. Harry Potter is not the best novel series ever, but its charm and witty language caught the attention of children and adults alike.
But Twilight—its immature language ruins its chances of being something good to read. Yeah, I would say that the premise is cliched, but there's no telling it would work or not. Obviously, it did, but only to a certain extent. The problem of the book was the writing itself.
After reading excerpts of the first book, I learned that it's not just the beginning of the book that was bad; the rest of it is.
I've read an excerpt of the scene of Bella's first day in school. She describes there how she somehow attracts everyone's attention, how everybody's head turns to her direction. As I remember earlier in the story, Bella does not find herself very attractive with her paleness, so why would anyone else take notice of her? And even if Meyer was using the unreliable narrator tactic when Bella describes her own appearance, it still does not explain why every head would turn to her direction. Even the prettiest girls in existence don't get that kind of attention.
In relation to this, Bella previously resided in Arizona, where she loves the sun. If she loves the sun so much, one would think she would soak herself in its light, giving her a tan. Why and how would she remain so white, then?
Another annoying scene I bumped into is the one where Bella first sees the Cullens. Here, Meyer displays her excessibve dependence on adjectives. She uses "beautiful" and "perfect" more than once. Meyer does not exactly fail to explain why they're beautiful or perfect, but the character's teenage awe gets in the way of making a description that could have been more eloquent than what was printed.
Furthermore, what constitutes beauty or perfection anyway? If Bella describes one of the Cullens to be of an athletic build, what could possibly make that more perfect than Anna Kournikova's body, for instance?
It doesn't mean that she's so vague that I can't see what the scene intends me to. I do, but the language, its limited vocabulary makes it less than it could have been. What makes it worse is that this language makes Bella sound stupid; whether or not she is, the author seems to be making the character's age as an excuse to let the narrative fall apart.
Although I discourage my sisters from reading the book, I am not going to tell people that reading Twilight would show how unintelligent they are. (I've seen online articles that say that.) I won't. But if anybody reads this, let me just say that there are better books to buy. Go get them. If you're into vampire novels in particular, grab Bram Stoker's Dracula. Let's just say that this is where you see what the vampire really is.
I'm not really sure how I came to the subconscious conclusion that Twilight might not be good for me. I'm guessing that because of its being just another vampire novel made me think: “So what’s new?”
Later, I learned that it’s not exactly chick lit; at least not like books like How to Survive a Breakup or Between Dinnertime and the Morning After, which I hear are awful. After all, considering how many people actually love Twilight, I guess it might not be as bad as I think. I don’t believe that many people can be so stupid to fall for something that’s not worth reading, if Twilight is that bad.
So around September or December last year, I thought Twilight could be worth a shot. But in case it was bad, I was unwilling to spend a peso for it. To my delight, my roommate sensed my curiosity and was generous enough to send me the e-books of the entire series.
I’ve read only at least two pages of the first book Twilight and I was unable to continue. The writing was only as good as the average online fan fiction, meaning it’s not even good enough to be published as an expensive book and distributed worldwide.
I think the appeal of the books come from the fact that the characters are attractive and its premise is something that any teenage girl would fall for. But even that is an undignified quality if applied to any proper book. A good book can get anybody’s attention; an excellent book can attract more than its target audience. Harry Potter is not the best novel series ever, but its charm and witty language caught the attention of children and adults alike.
But Twilight—its immature language ruins its chances of being something good to read. Yeah, I would say that the premise is cliched, but there's no telling it would work or not. Obviously, it did, but only to a certain extent. The problem of the book was the writing itself.
After reading excerpts of the first book, I learned that it's not just the beginning of the book that was bad; the rest of it is.
I've read an excerpt of the scene of Bella's first day in school. She describes there how she somehow attracts everyone's attention, how everybody's head turns to her direction. As I remember earlier in the story, Bella does not find herself very attractive with her paleness, so why would anyone else take notice of her? And even if Meyer was using the unreliable narrator tactic when Bella describes her own appearance, it still does not explain why every head would turn to her direction. Even the prettiest girls in existence don't get that kind of attention.
In relation to this, Bella previously resided in Arizona, where she loves the sun. If she loves the sun so much, one would think she would soak herself in its light, giving her a tan. Why and how would she remain so white, then?
Another annoying scene I bumped into is the one where Bella first sees the Cullens. Here, Meyer displays her excessibve dependence on adjectives. She uses "beautiful" and "perfect" more than once. Meyer does not exactly fail to explain why they're beautiful or perfect, but the character's teenage awe gets in the way of making a description that could have been more eloquent than what was printed.
Furthermore, what constitutes beauty or perfection anyway? If Bella describes one of the Cullens to be of an athletic build, what could possibly make that more perfect than Anna Kournikova's body, for instance?
It doesn't mean that she's so vague that I can't see what the scene intends me to. I do, but the language, its limited vocabulary makes it less than it could have been. What makes it worse is that this language makes Bella sound stupid; whether or not she is, the author seems to be making the character's age as an excuse to let the narrative fall apart.
Although I discourage my sisters from reading the book, I am not going to tell people that reading Twilight would show how unintelligent they are. (I've seen online articles that say that.) I won't. But if anybody reads this, let me just say that there are better books to buy. Go get them. If you're into vampire novels in particular, grab Bram Stoker's Dracula. Let's just say that this is where you see what the vampire really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)