But you have to think, where would we be without fangirls?
Everybody needs a little crazy in their lives.


And on the 8th day, God decided that humans were far too lazy and not nearly dedicated enough to worship him. And so he said, "Let there be Fangirls." He saw them, and he ran.





I have to admit, The Host was really good.

I personally dont compare Meyer to Rowling at all.. totally different leagues, but there are a lot of people that don't particularly rate Rowlings writing either and say the series is undeserving of the massive fanbase it has, which i also disagree with.

Gooooooood.

I'm just recently gettin re-obsessed. lol

Right...I must say there are a few points here that puzzle me.

Firstly, what is your reason not to think something through logically and objectively to decide if it's worth your while? I understand this is not your approach, as you have already stated, but I'm simply curious as to why you do not believe in being methodical about such things.

Second of all, you claim that it would be 'weak' of you to move on as though Twilight were a cause and not simply a set of writings on paper. Has it ever occured to you that it may show a stronger character to listen carefully to what others have to say rather than take an immediate stance of defiance simply because of your personal feelings? I mean, I have been in many a debate throughout my life and although my record has been quite good so far, every so often there's one person who manages to point out something I'd overlooked or noted a flaw in my reasoning and I could not be more grateful to them. Thanks to them, I have been able to gain new insights and overall feel like a more enlightened individual as a result. I have come to realise that my initial approach of taking a defensive stance was ultimately nothing more than me, as they say, putting my heart before my head.

Thirdly, you assert that surely the series has done something right to become so popular to begin with in spite of it's flaws. In my sad experience, one should not place so much confidence in the cognative abilities of the average human. As a species, we have an unebelievably huge spectrum of intelligence and you know as well as I that not everybody is a genius. This is not to say that everybody is outright stupid, but there is undeniably a significant block of people who are nothing above 'average'. Anyway, I shall use the example of popular music to illustrate my point. Many singles prove to be hits not because they are creative, but because they are structured to be 'catchy'. If you want to make a hit, you don't go out of the way to create a monument of mankind's potential in artistic form, you target base emotive appeal. As such, initial populairty is not a reliable means of examining something's worth. Making hits is one thing, making classics that laymen and experts alike will discuss in decades or centuries to come...that's another.

If you are wondering, yes, I do think carefully about everything I hold in high regard. My reason is because if I cannot come across a strong reason why that is the case, then the very fact I cannot justify it makes the grounds of my opinion questionable and it would seem irrational of me to commit effort to defend it.

As for my thoughts on the Harry Potter franchise, I would not place any of the books in my top ten lists or place Rowling in the highest league of authors, but I can certainly appreciate her efforts in creating her craft. While there are certain things I would have done differently in her shoes, it is clear from the easily-overlooked foreshadowing of important later developments in the overall story arc that she put meticulous planning into her writing. While I'd rather children idolised certain others, I'm glad that she provided my generation with an example of somebody who clearly knows how to write a series (so, the opposite of my sentiments towards Smeyer...).

I hope you don't mind if I throw in my thoughts - this is interesting.


Because humans are inherently irrational. It would take an almost unpleasant detachment to regard a piece of art purely on its merits and remove personal emotions altogether (which are surely the point of art anyway). For example, the classic. I love Wicked. Can't help it. I know it's awful, and even as I listen to the cast recording, some of the lyrics make me literally wince, but I still adore it. I can't coldly think "well X, Y and Z are all technically unimpressive, so I'll just flick the switch inside me to 'dislike'".


Again, back to Wicked for me. Dawn can point out to me exactly what is bad about the show and why it's such a flawed piece. And I can agree with her. It doesn't stop me loving it; I won't instantly back down because she, in her field, is correct. There would have to be two concurrent debates held - 'Is it a good piece?' and 'Why do you like it?'. Because, if I would be right, Angel would be in the latter camp, whereas someone saying why the writing is bad would be in the former - they'd be looking at it from such different perspectives, no conclusion could be reached.


One of my favourite TV quotes: "What do people know?! People like Coldplay and vote for Nazis! You can't trust people!"
However, it is down to, as you say "base emotive appeal". Art isn't always about purity and nobility; it's about expressing what you want to express in a way that does the job you want. If Stephanie Meyer catches onto something that people love, good for her! It doesn't bother me that she's a success whereas other, "better" writers aren't. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a crowd-pleaser. If she wants to make a living writing stories, she's done an excellent job and should be congratulated on it.


Sometimes you need to let your emotional response hold sway. You can't engage with something if you're constantly holding it at arm's length to examine it. Sometimes you just have to say, "I like it, and that's all that's important to me."

*Disclaimer* I haven't read the Twilight series.

*headdesk*

You know Nick, there are days when I wonder if I'm simply the academically and philosophically-interested eccentric people claim I am or simply insane...maybe I should write a book about 'The Philosophy of Dan' or something to try and make sense of myself.

Yes, you are absolutely right that some point or another my reasoning must become limited by human constraint rather than continue to work purely objectively.

I would also ask 'If your argument is indeed grounded in fact, does that mean truth is subjective or objective in nature?', but then that would trigger a discussion of philosophical depths even I don't think I'd be able to keep up with, lol.

As for your point about 'liking' vs 'judgement', I actually tend to simply seperate the two. Let's use the 'Wicked' example, because I am more or less on the same wavelength as you regarding the show. What I personally do in that position is I accept that I know not particularly good and that I like it simultaneously. However, I simply do not allow that snetiment to affect my judgement significantly and lie back without stepping in if a friend or workmate of mine came in and started talking about how bad the show is. I cannot simply switch off my feelings, as you rightly say, but I can alleviate myself by taking a step back from it for at least a short spell while I allow myself to explore other things. In fact, that is exactly what I've done for the past year or so and while not entirely extinguished, now my previous of love for the show is now put so far behind me thanks to immersing myself in other works that my attitude towards it is within practical standards indifferent.

I personally suspect this will happen to Twilight as I have my doubts that it will be remembered as much past a brief fad of the late 2000s/early 2010s, so don't think I am as cocnerned as my language may indicate me to be. It's more of a puzzlement and a frustration than a true hatred.

Anyway mate, I've got to say that you're smart cookie and are one of the admittedly few people in this world that I feel honoured to have interacted with at some point. I always appreciate the points you have to offer in these sorts of debates.

I think my problem is that my analytical mind always makes me take that next step even when not necessary. That's not say I see it as a weakness, as it has helped me to become a rather valuable asset to my associates and has granted many successes in life, but there are days when the depths of thinking it takes me to end up taking me to mental straining point.

Felix has most of my points down to be honest, but I’ll add some



Honestly, I think it would be a waste of time and effort. I don’t see any reason for me to have to justify the reasons behind me liking something when to me it’s just a reaction to what I read/see/hear. Like Felix said, I can’t suddenly flick a switch to dislike because I know it would be more intelligent of me to have that view on a subject so why dwell on it. Plus, if you take all opinion and attachment away from a piece you take away most of it’s appeal, if I connect with something, or find a character appealing, to try and look at said character with a neutral view would just take away what I find enjoyable. I strongly believe that reading too far into things is just going to end up being a funsponge.



I do listen to other people’s view without defiance, hence why I’ll accept people’s points and admit its flaws but no matter how many people bash me with their opinions it won’t change mine. It doesn’t need to be a cause to make moving on weak, so your saying if you truly enjoyed one of your “guilty pleasures” you’d move on and decide it’s something you no longer like purely because of what other people think about it? It may have something to do with the fact I’m stubborn as a mule when I want to be, but I think it would show a lack of character to follow the crowd in that way.



Technically she has done something right, she knows her target audience and writes for them well which is what many a great piece of literature fails to do, a book is never going to achieve the widespread popularity that Twilight or Harry Potter has if it is a chore to read for the majority of the “average” people. Plus, you have to take into account the age of the target audience, most books aimed at teenagers are not intended to be discussed by experts in centuries to come, if they were of that level then teenagers really wouldn’t bother with them. Take Jacqueline Wilson books for younger teens, hugely popular with the intended audience, but by no means a classic to be remembered in years to come and yet nobody gets so worked up about that.




then that's why we differ, If I like something then to me that's all I need to know, and all anyone else should need to know either, I don't think anyone should have to defend themselves for their opinions to that extent.

Perhaps we should start a new topic to discuss the Twilight series?

Ah... This is like, beautiful, beautiful music Feels almost like 2005 again - this sort of discussion is what MdN should be all about!

Love, love, love

IDINA MENZEL IS MY MOM

This is so good. Why don't discussions like this happen anymore?