Because Edward is “The Prince” in a modern day fairy tale. And we all know what sort of fairy tales young girls are brought up on.

He’s the handsome, strong, all-protecting, knight-in-shining-armor to her damsel-in-distress (on the surface, anyway. It’s safe to assume that young girls aren’t concerned or mature enough to recognize underlying flaws in fictional characters). It’s a teenage girl’s dream to have someone like Edward and they CAN have him by vicariously living through Bella.

I am completely embarrassed to admit this, but when I was 16 I read “Sweet, Savage Love” and thought I had died and gone to heaven. As a teenage girl, I was thrilled to be reading a book that made my heart race and skin tingle. I suppose Twilight does the same for this generation of girls, but in a contemporary setting.

I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that!

(My 17 year old daughter once commented that boys her own age were “dumb”. When surrounded by “dumb” boys, what teenage girl wouldn’t swoon over the uber-perfect fantasy man-boy Edward?)

Arabella, yes, yes, yes.

I agree, there’s something in the story worth finding, but I can’t wade through the silliness and repetitive eye-rolling, sighing, fainting, bouts of tachycardia and third degree heart block.

“I can’t recommend it, though. It’s okay/pretty good in some parts.” That about sums the whole experience up for me. It’s just that all the bad parts far outweigh the good.

I’m through the forest glade scene and Cullen family intro, which is pretty decent. But once past the expositional part, and into seemingly unending pages of Harlequin mush, I find myself thinking “oh, puh-leeze.” If I edited this book, it would be *at least* 200 pages shorter and move briskly, shorn of each repititive sigh, pout and brow furrow/eye reference. I’m impatient to be done with this bloated tome and doubt I’ll read the rest.

That said, there is still merit in the book. It’s best when it sticks to what story there is, and would vastly improve without all the clunky romantic detail. Including Bella’s/Edward’s imappropriate and yes, “eye-rolling” bedroom scene; ditto Edward’s voyuerism. It would be better yet if Bella had a fully realized personality and any–any!–interior conflict of her own.

Edward is still a compelling metaphor for our own struggle with the beast within (sin). His anguish over his baser impulses and instincts that would destroy what he values and loves, and including his own self-respect, resonates well. As does his gradual mastery of himself.

Kitties abound in baser impulses, and if you don’t like it, tough…

P.S. To Travis–I haven’t done a 180 on the book; I’ve just reversed some thinking about it–a few times! I can’t say I’d recommend it, though. It’s okay/pretty good in parts.

I liked the first book fairly well. I can say without a doubt that the pacing in the books was terrible and could have used some serious editing.

“They are whiny, they are angsty, and they are just this side of emo.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Just when I thought I couldn’t take anymore of Bella’s droning about how perfect Edward is and how she didn’t deserve him, things got very interesting. I have to say that Stephenie Meyers did somehow make me care enough about the fate of these characters that when the real action started, I had to keep reading.

For anyone who is going to read the whole series, be prepared for the second and third book. There is enough angst in those two books to rival an entire album of 90′s grunge (incidently, also from the Seattle area…). It really bothered me that Bella would fall apart so completely just because Edward left. It bothered me a good deal that Bella’s happiness was so dependant on Edward.

Despite the gore of the fourth book, I liked it the best. It just plain had the most happening in it, and that is probably why.

I do think that there is real merit in the series and that it does deserve a real second look for it’s deeper message and themes, but I simply do not have the patience to spend that much time in Bella’s head again.

Arabella, yes, I think so. I don’t want to be an alarmist, mind you. Every age has those who lament that we’re getting dumber than … [insert supposed good ol' days golden age of your choice]. But I think it’s perfectly fair to say that as far as having the patience to read great literature goes, our culture doesn’t usually tolerate it. We’re a fast-paced, stimulus-driven, thrill-seeking age, “amusing ourselves to death,” as Postman wrote.

You write: “Titanic was popular. Danielle Steele is popular. Da Vinci Code was insanely popular. It’s all bad art. People don’t like it because it’s bad, but it’s not automatically good because a lot of people like it.” Having seen Titanic and read a couple of very early Steele’s, “I second that emotion.” Part of the dumbing down of our culture?