Tuesday, 1 December 2009

Bite me, if you can

Really, Kristen Stewart? Really? You honestly think that (to paraphrase Alex Dobuzinskis) being dumped by (your) vampire man, sinking into depression and later flying to pursue him, is setting a good example to girls? 

Tonight - New Moon star Kristen Stewart says "be extreme" 

Let me tell you what I think: You're full of shit. And the fact that you're trying to make it seem like your lovelorn, pathetic, angst-ridden, whiny character Bella, is a rebel pursuing what she most wants in life, is a disservice to those strong women in history, literature and movies who were rebels and who actually did pursue their goals and dreams (Amelia Earhart? Mary Shelley? Hermione Granger or Ginny Weasley, both of whom would kick Bella's arse so hard her butt would come out of her nose?). Here's a hint: attainment, in those cases, didn't revolve around desperately seeking the love of a manipulative, passive-aggressive, stalker of a 'vampire' (and I use that term loosely) who's so pathetic he can't even nut up and use his fangs!

Oh wait, I forgot: he doesn't have fangs!

In fact, I take your bullshit downright personally! Because I would rather crawl on my belly through broken glass tipped with industrial-strength acid, than be associated with the idea that being a passive ninny like Bella, is what true love is all about. Oh yes, true love is about sacrifices. But it's also about knowing when someone's playing you, about knowing when someone loves you enough not to fuck with your head, and about knowing when it's time to walk away. Then again, I tend not to live in an old-style Mills & Boon romance.

Ooh, and you know what, you know what, Bella must be a real rebel because - *gasp* - she's in love with two guys! Hell, even Anita Blake is more of a rebel, and she's not only in love with vampires, werewolves, wereleopards and the like too, she's actually screwing them! (Often at the same time.) Of course, let's instantly dump the werewolf who's always loved you (and later develops an unhealthy, paedophilic attachment to your newborn daughter, by the way) for Sparkleboy and fly to his rescue! 

But, I am preaching to either the choir - as I know there are thousands who agree with me - or to the deaf, dumb, blind and stubborn. After all, say Twihards, "(Shakespeare) was a ripoff artist who knew how to market", and Stephen King's just jealous because he'll never attain success like Stephenie Meyer (newsflash: oh wait, do I actually need to give a newsflash about one of the most successful writers in modern history?). I'm not even shitting you about the Shakespeare quote.

I don't know what riles me more; the blatant stupidity rampant in these Twitards and their overwhelming love of the sparkleverse, to the exclusion of all other viewpoints ("You're just jeaaaallllllous! You don't understaaaaaaand! It's a masterpiece, better than than idiot Harry Potter! Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh, stop being mean to my Eddiekins!") or the sheer stupidity displayed in their arguments. I mean, and I'm sorry I can't let this go, but DID THAT TWITARD ACTUALLY CALL SHAKESPEARE DERIVATIVE COMPARED TO STEPHENIE FUCKING MEYER? (Don't miss the other part of her comment about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: "A teenager wrote it with the help of two accomplished authors. Give Meyer a break, and some credit."

The mind actually boggles. A red mist rises before my eyes, and I cannot even think coherently to muster some form of rational argument. Which, I suppose, may well render me nothing more than an over-emotional anti-Twitard.

And that, my friends, is why I would rather rip out and chew on my own liver, than read more than the chapter of Twilight I slogged through, or subject myself to more than the New Moon trailer - which I can't avoid these days anyway.

Not to mention that ripping out my own liver and eating it? Would make me more of a man than Sparkly-bum the pretty boy. 

But don't let me spew all the venom by myself. Masswyrm has already said it all so eloquently: 

"Bella Swan is one of the most detestable, obnoxious, mentally unstable characters in modern American literature. She is a character so over the top that she borders on satire; and were she some sort of Holden Caulfield-like, deliberately unlikable character written with the intent to openly mock the ideals of modern romantic literature, she would be acceptable, if not perfect for the part. But Stephanie Meyer isn’t that self-aware. Instead, she has woven together a cloyingly insufferable romantic saga – a junkfood and cheesecake epic, if you will – centering around a woman who revels in, nay celebrates, how damaged she is. I dated a girl like Bella once. Thank god they make medication for girls like that now."

Go, read. Then read his earlier column, about the sheer creepiness of a 90-year-old man lusting after a 17-year-old girl. Or is Eddie 109? After all those centuries, the years blur together, I suppose, and school kind of starts looking the same. 

Or, you know, don't bother, if you're a Twi-fan. Either way, I'll just continue my un-dazzled existence over here, wasting my time on romances.That Romeo and Juliet. So derivative!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Go ahead, make me laugh.

Remember kids: comments on posts older than 7 days are moderated.