Twilight-hating?

(New Moon, Eclipse & Breaking Dawn spoilers)

Okay, I enjoyed Twilight but am not the biggest Twilight fan out there. I think there are so many things wrong with the books, but I'm so sick of all the Twilight-hating going on. Most of it comes from people who either...

a) Are used to the traditional vampire myths and don't like the fact someone might use their imagination to come up with something different
b) Haven't read the books
c) Haven't read the books properly

I'm not talking about simple not-liking. I'm talking about the rabid hatred that spews from some people.

See, I can quite easily admit the books aren't well-written, the plot is weak, Bella & Edward are two-dimensional cardboard characters, their romance is so unhealthy it's not funny, and I was mad when Edward came back at the end of New Moon.

I can also easily admit that the Cullen family is pretty awesome. Their characters get filled out quite well over the course of the books and their back-story is intriguing. (Too bad the main storyline couldn't be.) They were amusing and entertaining.

But people out there are raging over mostly non-existant problems. They suggest...

a) Twilight condones paedophilia. It doesn't. In "Eclipse", it gets explained that the Quileute werewolves 'imprint' upon a life partner. This is first described sort of as love-at-first-sight, except more powerful. You don't have a choice. Not all the werewolves imprint, but several do. And in two cases, someone imprinted upon a small child. The first time, it caused a scandal among the Quileutes. But as Jacob Black later explained,

"There's nothing romantic about it at all, not for Quil (the werewolf who imprinted), not now... it's not like love at first sight, really. It's more like... gravity moves. When you see her, suddenly it's not the earth holding you here anymore. She does, and nothing matters more than her. And you would do anything for her, be anything for her... You be whatever she needs you to be, whether that's a protector, or a lover, or a friend, or a brother. Quil will be the best, kindest big brother any kid ever had. There isn't a toddler on the planet who will be more carefully looked after than that little girl will be. And then, when she's older and needs a friend, he'll be more understanding, trustworthy, and reliable than anyone else she knows. And then, when they're grown up, they'll be as happy as Emily and Sam."

It's also pointed out that since werewolves do not age (until they regain control over their condition and manage to stop morphing into wolves [it is discovered at the end of the books that they are not actual werewolves, but shapeshifters who take on the shape of a wolf]), once the little girl is grown, the guy won't physically be that much older than her. It's weird, but it's not paedophilia.

b) Twilight emasculates and is disrespectful of men. Again, it doesn't, and it isn't. I've heard it suggested that because Bella thinks of her father by his first name Charlie rather than 'Dad', she is being disrespectful. And apparently it's only the abusive, over-the-top control freak guys (apparently Edward and Jacob) who are shown as worthy of respect while the others (apparently Charlie) are shown as weak pushovers. I would argue this is way off. Yes, it could be argued that Edward is abusive, over-the-top and a control freak. But not Jacob. And I don't believe Charlie is shown as weak or a pushover. Bella thinks of both her parents by their first names, Charlie & Renee, but always calls them "Mom" or "Dad" to their faces. Also, Charlie's the town police chief, and Edward is determined to show him the appropriate respect, both as a police officer and his girlfriend's father. Also, other men in the books such as Carlisle and Emmett (Edward's surrogate father and brother) are both held to be very respectable characters (and by no stretch of the imagination could either of them be described as abusive control freaks), as well as the Quileute elders.

These are not legitimate criticisms. The only possible legitimate moral criticisms with the books are that Bella willingly submits to a stupidly over-the-top, controlling boyfriend. I wouldn't go so far as to call him abusive, because I wouldn't say he abuses Bella, but I do think he abuses his power over her. However, in 'Eclipse', Bella's had enough of it and ignores what he thinks are unacceptable risks. She becomes more strongheaded and not as submissive in both 'Eclipse' and 'Breaking Dawn'.

I also think it's very unfair of people to take out their hatred of Twilight on the actors. It is not Robert Pattinson's fault that Edward is a lame character. In fact, I think he'd agree.

The only other criticisms that I think can legitimately be levelled at the books are all about their literary qualities. I haven't read Eclipse and Breaking Dawn for a while, but in Twilight and New Moon both Bella and Edward are very two-dimensional, sappy characters. They have very little depth. The books ramble and there are large chunks you could rip out without losing much of the storyline (unlike Harry Potter). The plots have gaping holes. The storylines are ok, but nothing special.

That said, let me finish with this...