Among some general patterns I’ve noticed is that, for example, male reviewers tend to suffer flagging attention to the flick’s goings-ons moreso than female ones do. I can relate to that. Despite my interest in Meyers and the movies, I’ve seen neither Twilight nor New Moon and nor have I read Meyers books these movies are based on, so I can well imaging being less than riveted by the content of these romances. This might align with my experiences, as a male, with a significant woman friend of mine. Whereas I surf the Internet, she spends her evening watching episodic TV and many an evening I’ve found myself watching Grey’s Anatomy with her.

When I see that she is going to TiVo up Grey, my reaction is ”noooooo!!!!…….” But, after the episode starts I can nevertheless keep my attention on what transpires and sort of figure out what the attraction of this TV series’ characterizations and plot might have for her. Another time I actually rented the DVD for the movie Sex and the City and watched it with her. I had read much online about this HBO series and so, as I watched the movie with her, I enjoyed theorizing about what characteristics of this drama made it so appealing to fans. Yet, I’ve never thought to myself since then, “Geez, I’d sure like to see a Sex and the City episode right now,” as my interest in it is truly of the most casual sort.

Now, let’s say I was a paid movie reviewer and it was my job to pen something about either Grey or S.I.T.C.? What would I write? Well, I’d probably concentrate on whatever I found of interest, or what techniques I found effective, etc. Yet my praise would necessarily be tempered by my essential lack of true interest in the premises of both story lines.

So, taking this observation and applying it to the Twilight phenomenon, I speculate that there must be something super effective going on in Meyer’s tales and in their cinematic adapatations, while also speculating that I myself would likely remain mostly immune to their charms (were I to somehow find myself actually reading them or viewing them).

Why I offer these lengthy self-disclosures is simply to preface my observations about the slew of so very truly many, many, many reviews of New Moon that I’ve read by now from a whole gamut of sources. So here goes.

The following will reference only the high brow reviews. And I qualify my use of high brow to say that I merely mean reviews found posted by “professional” reviewers, mostly in the so-called main stream media. ((I am reminded of hearing about Stephen King’s dissing of Meyer’s writing. Stephen King? Who high brow reviewers complement by saying “He’s good at what he does but what he does isn’t true literature”?))

What I love about the many intelligent reviews is how much they truly are just ALL OVER THE MAP. And, I somehow think this might even be more the case than with other films(?) As examples: A slew of reviewers think that the book was really effective but the movie less so, then another slew of them found the book less effective than the movie. Some will say that New Moon’s director Weitz was less effective than Hardwicke, the director of Twilight and many will say the situation is vice-versa. Some say the three lead actors stand out over the plot or direction whereas some say that the story stands out over the skill of the lead actors. Some say some element of technique or styling was just wonderful whereas some say the same item was just awful. Some say this or that made them snicker to themselves whereas some give kudos to some of these items as one of their favorite stand-out parts.

My own conclusions, drawn solely from reading all these reviews? THE WHOLE DRAMA IS A RORSCHACH TEST. Not only that, I think that Meyers is a masterful story teller who purposely designed it that way. For example, from what I’ve picked up, the personalities of the main characters of the romance are purposely left somewhat blank slates — the better for female reader’s and a female audience’s projections — and, either readers want to buy into this enterprise or they don’t. Those that do are marvelously entertained while those that don’t… “meh.”

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/09/30/its-official-football-makes-you-stupid “A study commissioned by the National Football League reports that Alzheimer’s disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league’s former players vastly more often than in the national population—including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49. The N.F.L. has long denied the existence of reliable data about cognitive decline among its players. These numbers would become the league’s first public affirmation of any connection…”

We need more data about watching football, of course, but the anecdotal evidence isn’t good.

* * *
P/s Oops, sorry for the bad link in my comment #110. Here’s a better one to the convo (spoiler warning: meant for ppl who’ve already seen the New Moon) between Slate’s Dana Stevens and Dan Kois of the Washington Post: http://castroller.com/podcasts/SlatesSpoilerSpecials/1334036

So your position is that if someone doesn’t like aother person’s work, they should be cruel and dismissive?

What I think is so offensive about the derisive comments here is that it plainly supports the idea that if you don’t personally think something qualifies as literature, then the best thing to do is be condescending and demeaning towards it. It’s like a bad scene out of some movie where the stereotypical Harvard academic elitists shun the kid from the wrong side of the tracks

Obviously Meyer put a lot of time and effort into her story. But instead of saying something constructive like…

“The Twilight books are obviously engaging to a large audience so kudos for that, but I think the author could really add some depth by including X,Y,Z”

…some of the commenters here and lots of other places have chosen to be jerks about it. There’s a difference between light hearted teasing, and making outright snide comments with an air of superiority as though you are the grand bestower of the esteemed title of “Real Literature”.

My point is not even about Twilight. It’s about the prideful attitude. It’s so wrong, and it smothers the timid people who might otherwise try their hand at creating something beautiful but are afraid to because they are afraid of how people like Kathryn are going to beat up on them.

You are naive if you don’t think that the world has been robbed of many great works because an artist or a writer or a composer or whatever was afraid to show their work to the world for fear of what those who are wise might say about it.

Anyway, that’s my rant.

How about them Chargers though? First place in the AFC west! Not too shabby eh?

http://media.slate.com/media/slate/Podcasts/Spoilers/SS09112001_newmoon.mp3

“Meyer might be, as Oprah admiringly called her recently, a ‘black-belt reader,’ but as a writer, she’s strictly Dear Diary, and Melissa Rosenberg, who wrote The Twilight Saga: New Moon, is nothing if not respectful of her vapid prose. The movie, directed by Chris Weitz, comes off very much like Clint Eastwood’s The Bridges of Madison County — professional filmmaking applied to subliterary euphemistic trash, in this case couched in the jejune crush-fantasies of a Mormon mom stranded at home with three little boys.

“I don’t get the lure of vampire chic, but attention must be paid, if only because millions of girls on the cusp of adolescence and beyond — not to mention, after lights out, their mothers — groove to Meyer’s chaste, oddly bloodless, and nearly plotless saga of a troubled high school outsider who finds love and protection with a family of expensively attired bloodsuckers in red-gold contact lenses.“—ELLA TAYLOR in Miami New Times

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2009-11-26/film/the-twilight-saga-new-moon-too-much-angst-not-enough-saga/