Well, well, lookie here....

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

I was perusing TwilightSucks awhile ago, and came across this little gem, detailing why Bella Swan is a good match for Draco Malfoy. You can read the madness below:

http://twilight-sucks.livejournal.com/1584746.html

I nearly burst out laughing when I read the line: "Draco doesn't want friends. He wants fans and henchmen. Harry didn't fawn over him, and so their enmity was born." Seriously, that describes Harry more than anything!

And actually, no, Rowling would not write the story about Eric or Mike or whoever. Chances are, Eric and Mike would still be nobodies, just like Dean and Seamus. Harry is no everyman, after all- he's a self-absorbed jerkass Gary Stu just like Edward and Bella- he just hides it better!

Seriously, every so often someone will critique Twilight and immediately follow it up with "But Harry Potter is sooooo much better!" Newsflash: Just because it's better than Twilight... doesn't mean it's good!

Comments

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Also, dare I ask what she did to Watson? (I'm also a fan of Watson- the original, competent, intelligent one, not the bumbling idiot of many adaptations)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

She made him a bumbling, submissive idiot to the nth degree. Russell is nasty and condescending to him, and he just takes it. It's like he doesn't even notice. In one particularly disgusting scene in the first book, he even grovels to her about how "Holmes" was literally dying of boredom in his retirement, and she saved him with her brilliant and stimulating presence. Later in the book, he puts everyone's life in danger with his stupidity and incompetence. Did I mention this is a man who's been SH's closest friend for over 35 years, helped him on countless dangerous cases, and is a combat veteran? I wish we had real emoticons on this site. I'd like one for projectile barfing right now.

The first few books are also crammed with disparaging remarks made about him and his stories by Russell, Pseudo-Holmes, and others. In later books, she's just dismissive of him. The way MR writes about him in the early books sounds like letters I've read in advice columns in which a new girlfriend complains about her boyfriend's ex because she believes deep down her man still has feelings for his ex. Her remarks have that nasty, jealous, sniping quality to them. Hey, we're women. You know what we're like. :D

What really gets me is that King is so incredibly stupid and illogical she really doesn't get how this makes her characters look. To pretend you love and trust someone to his face, then call him an empty-headed twit behind his back. while still exploiting his willingness to serve and help you, even to the point of putting him in danger on your behalf brands the speaker as the worst kind of mean-spirited, back-stabbing, disloyal, manipulative user. That's the kind of behavior we've seen from Voldemort and Dumbledore--and they're narcissistic psychopaths!

Here's a quotation from the book I'm writing on this subject:

It's hard to know who comes off worse in these attacks on the “good doctor:” Pseudo-Holmes, Pseudo-Watson, or Russell. Obviously, "Watson" is the direct target of these attacks. He must be even dumber than Russell makes him out to be if he spent thirty-five years in close association with "Holmes" without realizing how the detective really felt about him. Or maybe he did realize, but just didn't care, in which case he would be utterly lacking in self-respect. He's clearly pathetic either way.

"Holmes" comes off even worse. He is presented as a man who wasted decades of his life in supposedly intimate friendship with a man for whom he appears to have near-complete contempt. His standards for companionship must not be very high for that to be the case, which certainly casts doubt upon his perspicacity in choosing Russell first as a friend, and then as a wife. His morals are even worse, since he repeatedly trashes a man whose life he put at risk on numerous occasions. What kind of exploitative sleaze behaves like that?

Oh, right. The same kind who would sexually prey on an orphan teenager.

Russell comes off poorly also, since she repeats these slanders. It seems not to occur to her how bad her future husband looks when she makes public his remarks, thus proving herself unable to reason an argument through to its logical conclusion--a mistake we would never find the real Holmes making. Or maybe it does occur to her, and she just wants to make her husband look bad, in which case she is not only disloyal for tarnishing his memory, but also cowardly because she is attacking him indirectly after he died instead of openly while he was alive.

Furthermore, after seeing how exploitative and disloyal Pseudo-Holmes has been with Pseudo-Watson, she must, like "Watson," be severely lacking in both self-respect and perspicacity to first befriend and then marry a man who has already proven his vile character by repeatedly disparaging someone who has never treated him with anything other than affection and devotion.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Glad I have never heard of the series. It would probably make me cry.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining this. I really cannot remember any details from the book except for the ridiculous escape scene, but I remember being bothered by King's treatment of Watson, who is not a bumbling fool. I was so bothered by both these things that I had no real interest in reading further in the series. So I never got to Holmes's disparaging Watson to Russell. That's - well, really OOC, for a start. Totally unbelievable and loathsome behaviour.