An honors course that's focused on supernatural tales (reading Frankenstein, Dracula, Turning of the Screw)

I think it might be kind of interesting to read Twilight immediately after reading Dracula in a college literature course. I rather hate Twilight, but it's actually ridiculously fun to talk/argue about. My wife and I do it all the time. She's a fan, and also an English teacher who defends it on two fronts - first, as good storytelling, if not good story (which, since I read the first three book in about three days is hard for me to argue - bad writing, but hopelessly addictive) and second as, essentially, bodice-rippers with teen appeal. Only without the actual bodice ripping, which actually, I think, increases the teen girl appeal. She recently convinced me to read Outlander, which I also didn't like much, which I think appeals to her in the same place.

Now, see, I like the Outlander series. There is no comparing that heroine to Bella, or Jamie to Edward. The Outlander couple is mature, competent, self-realized and it way passes the Bedchel test.

Twilight...does not.

Gris, does your wife follow Smart Bitches, Trashy Books? Because a bodice-ripper, if by which she means historical romance, really does not necessarily equal badly written tripe.

Oh god, Outlander is one of my favorite books ever. Claire and Jamie rock. And Diana Gabaldon actually knows how to write.

I'm with Amy on this one.

And also object to the term bodice-ripper as hopelessly outdated.

Love Outlander also, though now that I've read them all repeatedly, last time I tried to re-read I kept expecting things to happen that happen in another book in the series. But I'll buy the next one in hardback (or kindleback!)

I will say I never even finished the fourth book. Once they got to the colonies, she lost me a little. But those first three books still kill me, and I have the first Lord John mystery to read at some point.

So what you're saying is that I should add "Outlander" to my Kindleback?

Outlander was magnificent. Claire's voice is smart and witty and Jamie is just ... guh. It's a weird combination of romance and historical novel and (almost) contemporary fiction (it's first-person narration) and I loved it. So, yeah!

I didn't respect Twilight, but I read it in one afternoon and didn't not enjoy it. It was sort of like mediocre candy. Also, I know how many teenagers are Really Not Readers, and there's a lot to be said for it on that front (that is, easy and not complex).

I will say I never even finished the fourth book. Once they got to the colonies, she lost me a little. But those first three books still kill me,

Amy is me in this. It's funny, she wrote the first one never having been to Scotland, and personally I think it evokes the Scotland in my mind stronger than later, after she had visited. She lost me when Jamie and Claire got to a region I know very well--and she obviously did not. But I really lost interest when her focus shifted to the younger couple. I'm invested in Claire and Jamie, and don't care much about extended storylines of those I consider secondary characters taking center stage.

The first books, though--especially the first two--on my shelf, in hardcover. I gave away the companion guide to someone who's a staunch fan of Gabaldon's every word.