Twilight Lexicon Discussion Forums

There were the seekers. As I recall- and I could be wrong- the seekers were the unofficial leaders of the souls, in that they were generally looked up to and obeyed and on occasion feared.
Incidentally, your description of the soul society sounds an awful lot like what the Inner Party was trying to convince the Outer Party and the proles that the society in 1984 was like. Also, Big Brother wasn't a person, just a face used by the Inner Party to represent a nonexistent leader. The Inner Party controlled Oceania in much the same way that the seekers appeared to control the soul society; they were respected and (in some cases) feared, and therefore obeyed.
You should read 1984. It's very interesting.

1984 is a wonderful book, but I only agree that Soul society is like it in that it was like a hive society. Each individual was not truly an individual as much as it was a part of the whole. None of the Souls took precedent over the others unless it was as a mother or as a Seeker, but they only were important when the situation rendered it necessary. Granted, the souls helped the Seekers and were somewhat intimidated by them, but it was because of the present danger and not as a set hierarchy. In fact, the other Souls seemed to look down on them.

I just might have to read it.

The thing with the Host though, is that Wanderer pointed out to Melanie that there was no one to report the Seeker in to when they felt like she was harassing them. And I think Wanderer who mentions something about how the Seekers found themselves strangely revered and looked up to on Earth because of the threat of the wild humans and the final death. Other than that, the Seekers where seen as on the same level as all other souls. They are all equals to each other.
(until they added humans to the mix)

I agree that it was like a hive society, but I disagree that the Queens or the Seekers are the "leaders".

I see it as more of a Borge -not sure who to spell it- (From Star Trek) kind of existence, except that they aren't telepathically linked (except on worlds that functioned that way). But that there are no "leaders". This is based on what we learn from Wanderer, perhaps the book about the Souls (if she writes it) will uncover more...

That is how I see it, there are no leaders unless there is a need for them. If there was an organized leadership, Melanie would not have been able to take Wanderer to the dessert without being found out. Leadership, or at least a directed and focussed central authority would have made it nearly impossible for a resistance to operate. However, the Borg-like (I love the analogy) belief in the common good and that assimilation is for the good did seem to drive the species.

It took me forever, but I finally got around to reading "The Host." I have to say the book let me down, but I think it was by my own accord rather than Stephanie's writing. After I read the Twilight saga multiple times and utterly fell in love with the series, I really couldn't wait to read "The Host." I first attempted to read it over Christmas break. I was so confused after the first three chapters that I stopped reading. About a week and a half ago, I gave it another try. To me, this book was just more difficult to read. The plot line was much slower to what I am used to and the characters were kind of boring to me. Towards the end of the story, I started to see parallels between "The Host" and "Twilight." There was a line that said something along the lines of "I don't want to be a parasite," and it reminded me of when Edward says, "I don't want to be a monster."

After reading "Twilight" and finding those characters so enjoyable, I couldn't get into this story. While I really enjoyed Mel and Wanda for the most part, the other characters were forgettable. I didn't find Ian to be as special as I know some people feel he is. Also, the ending kind of ruined my entire view. Fragility was not what I was picturing for the new host's body.

Hands down for me, nothing has been able to trump "Twilight." It's a masterpiece.

n0vaice wrote:I haven't read the host but based on comments: TWILIGHT
its a masterpiece, an instant classic and a sacred scripture.

Yes. And your point is?

addictedbooklover wrote:^I agree, Sarah, it's like comparing Twilight and Harry Potter!
I don't know which one I like more, it changes frequently. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Twilight.

Yeah!
They are completely different books!

Openhome wrote:

n0vaice wrote:I haven't read the host but based on comments: TWILIGHT
its a masterpiece, an instant classic and a sacred scripture.

Yes. And your point is?

Well from comments I've read. Twilight is way better than the host.