Twilight Lexicon Discussion Forums

I don't think you can really compare the two, they are such different books.

^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.

Meh. I'm a big science fiction nut- I get it from my dad- and I'm a big vampire fan. I guess part of the reason I don't like Meyer's books is she apparently writes them for people who don't like [insert genre here]. If I had to choose, I suppose I would say Twilight because the idea behind Twilight appeals to me more than the idea behind The Host. Also, because I don't get how a "shiny silver centipede" is pretty. Cool-looking, yeah but not "beautiful".

I am very glad that SM is trying to work in different genres, and I love the fact that they are personality driven rather than technology or bloodlust driven. I have to agree though, beyond the exquisite first person point of view, the books are completely different. It is fascinating to see how well SM can get into the head of the characters she creates. Even those that don't always react the way you think they should (this is for you TNO and the whole Charlie Swan thing), she does a fabulous job of presenting them as more than just cardboard cut outs like many authors have done. I like the fact that they are all multi-dimensional people with interesting personality traits that are not read as a list as is often done in 3rd person omnipotent books.

I do think Meyer did a better job of character development in the Host, though there were still some stereotypes and the whole pretty=good thing. I also think her descriptive style was much better in the Host, probably because she'd *been* in the desert when she wrote it, rather than Twilight, where she hadn't visited Forks until *after* Twilight was published. Her Forks descriptions felt like she'd looked at some really great pictures, whereas the Host descriptions felt like you were actually in the desert along with MS.
On the other hand, I don't see how parasites who overtake civilization after civilization and (in the case of Earth) violently hunt down rebels can consider themselves "peaceful". Maybe they don't indulge in excessive violence, but they're possessing intelligent beings against their will... How is this not considered aggressive?
Off Topic: I hate third person omniscience. It's so boring.

Off topic: We both hate third person omniscient! Let the heavens rejoice, we agree on something!!

TNO wrote:On the other hand, I don't see how parasites who overtake civilization after civilization and (in the case of Earth) violently hunt down rebels can consider themselves "peaceful". Maybe they don't indulge in excessive violence, but they're possessing intelligent beings against their will... How is this not considered aggressive?
Off Topic: I hate third person omniscience. It's so boring.

My understanding is that they had never encountered an "unwilling" host before and therefore weren't prepared for it when they encountered humans.

Plus, they see themselves as far superior to humans, based on the way humans treated each other; ie war; and the way humans treated their planet. They were more "peaceful" because they can exist without war among themselves.

An interesting side point is that Wanderer begins to see her own people as being deceivers because they are not willing to see other species as equal and judge all others by their own rules. Granted, they are a wonderful species, but they have deceived themselves into rationalizing taking hosts. I think it was the self-deception that turned Wanderer from wanting to be a symbiont any more.

roseaurora wrote:

TNO wrote:On the other hand, I don't see how parasites who overtake civilization after civilization and (in the case of Earth) violently hunt down rebels can consider themselves "peaceful". Maybe they don't indulge in excessive violence, but they're possessing intelligent beings against their will... How is this not considered aggressive?
Off Topic: I hate third person omniscience. It's so boring.

My understanding is that they had never encountered an "unwilling" host before and therefore weren't prepared for it when they encountered humans.

Plus, they see themselves as far superior to humans, based on the way humans treated each other; ie war; and the way humans treated their planet. They were more "peaceful" because they can exist without war among themselves.

The implication was not that they had never had "unwilling" hosts before so much as they tried to take over through stealth and secrecy but humans had much more vibrant emotions than any other species. In previous worlds they took over methodically and the hosts never realized it was coming until it was too late, but the humans picked up on it earlier on and formed a resistance.
The point being, all the other host races were unwilling, too, they just didn't realize they were being attacked until it was already over, where humans figured it out faster and fought back (as we humans are so very good at doing).
True, they were more "peaceful"- if by "peaceful" you mean they didn't fight amongst themselves (though, I don't buy this at all- a couple of souls were arguing in the first chapter, after all). However, they actively seek to conquer the galaxy, admittedly through stealth rather than armed warfare. It's like... Oh... Big Brother in 1984. Big Brother was anything *but* peaceful, but the majority of his citizens were convinced that they loved him. He's not making a big show of beating his puppets into submission, but behind the scenes the violence committed by the Inner Party is astounding. Similarly, the souls in The Host don't outwardly show any violence at all (with the exception of, you know, hunting down humans with guns and whatnot), but within their hosts' minds they were essentially beating living creatures into mental submission.

I agree that it was the emotions that humans have that really caught the Souls off guard and perhaps other hosts had been as resistant (they did loose that whole section of the seaweeds). But there were others who welcomed then, the Spiders did.

They just felt that they were what was best for each world because they are peaceful, etc.

I was under the impression that the arguing at the beginning was the first glimpse at the effect that human hosts and their emotions have on the Souls.

I'll have to admit that I have never read 1984, but it sounds like a huge difference is that there is no one entity in the world of the Souls that all the others answer to or look up to.

I think they truly were a society that lived in complete harmony with one another, all working for a common goal of furthering their society, until human emotions were thrown into the mix, which only effected some.