Haven't really read Twilight, I thumbed through it in the bookstore, read the first three pages, three in the middle a couple at the back and was astonished at how horrible it was. Purple prose is what they used to call it.

Cartlandt is a boring writer. I remember reading her when I visited my Grandparents. What I'd do is go upstairs grab about ten to twenty books sit in a chair with the stack next to me in their living room while they chatted or snoozed or did whatever, and proceed to read one after the other.
I think I went through five Cartlandt novels in the space of a day. One does not read Cartlandt, one scans her and reads the banter. I'm wondering if people did much the same thing with Twilight?
I know it's how I read Da Vinci - part of my problem with it is I figured it out midway through. And the romance did not work for me.
And...I had read several similar and better written books, including the Eight by Katherine Neville, the Secret History by Donna Tart, the Seville Communion, the Club Dumas, the Flanders Panel all by Arturor Perez-Reverte. And... the hype. Everybody kept talking about how great it was. I read it? Grisham is a lot better. This guy uses descriptive short-cuts. (Being a writer makes me very critical of other writers - I've trained myself to unconsciously pull apart their style, word choice, and decide what works and doesn't. It's an odd thing, I know.) That said, he's not a bad writer. The story was clear. The characters left an impression. And it was a fun quick read. Also he didn't use a lot of adverbs.

I can't see you liking Twilight. I think it would really annoy you.

[I probably should have stuck with my original review of Twilight - which was much more succinct and a lot shorter. But oh well...]