Twilight discussion

Jesse, just to clarify your point: Did you not say that she failed as a writer because you didn't enjoy her book? Your failure to enjoy it was more her loss than yours?

My point was that if you think an author "fails" if one reader doesn't enjoy his book, then all authors have failed. There has never been a book that everyone has liked. The reader loses out when he doesn't enjoy something he's reading, not the author. The reader misses out on something that has given others pleasure.

I like Meyer's writing. I'm glad that she was more creative than just researching what vampires were in the past. She followed her own lights. I liked how Bella wasn't the standard girl character and didn't have standard role model reactions. I'm bored with standard girl characters.

As for "her ability to write" being questioned, I have yet to see an interesting or believable argument about that. Most people who hold that view simply state it over and over again.

Mickey wrote: "Jesse, just to clarify your point: Did you not say that she failed as a writer because you didn't enjoy her book? Your failure to enjoy it was more her loss than yours? "

I did not say that because I didn't enjoy the book that she failed as a writer. I said she failed as a writer because she can't write a believable story. On top of that, her writing just isn't good.

Mickey wrote: " My point was that if you think an author "fails" if one reader doesn't enjoy his book, then all authors have failed. There has never been a book that everyone has liked. The reader loses out when he doesn't enjoy something he's reading, not the author. The reader misses out on something that has given others pleasure. "

I don't think an author fails at writing if one reader doesn't enjoy it. Ignoring the fact that it is not just I that didn't enjoy it, my reasons for saying that she failed as an author didn't come from my lack of enjoyment while reading the books, though that was part of it.

Mickey wrote: " As for "her ability to write" being questioned, I have yet to see an interesting or believable argument about that. Most people who hold that view simply state it over and over again."

Are you serious? Mickey, she didn't fail just because she wrote about vampires who aren't actually vampires, she failed right within the first four pages of the book. On the fourth page she describes what Renee looks like- but wait! Her description is, and I quote " My mom looks like me, except with short hair and laugh lines." And what does Bella look like? Well, I couldn't tell you because not once in the book is Bella given a solid physical description. Hell, we know what Bella is wearing before we even hear about what Bella looks like. When we do, we're told that Bella is ivory skinned. On page 23 and 24, we're to assume that Bella's hair is longish to long and is dark. That doesn't really tell us anything about Bella. We don't really know how long her hair is nor her eye color. She's like Edward in that her description is just vague enough that we the reader can and have to fill in the blank that Meyer left for us. Hell, my hair can obscure my face if I want it to, and my hair isn't that long. That's all that we hear of her description till Meyer tells us some time later on her site. It's nice that she wanted her readers to be fully submersed in the story, but it's not good that she left out the description when she uses Bella's description to tell us about her mother.

How is that good writing? It's not. She can paint a pretty picture with her purple prose, but her writing just isn't that good or really exceptional. If you want further proof that Meyer's writing just isn't that good, you can of course- and I've seen other people recommend this before- check out the site reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com and go all the way to the beginning of the blog.

As for why I only gave one reason; I feel that's the only reason I need to show because there's no way to refute it. There's no way to say how that is a good example of writing. We can tear into the book and analyze every bit to see if her writing is good or not, but I don't need to do it when someone else did it well before you or I.

Jesse wrote: "I did not say that because I didn't enjoy the book that she failed as a writer. I said she failed as a writer because she can't write a believable story. On top of that, her writing just isn't good."

But we've already established that "believable" is subjective. You have a problem with that, I don't. The only point that you've come up with is that Alice used a thousand dollar bill to bribe someone. There are writers I've named who regularly get in Top 100 lists of the Greatest Authors of All Time who have had much bigger snafus in their writing. I don't suppose you'd contend that George Eliot and Charles Dickens are "failed writers".

You are tending to mix up subjective with objective here. Saying her writing isn't any good because she never gives a complete physical description of Bella misses the point that it's a first person story about someone who is far from vain. (Although I do remember a point somewhere where she looks in a mirror and takes her inventory. I just don't see that as being a big deal.) To make rules about how stories should go is always difficult, because, if you've read widely, you know that there are writers who follow their own paths and there aren't many hard and fast rules.

My advice to you is the opposite. Read the books instead of blogs. Blogs have a lot of inaccurate information. People come on these sites all the time who actually haven't read the books, but have read other people's interpretation of them and this leads to having to backtrack and just gums up discussion about the actual books. Then we have to have long discussions about how Edward isn't controlling or how Bella really saves others. This site would be a lot more interesting if people would actually put in the effort to read the books and analyze them as opposed to getting their information shorthand from elsewhere.

Edit: I looked at the blog and I can see where you're getting your information, but when you translate these small things into Major Complaints about the books, it comes across as a little ridiculous. That site just appears to be snarky quips. It's not actual analysis. When you try to change it into analysis, it comes across as a little strange. "Alice bribed someone with a thousand dollar bill, which hasn't been printed since the 1960's! Therefore, Bella's actions are not believable!" "Meyer is a bad writer because she doesn't give us a full description of her main character all at once and writes that her mother looks like her!" If you step back from this for a minute, you'll see that using these as examples would tend to make you seem a little unbalanced, because you are taking small details and pretending they are large problems. I think it's nice that you are obviously going outside the usual format that antis take and not going over old ground, but perhaps you should find a better blog to take things from if you want to give an overview of the whole series (although I still suggest you just read and think about the books themselves).

Mickey wrote: "But we've already established that "believable" is subjective. You have a problem with that, I don't. The only point that you've come up with is that Alice used a thousand dollar bill to bribe someone. There are writers I've named who regularly get in Top 100 lists of the Greatest Authors of All Time who have had much bigger snafus in their writing. I don't suppose you'd contend that George Eliot and Charles Dickens are "failed writers". "

I don't read their work and don't intend to so I wouldn't know how well of a writer they are.

I brought up the money to show my point and my point was that the events before the save were not believable.

Mickey, I'm just trying to bring you back to the original topic we had. We know that believability is subjective, yes, but the main point went to if Bella saved Edward in New Moon as a show that she can save the day from time to time. I conceded that she can, but that I didn't believe the events before her save as likely to happen. That's all that I stated, no need to go over believability and whatnot all over again.

Mickey wrote: "You are tending to mix up subjective with objective here. Saying her writing isn't any good because she never gives a complete physical description of Bella misses the point that it's a first person story about someone who is far from vain. (Although I do remember a point somewhere where she looks in a mirror and takes her inventory. I just don't see that as being a big deal.) To make rules about how stories should go is always difficult, because, if you've read widely, you know that there are writers who follow their own paths and there aren't many hard and fast rules. "

What does being vain have to do with anything? Just because it is a first person POV doesn't mean that it should lack a description of the main character. It is just flat out bad writing if we not only get the description of a side character before the main character, but the side character's description is based off of the main character's description which we are never given. It's as I said, I'm all for leaving the description out to let readers be more submerged into the story, but it's not good writing to give a character description of a side character and base it off of a character's description when we're not given it in the book.

Mickey wrote: "My advice to you is the opposite. Read the books instead of blogs. Blogs have a lot of inaccurate information. People come on these sites all the time who actually haven't read the books, but have read other people's interpretation of them and this leads to having to backtrack and just gums up discussion about the actual books. Then we have to have long discussions about how Edward isn't controlling or how Bella really saves others. This site would be a lot more interesting if people would actually put in the effort to read the books and analyze them as opposed to getting their information shorthand from elsewhere."

And what blogs would I read? The ones where the blogger is giving critique on the books because they read them, that they post pictures of the the things they're talking about, how they are actually right and did I mention that they've read the books to be able to give their criticism? Yeah, ReasoningWithVampires does that, what's wrong with her blog?

Mickey wrote: "If you step back from this for a minute, you'll see that using these as examples would tend to make you seem a little unbalanced, because you are taking small details and pretending they are large problems."

I'm not pretending that they are large problems, what gives you that idea? Is it because they're the only two I presented? Have you actually took the time to read the blog and see other instances where Meyer's writing is not good? It's not just two instances that are making me say that Meyer's writing isn't good. Like I said, I don't feel the need to paint my books red with a marker while analyzing it and giving you every single instance where her writing was bad or could have been better when someone else already did it before I did.

Mickey wrote: "I think it's nice that you are obviously going outside the usual format that antis take and not going over old ground, but perhaps you should find a better blog to take things from if you want to give an overview of the whole series (although I still suggest you just read and think about the books themselves). "

Until you can give me parts of her blog where she is wrong about anything she says on a particular topic, then I'll stop reading her blog. But make no mistake, I'm not reading this blog and going "I've learned all I need to know, I now hate Twilight and will never finish it." No, I will finish it, no matter how much I'm not going to like it, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop reading the blog, because she is right.

Jesse wrote: "I brought up the money to show my point and my point was that the events before the save were not believable."

So...? I don't know why this point is worth making. It doesn't prove that she didn't save Edward, which is what we were discussing. Again, why bring it up?

Jesse wrote: "Yeah, ReasoningWithVampires does that, what's wrong with her blog?"

I thought I already discussed how it's not an analysis of the books, but just a collection of snarky quips, from the little I read.

If you rely so much on this blog for your assessment of the books, you'll continue to make mistakes and sound somewhat irrational. You basically made a case that Bella's save wasn't believable because of the denomination of bills in a bribe Alice made. You are also forwarding an argument that Meyer is a bad writer because she didn't describe her main character. This isn't sound analysis. Can you not tell how petty and silly it sounds?

That blog struck me as having the same problem. It's too petty to be taken seriously. There were several examples that were used that I thought showed differences in how English is used in everyday life (such as referring to a new relationship as having an anniversary after three weeks when anniversaries in the dictionary happen only annually or saying that Bella spoke to someone in English [class]). Some were just picking out similar constructions (even words) close together, which isn't unusual or a mistake. I could find twenty similar constructions in another novel by any other author.

I think my main objection to the blog is that it encourages a certain stance towards books that I don't agree with. It reinforces an arrogance in many people toward books and other readers that is ugly. When people use books in order to puff themselves up, it's an illegitimate use of something that should ultimately humble you instead.

Jesse wrote: "What does being vain have to do with anything? Just because it is a first person POV doesn't mean that it should lack a description of the main character. It is just flat out bad writing if we not only get the description of a side character before the main character, but the side character's description is based off of the main character's description which we are never given. It's as I said, I'm all for leaving the description out to let readers be more submerged into the story, but it's not good writing to give a character description of a side character and base it off of a character's description when we're not given it in the book."

It's not a sign of bad writing to lack a detailed description of what a character looks like. Shakespearean plays don't have many full on descriptions, and those are generally considered good.

Vanity has a lot to do with whether a character thinks about her looks a lot. In a first person pov, the thoughts of the main character drive the story. If she doesn't think about what she looks like a lot, why would anyone expect a lot of description? That doesn't make much sense.

The purpose of the mother/daughter comparison was probably not to give a composite sketch of either character. It was probably to emphasize a connection between the two. In that case, it's not "bad writing", because it did what was intended. Writing about every feature would've distracted the reader from the purpose.

Mickey wrote: " just a collection of snarky quips, from the little I read"

that's my thoughts on it as well. I've already encountered three times that she accuses meyer of using a word incorrectly by providing only the definition that supports her case. she completely ignores the other definitions that show that meyer's use of the word was appropriate.

Kirby wrote: "that's my thoughts on it as well. I've already encountered three times that she accuses meyer of using a word incorrectly by providing only the definition that supports her case. she completely ignores the other definitions that show that meyer's use of the word was appropriate."

Was the word "incandescent" one of them? There was a poster once who was going on and on about it until someone gave her the other definition.

Actually, I often wondered where all these people were getting their information.

Mickey wrote: "So...? I don't know why this point is worth making. It doesn't prove that she didn't save Edward, which is what we were discussing. Again, why bring it up?"

Since you seemed to have ignored it to respond to something else, I'll just copy&paste;

Mickey, I'm just trying to bring you back to the original topic we had. We know that believability is subjective, yes, but the main point went to if Bella saved Edward in New Moon as a show that she can save the day from time to time. I conceded that she can, but that I didn't believe the events before her save as likely to happen. That's all that I stated, no need to go over believability and whatnot all over again.

Mickey wrote: "I thought I already discussed how it's not an analysis of the books, but just a collection of snarky quips, from the little I read. "

So because you think that all it contains is snarky quips of the books, you don't believe that it analyzes the books at all? Can you prove that? Can you prove it by disproving 'what little you saw'?

Mickey wrote: "If you rely so much on this blog for your assessment of the books, you'll continue to make mistakes and sound somewhat irrational."

So you think I'm making mistakes and sounding irrational. Alright, I don't care much if you think so. Also, I'm not reading this blog and going "I've learned all I need to know, I now hate Twilight and will never finish it." I'm not relying on it for anything but insight that I wouldn't have had, the POV of another person, and enjoyment.

Mickey wrote: "You basically made a case that Bella's save wasn't believable because of the denomination of bills in a bribe Alice made. You are also forwarding an argument that Meyer is a bad writer because she didn't describe her main character. This isn't sound analysis. Can you not tell how petty and silly it sounds?"

I don't like that a lot of the things you're saying now was all replied to in my post, why did you ignore it?

"I'm not pretending that they are large problems, what gives you that idea? Is it because they're the only two I presented? Have you actually took the time to read the blog and see other instances where Meyer's writing is not good? It's not just two instances that are making me say that Meyer's writing isn't good. Like I said, I don't feel the need to paint my books red with a marker while analyzing it and giving you every single instance where her writing was bad or could have been better when someone else already did it before I did."

I mean, seriously. That whole paragraph replied to you before you even said anything.

Mickey wrote: "That blog struck me as having the same problem. It's too petty to be taken seriously."

Until you can give me parts of her blog where she is wrong about anything she says on a particular topic, then I'll believe you on the owner of the blog just being petty. Until then, it just sounds like you simply didn't like what you saw, yet have no rebuttal to it all, which sucks because it means that when you said 'what little I saw' that you didn't even give it a proper look through.

Jesse wrote: "Until you can give me parts of her blog where she is wrong about anything she says on a particular topic, then I'll believe you on the owner of the blog just being petty."

What does one thing have to do with the other? And I think Kirby has found some inconsistencies in the blog. If "incandescent" is in there, there's one right there. I'm sure you know where to find it.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that I wasn't overwhelmed by the logic of someone being snarky about Twilight. But I'm just letting you know: it wasn't very convincing.

Mickey wrote: "@Valerie, I did read your post. I just don't agree with it. The post was not persuasive enough to change my mind. I still feel pretty much the same way after reading your post as I did before it. Y..."

@Mickey:
Obviously you aren't sure of your history. You are equal to men without considering yourself a feminist because of the feminist movement of years past. Without the feminist movements, you would not have been allowed to hold a job, open a bank account, get an education, and vote. You would not have been equal to men in any way.

I know this went a little off topic, but the ignorance of your early comments were distracting me from the topic at hand.

(If anyone's concerned, Bella's an embarrassment to the modern woman, Edward is a psycho & Renesmee is the stupidest name I've ever heard. I'm going to watch a rerun of Buffy. She was a real role model in this genre.)

Bevin wrote: "@Mickey:
Obviously you aren't sure of your history. You are equal to men without considering yourself a feminist because of the feminist movement of years past. Without the feminist movements, you would not have been allowed to hold a job, open a bank account, get an education, and vote. You would not have been equal to men in any way."

I think I've already made this argument here, but apparently Bevin can't be bothered to read, so...

I think you're actually a little ignorant of history. Women have been working for as long as men have. Feminism hasn't done much for women's work but denigrated what women have done in the past and tried to set up a sense of false obligation towards feminism based on this fairy tale that feminism has "rescued" women from a life of drudgery. Universal voting and universal education are the result of a general trend of democratization.

With the examples of Queen Elizabeth I of England and Catherine the Great of Russia, a person's political power has historically come from who one's parents were, who one was married to, or who had the support of the army. It wasn't primarily a question of gender. Women ruled vast empires. Feminism did not bring these women to power.

Claiming that women have an obligation to feminism is the equivalent to saying that they are still not free to make their own choices due to prior obligations. Another example would be saying that African Americans are obligated to vote for the Republican candidate in the upcoming election because Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. Or that African Americans should be counted as Quakers, because Quakers were influential in the Underground Railroad. I think this line of reasoning actually seeks to limit the freedom that African Americans have to live their own life and "be counted" based on their views and beliefs. It's an aggressive and insidious way to silence them by claiming to speak for them.

Feminism did not bring about equality with men. I actually think that feminism, as a trend now, is harmful to women and seeks to control women with this new template of "the modern woman" that they seek to instill. Women characters are now "antifeminist" if they are upset over a breakup or if they cook for someone or if they are dependant in any way on anyone else. Is there a similar group that keeps male characters in line, or are they free to act how they feel without censure or outright calls for censorship? I say feminism is actually limiting to women and seeks to reduce choices women have. Therefore, I am not a feminist. I made that decision based on my own analysis of the movement and it's a right that I have. Learn to deal with other women's choices.

In my opinion, no. This book is not anti-feminist.

For one thing, to me, 'anti' implies that a stand was taken. This book was told from Bella's point of view. Nowhere in this book did she say or think anything that would lead me to believe that she was against feminism.

Were some of her choices traditional? Absolutely. But isn't that--at it's crux--what feminism was for? To give women a choice? To afford women the same opportunities men had? So that IF THEY DECIDED they wanted to do something other than the traditional paths that had been laid out before them in the past, they could? Feminism opened more doors to women; it didn't close them.

In my opinion, it's 'anti-feminist' to look down on a woman if she chooses a more traditional lifestyle, not to actually choose it.

Bella didn't look down on other people if they chose a different lifestyle than she did. She was too busy living her own life--her way--to worry about them.

Mickey wrote: "I think I've already made this argument here, but apparently Bevin can't be bothered to read, so..."

Oh my gosh! You're right! I can't even read! Why would I be on a site about reading then?

I think I addressed this issue in stating that your ignorance in this matter is overwhelmingly irritating & it became painful to read your remarks further.

I don't think you have an obligation to feminism, but to discount it entirely ... only further proves your ignorance.

Peronally I think that this is being a bit overreactive and looked to close at. When Stephanie Meyer wrote the book, I doubt she'd realize she'd be getting this much hate. I'm not some TWI-HARD fan (personally I think there are better story lines than Twilight) but I don't think she was being Anti-Feminist. Why would Stephanie Meyer write a book about Anti-feminist? Where in the books (in case I missed it) does is say that? I understand a lot of people think Bella is useless and cries when Edward is away. IT'S A BOOK. Bella isn't real. Maybe there are some girls out there like this, maybe not.

The fact is that we're all looking into this too much. Twilight is simply a book about a teenage girl falling in love with a vampire.

@Bevin,

Many women are not feminists. In an earlier post, I pointed out that only 29% of American women polled would define themselves as feminists. I'm sure you didn't read that. So, are you saying that 71% of American women are ignorant simply because they choose not to be defined a certain way? If you want to be a feminist, knock yourself out. That's entirely your decision (like choosing to be a Seventh Day Adventist or a Muslim), but you should be aware that yours is a minority position and that many women have other views. To call people ignorant simply because they make different choices than you is a little childish.

I'm rather surprised you responded (although that wasn't a terribly thorough response), because I discounted you as a drive-by troll than someone who could stick around and rationally defend your points. I'd like a response to my proof that women historically have held power without owing it to feminism. I find your assertion that women owe EVERYTHING to the feminist movement to be one that I would like to see defended, because I don't believe it. Enlighten me.

BTW, I never said that you couldn't read, I said that you couldn't be bothered to read. There's a huge difference between those two assertions.

Wow. This discussion has morphed into something really inspiring everyone. Thank you.

@Mickey:

Trolls are just people too stupid to defend their position -- they don't really understand their position & therefore can't defend it.

I did read that stat you provided. I actually think that was what made me fly into a bit of a rage.

I am quickly responding now so that you don't think I'm a troll, but I have to head to work. I will write more later. My terribly unthorough response earlier was due to the fact that I was pretty irritated by the reading comment.

I'm actually pretty interested to dialogue, however, & will write a more complete response after work.