New Moon
discussion
Does anyone think New Moon is better than Twilight?
date
newest »
newest »
I thought New Moon's plot was better.
I am a professional editor, and I thought that Twilight was better than New Moon. While Twilight certainly could have benefited from a more stringent edit, New Moon reeked of "we've tried to get this out too quickly", with repetition of particular phrases and other very distinct moments of repetition that should have been picked up in a basic line edit. It is, in my opinion, the worst edit of all SM's books thus far.
I liked the series, before the movies came out. But we're not talking about the movies... Twilight made Bella seeem like a horribly boring person until her life suddenly got better when a guy started hanging out with her and watching her sleep because he liked to. Apparently a girl only gets a "great life" when a guy suddenly becomes a part of it. New Moon was better than Twilight, but not by much. Like the movie, the book should have been split in 2. It was a little too long and monotonous. I think I actually had to take a break when reading it because I just got uninterested for a while.
Kelsey wrote: "I liked the series, before the movies came out. But we're not talking about the movies... Twilight made Bella seeem like a horribly boring person until her life suddenly got better when a guy start..."In that this book from a first person point of view, I do think most young girls think they lead a boring life. I'm from a small town, and I remember thinking that there had to be something more exciting than what went on where I lived and what was going on in my life. The feeling and experience of first love does make you feel excited and more alive.
I didn't get the message that life is only great when a guy is part of it, but I do think young love is an amazing experience, and I think that part of the story was captured accurately.
Angie wrote: "In that this book from a first person point of view, I do think most young girls think they lead a boring life. I'm from a small town, and I remember thinking that there had to be something more exciting than what went on where I lived and what was going on in my life. The feeling and experience of first love does make you feel excited and more alive.I didn't get the message that life is only great when a guy is part of it, but I do think young love is an amazing experience, and I think that part of the story was captured accurately. "
I agree. Love always makes you feel more alive and you wonder what you did before that special person came into your life. It always bewilders me when people take that idea and try to make it into a sign of weakness.
I can't agree with that.
Wel, actually, I DO agree with you in the fact that it's confusing when people see love as a sign of weakness. I think it's just that Bella's ENTIRE life revolves around Edward that bothers people. She has no hobbies, no goals, no aspirations whatsoever except to smooch with Edward or be stalked by Edward. Everything must always be Edward. And the fact that there is almost zero chemistry between them. Compare this to Hermione Granger from Harry Potter, who is also in love but does not go insane when Ron leaves her.
But yes, Twilight is a very honest and passionate portrayal of love, and I guess it's hard for me to admit that I liked that aspect of the book. Stephenie Meyer doesn't hold anything back in what she's portraying. When she stops being melodramatic, I can kind of feel the passion and love of Bella and Edward's relationship.
Wel, actually, I DO agree with you in the fact that it's confusing when people see love as a sign of weakness. I think it's just that Bella's ENTIRE life revolves around Edward that bothers people. She has no hobbies, no goals, no aspirations whatsoever except to smooch with Edward or be stalked by Edward. Everything must always be Edward. And the fact that there is almost zero chemistry between them. Compare this to Hermione Granger from Harry Potter, who is also in love but does not go insane when Ron leaves her.
But yes, Twilight is a very honest and passionate portrayal of love, and I guess it's hard for me to admit that I liked that aspect of the book. Stephenie Meyer doesn't hold anything back in what she's portraying. When she stops being melodramatic, I can kind of feel the passion and love of Bella and Edward's relationship.
Most of these things are a question of perspective. For example, it wouldn't be hard for me to find a million (no exaggeration) Twilight fans who would disagree with the statement that there is zero chemistry between them. But I know not everyone sees things the same way. For me, chemistry is a necessity for my enjoyment of this kind of story. I wouldn't have liked it if I thought they didn't have chemistry. Certainly, first love often does drive out thought of all else, and some people honestly don't have a lot of goals. In fact, I think a lot of girls that age don't. I certainly didn't at that age. And it's not like Bella starts Twilight complaining of no love life and desperately waiting for someone to sweep her off her feet. If she had, she would have welcomed Eric Yorkie and Mike Newton's attentions. It's clear, at the start of the story, that she has no interest in a relationship, but the feelings she develops for Edward change that. So she's not just some damsel waiting for a man to make her life worthwhile. It's just that, when the right man came into her life, everything took on a different dimension for her.
Hmm, you're quite right about that. It's hard to argue with that.
Yes, it's very true that many teenagers don't have goals. Maybe it's the fact that Bella is obviously supposed to be a role model, and that she is willing to throw away her entire life for someone she hardly knows comes off as offensive. On the other hand, it can also make her easier to relate to, so I'm not sure.
I think the zero chemistry thing comes from the fact that Bella and Edward both have very little personality. Are they arrogant, shy, charismatic, or what? Bella can be described as "shy" but shy people don't spurn people's attentions like she does. Edward can be described as "mysterious" but that doesn't exactly count as a personality. The zero chemistry thing might also stem from the fact that it seemed very sudden when, out of the blue, Bella said that she was unconditionally and irrevocably in love. If she had gradually eased into the relationship I think people would have found it a lot more plausible. But, like you said, it's a question of perspective.
Yes, it's very true that many teenagers don't have goals. Maybe it's the fact that Bella is obviously supposed to be a role model, and that she is willing to throw away her entire life for someone she hardly knows comes off as offensive. On the other hand, it can also make her easier to relate to, so I'm not sure.
I think the zero chemistry thing comes from the fact that Bella and Edward both have very little personality. Are they arrogant, shy, charismatic, or what? Bella can be described as "shy" but shy people don't spurn people's attentions like she does. Edward can be described as "mysterious" but that doesn't exactly count as a personality. The zero chemistry thing might also stem from the fact that it seemed very sudden when, out of the blue, Bella said that she was unconditionally and irrevocably in love. If she had gradually eased into the relationship I think people would have found it a lot more plausible. But, like you said, it's a question of perspective.
Again, it's a question of perspective. Is Bella throwing away her life? Edward thinks she is, because he considers vampirism a worse fate than death. But is it, really? She can still go on 'living' (for a much, much longer time!) and make something of her life as a vampire. Stephenie Meyer has suggested in some of her writings that Bella will become a teacher. So I don't think her life is being thrown away. We're only seeing one part of it in the books.I also disagree that they have very little personality. Bella is less well defined, as she is supposed to be the vehicle the reader uses to experience the story, but I still learned from the books that she is shy but opinionated, stubborn, has low self esteem, is compassionate, selfless and does what she thinks is right.
I also find Edward one of the most fascinating characters I have ever encountered. Certainly, since Twilight is written from Bella's perspective, I had to pay attention to the nuances in behaviour and dialogue to pick up all the details about him, but I found that he also has low self esteem, like Bella. He's possessive and tends to overreact. He's a control freak, but is selfless, loving, generous, noble and chivalrous.
I didn't think Bella's declaration that she was in love with him was out of the blue. I can see signs of it in the way she is continually drawn to him. And I guess the plausibility of the relationship depends a lot on whether people believe that love can strike you like a thunderbolt. It happened to me, so I can accept it, but it's not everyone's experience.
I know that some people find it difficult to relate to Stephenie Meyer's style, and that's just part of the differences we all have. I read The Hunger Games series, and enjoyed them, but I found Suzanne Collins' style a bit sparse, so they're not something I'd rave about. It's all just different people liking different things.
I have a really bad cold right now and long paragraphs are not working for me so I apologize for tl:dr-ing so many of those posts. However I have to say that New Moon was by FAR the most painful book I've ever finished. Twilight was bad, Eclipse was all right and Breaking Dawn I honestly don't remember the quality of it. But New Moon was soooo sluggishly boring and slow and the dialogue was so unnatural and the constant reference to her damned chest hole made up for all the Edward that we didn't have to read. Finally the constantly repeated descriptors was indeed at an all time high in this one.
@ Lynne
Hmm, I can't really agree with that. For one, Bella's lack of personality was deliberate. Stephenie Meyer has said on her website that she stripped away every character trait so readers could "step into her shoes." The qualities you listed about her tend to fluctuate. She can be opinionated, but she never sticks up for herself against Edward, or when she does the narration makes it clear it's supposed to look "cute." And if she were opinionated, it seems that she would at least have a couple of goals and aspirations. Having low self-esteem...well, in this case, at least in my opinion, it was nothing more than an annoying Sue trait. People have low self esteem for a reason. Take Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter. He's bullied by Snape, he's bullied by the Slytherin house, and he messes up constantly. Bella? She has legions of guys hankering after her. How would that promote low self-esteem? And she doesn't seem too selfless to me. She disregards Mike Newton's feelings for no reason other than that he is inferior, also for no reason. She actually compares him to a golden retriever. That comes off as sociopathic to me if she sees everyone around her as animals unless their names are Charlie, Renee, Jacob, or one of the Cullens.
As for doing what she thinks is right...but does she actually have any opinions on what's right? Except for Renesmee, of course, but I saw that as out of character for two reasons. One, because before in the series not a single word was reserved to show Bella's interest in being a mother, and two, she would definitely make a terrible mother. This is the girl who jumped off a cliff just to hear someone's freaking voice. Drug addiction much?
Yes, I agree that love can strike you like a lightning bolt. But the relationship still felt grossly underdeveloped to me. Bella may have been continually drawn to him...but for what reasons? His good looks. No other reasons but his good looks. The narration also makes this clear from Bella inserting an adjective before every noun referring to Edward, beating the reader over the head with just how hot he is, and even Smeyer raping her thesaurus because she's running out of synonyms for "handsome."
The thunderbolt love thing actually also happened in The Return of the King, if you've ever read it. Faramir fell in love with Eowyn pretty darn fast (within only two pages), but it was plausible to me because one, he had a personality that fit well with Eowyn's, and two, Tolkien makes it very clear that they can relate to each other. But, like you said, it's a matter of perspective. Just to me, the "love" felt fake, shallow, and simply implausible. Edward and Bella have little to nothing in common, know barely anything about each other, and it felt very, very contrived to me. They're in love, in my opinion, because the story says so, not because their character traits say so.
Edward being a fascinating character...well, I can totally see how people would find him fascinating. I can't even imagine how many girls probably daydream every day about some Greek god floating down to them and falling in love. But to me, he was flat, generic, and boring. Perfection bores me to death. He has no flaws (he's even perfect at playing piano, seriously?), and therefore he has no character development. He has no personality besides being perfect, which doesn't count. As for the tortured soul thing...come on, how many times have we seen that before? It's such an overused archetype, especially for romance, I'd thought it was extinct until I read Twilight, and Meyer didn't even put a pinch of effort into trying to make him more original. But, like you said, he can be quite fascinating if you look at it from that perspective.
You do have a good point, though, in Bella throwing away her life. But, once again, it's just a matter of perspective. To me, it was more of the narration that convinced me. The lines like "being vampires didn't look that bad" really annoyed me. She does kind of consider this in Eclipse, though, so I'll give you that.
Hmmm...well, I can't agree on the fact of Stephenie's style. One of the biggest problems I had while reading Twilight was the style. There is no style. There is no flair, no rhythm to her sentences. The sentence structure is absolutely bizarre, the tenses fluctuate, the book suffers from a horrible case of thesaurus rape, and basically whoever the editor was did a really bad job. Everything seems so sloppily thrown together it looks like a patchwork quilt of my old crappy manuscripts from sixth grade. The purple prose is awful, the pacing is so wacky it's like someone keeps poking me in the eye, whether the events are needlessly dragging out or too rushed with too little attention to detail.
I can see, though, how this book can be very addictive, despite the fact that I found it hugely boring. It seems to me that either Twilight sucks you in or it doesn't.
Hmm, I can't really agree with that. For one, Bella's lack of personality was deliberate. Stephenie Meyer has said on her website that she stripped away every character trait so readers could "step into her shoes." The qualities you listed about her tend to fluctuate. She can be opinionated, but she never sticks up for herself against Edward, or when she does the narration makes it clear it's supposed to look "cute." And if she were opinionated, it seems that she would at least have a couple of goals and aspirations. Having low self-esteem...well, in this case, at least in my opinion, it was nothing more than an annoying Sue trait. People have low self esteem for a reason. Take Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter. He's bullied by Snape, he's bullied by the Slytherin house, and he messes up constantly. Bella? She has legions of guys hankering after her. How would that promote low self-esteem? And she doesn't seem too selfless to me. She disregards Mike Newton's feelings for no reason other than that he is inferior, also for no reason. She actually compares him to a golden retriever. That comes off as sociopathic to me if she sees everyone around her as animals unless their names are Charlie, Renee, Jacob, or one of the Cullens.
As for doing what she thinks is right...but does she actually have any opinions on what's right? Except for Renesmee, of course, but I saw that as out of character for two reasons. One, because before in the series not a single word was reserved to show Bella's interest in being a mother, and two, she would definitely make a terrible mother. This is the girl who jumped off a cliff just to hear someone's freaking voice. Drug addiction much?
Yes, I agree that love can strike you like a lightning bolt. But the relationship still felt grossly underdeveloped to me. Bella may have been continually drawn to him...but for what reasons? His good looks. No other reasons but his good looks. The narration also makes this clear from Bella inserting an adjective before every noun referring to Edward, beating the reader over the head with just how hot he is, and even Smeyer raping her thesaurus because she's running out of synonyms for "handsome."
The thunderbolt love thing actually also happened in The Return of the King, if you've ever read it. Faramir fell in love with Eowyn pretty darn fast (within only two pages), but it was plausible to me because one, he had a personality that fit well with Eowyn's, and two, Tolkien makes it very clear that they can relate to each other. But, like you said, it's a matter of perspective. Just to me, the "love" felt fake, shallow, and simply implausible. Edward and Bella have little to nothing in common, know barely anything about each other, and it felt very, very contrived to me. They're in love, in my opinion, because the story says so, not because their character traits say so.
Edward being a fascinating character...well, I can totally see how people would find him fascinating. I can't even imagine how many girls probably daydream every day about some Greek god floating down to them and falling in love. But to me, he was flat, generic, and boring. Perfection bores me to death. He has no flaws (he's even perfect at playing piano, seriously?), and therefore he has no character development. He has no personality besides being perfect, which doesn't count. As for the tortured soul thing...come on, how many times have we seen that before? It's such an overused archetype, especially for romance, I'd thought it was extinct until I read Twilight, and Meyer didn't even put a pinch of effort into trying to make him more original. But, like you said, he can be quite fascinating if you look at it from that perspective.
You do have a good point, though, in Bella throwing away her life. But, once again, it's just a matter of perspective. To me, it was more of the narration that convinced me. The lines like "being vampires didn't look that bad" really annoyed me. She does kind of consider this in Eclipse, though, so I'll give you that.
Hmmm...well, I can't agree on the fact of Stephenie's style. One of the biggest problems I had while reading Twilight was the style. There is no style. There is no flair, no rhythm to her sentences. The sentence structure is absolutely bizarre, the tenses fluctuate, the book suffers from a horrible case of thesaurus rape, and basically whoever the editor was did a really bad job. Everything seems so sloppily thrown together it looks like a patchwork quilt of my old crappy manuscripts from sixth grade. The purple prose is awful, the pacing is so wacky it's like someone keeps poking me in the eye, whether the events are needlessly dragging out or too rushed with too little attention to detail.
I can see, though, how this book can be very addictive, despite the fact that I found it hugely boring. It seems to me that either Twilight sucks you in or it doesn't.
Stephenie Meyer has said herself (and I agree wholeheartedly) that Edward is very flawed. The only thing perfect about him is his looks. Certainly, Bella finds it hard to see his faults, as she is in love with him, but he is clearly insecure, uncertain and tends to overreact. He is negative and pessimistic. He has a temper. He swings too far one way and then swings back too far the other way. He's far from perfect.Now, I'll be the first to admit that some of the descriptive passages about Edward's looks should have hit the cutting room floor. However, at least it is relevant to the plot, as vampires in SM's world are supposed to look amazingly beautiful. So there is a reason for it.
In my previous comment I pointed out that Bella is a vehicle for the reader, and is less well defined, but that doesn't mean she has no personality. And why does a person have to talk about the joys of motherhood continually to be considered a good mother? Does it follow that every woman who does not show mothering tendencies before they have a child will not be a good mother? And, in fact, Bella does show caregiving tendencies, as she has looked after her parents - her mother she looked after for years, and we see her caring for her father in the books. These a good mothering traits.
Yes, Bella jumped off a cliff to hear Edward's voice, but remember that this was a cliff that was a popular for cliff diving. Jake was going to take her there himself before he had to run off with his wolf pack. The only thing that made it so dangerous on this occasion was that the weather had turned bad. Bella didn't notice that. And I think there are a few people out there who enjoy high adrenaline sports. These can be very dangerous. Is someone unfit to become a mother because they skydive?
You're right. Two pages is very fast. I might have had trouble buying that. I don't know, because I haven't read the book. Obviously, though, Faramir and Eowyn's love has connected with you. You may not see it in Twilight, but many people, like me, have seen Edward and Bella's love very clearly. And that doesn't say anything about you or us other than that the book isn't appealing to you, but we 'get' it.
Considering this was SM's first novel ever (my first novel ended up in the rubbish bin where it belonged) there were going to be some rough edges. These should have been picked up in editing. However, I disagree with the harshness of your assessment. I am a professional editor. There are some things I would change if I had edited Twilight, but I have no problem with the rhythm and structure in the majority of her sentences. I would have cut down some of the excess adjectives and taken out a couple of descriptive passages, and I find the passion that is behind it is enough to carry me through, although this is clearly not the case with everybody.
Wow, I'd never thought of it that way. I guess I rushed into my commentary too fast and based it too much on opinions. Sorry about that.
The two pages romance thing...yeah, I would have not bought it either, but I was able to believe it because one, it happened over the course of several months, two, because the Lord of the Rings is a lot more plot-driven, in which case you have to excuse the characters because it's the plot that matters more. Three because I could clearly see the chemistry, while with Bella and Edward I found it very vague. I'm glad you were able to find something worth reading about in their relationship, though.
As for the bad writing though, I still have to disagree. There is a line between having your own creative style and just plain bad writing. In New Moon I stumbled upon one of the worst sentences I'd ever seen:
Aro started to laugh. "Ha, ha, ha," he chuckled.
That's three times Meyer told us he laughed. Three times, in nine words. Most people know what laughing sounds like, so the extra "ha, ha," and "he chuckled" does nothing to enhance the imagery or other sensory details of the scene. It just adds padding. I am not a professional editor, so I have much less experience and knowledge than you do, but I simply could not believe what I was reading when I saw that.
There is also this sentence:
The look she leveled at me was a glare.
This whole thing could be condensed down to "she glared at me." If glares were anything but level it would have been stated, like "she glared DOWN at me" or "she glared UP at me." The way it's written makes it sound melodramatic and far more complicated than it should be.
Then there's this sentence, a sentence that completely bewildered me:
I was wearing my favorite shirt--sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture.
That's not bad grammar or anything, but the semicolon looks awkward and out of place. Maybe Twilight is a debut novel, but this is a newbie mistake I made while writing my awful, awful book in seventh grade. Meyer has supposedly studied English literature in college.
But yes, I can see how the style can work for some people. I can see how it's addictive and compelling. Either you hate it or you like it.
The two pages romance thing...yeah, I would have not bought it either, but I was able to believe it because one, it happened over the course of several months, two, because the Lord of the Rings is a lot more plot-driven, in which case you have to excuse the characters because it's the plot that matters more. Three because I could clearly see the chemistry, while with Bella and Edward I found it very vague. I'm glad you were able to find something worth reading about in their relationship, though.
As for the bad writing though, I still have to disagree. There is a line between having your own creative style and just plain bad writing. In New Moon I stumbled upon one of the worst sentences I'd ever seen:
Aro started to laugh. "Ha, ha, ha," he chuckled.
That's three times Meyer told us he laughed. Three times, in nine words. Most people know what laughing sounds like, so the extra "ha, ha," and "he chuckled" does nothing to enhance the imagery or other sensory details of the scene. It just adds padding. I am not a professional editor, so I have much less experience and knowledge than you do, but I simply could not believe what I was reading when I saw that.
There is also this sentence:
The look she leveled at me was a glare.
This whole thing could be condensed down to "she glared at me." If glares were anything but level it would have been stated, like "she glared DOWN at me" or "she glared UP at me." The way it's written makes it sound melodramatic and far more complicated than it should be.
Then there's this sentence, a sentence that completely bewildered me:
I was wearing my favorite shirt--sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture.
That's not bad grammar or anything, but the semicolon looks awkward and out of place. Maybe Twilight is a debut novel, but this is a newbie mistake I made while writing my awful, awful book in seventh grade. Meyer has supposedly studied English literature in college.
But yes, I can see how the style can work for some people. I can see how it's addictive and compelling. Either you hate it or you like it.
New Moon is my second favorite of the series. It was a lot better than the first book. I loved all the emotion and anxiety. I loved the insanity and self torture.
It was just a lot more emotional and engaging.
Melodrama is my thing.
I prefer Twilight more than New Moon.I was getting quite bored while reading it and kept hoping that Edward would appear in the next chapter. I can't stand Jacob. He just gets in the way.
Aro started to laugh. "Ha, ha, ha," he chuckled.That's three times Meyer told us he laughed. Three times, in nine words. Most people know what laughing sounds like, so the extra "ha, ha," and "he chuckled" does nothing to enhance the imagery or other sensory details of the scene. It just adds padding. I am not a professional editor, so I have much less experience and knowledge than you do, but I simply could not believe what I was reading when I saw that.
Like I said when I first commented in this section, I thought that New Moon had the sloppiest edit of all the books. This is a prime example. However, I can see that she's using the 'he chuckled' as a form of description such as 'he said', so I can understand its inclusion. Also, the first phrase is not 'Aro laughs' but that he started to laugh. She then gives us the laugh, describing it more as a chuckle. Too much? Probably. I would have recommended a change if I'd been editor, but it is only one line.
This whole thing could be condensed down to "she glared at me." If glares were anything but level it would have been stated, like "she glared DOWN at me" or "she glared UP at me." The way it's written makes it sound melodramatic and far more complicated than it should be
I'm sure this arises from every author's desire to say things just that little bit differently from everyone else. Finding a way to word things that sounds fresh and original is always a challenge. I don't think this one is that bad. Believe me, I've seen some doosies in my business!
I was wearing my favorite shirt--sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture.
That's not bad grammar or anything, but the semicolon looks awkward and out of place. Maybe Twilight is a debut novel, but this is a newbie mistake I made while writing my awful, awful book in seventh grade. Meyer has supposedly studied English literature in college.
Perhaps a full stop would have been better in that instance, but I don't think it's that big a deal. What she has done is, as you pointed out yourself, grammatically correct. So it's not really a mistake. And writing styles are so different these days, whether SM's degree had helped her much would probably depend on exactly what she studied. Also, no matter how much you read, translating that into good writing is a bit more difficult.
I guess. I can see where you're coming from. I suppose our preferences to the point when it becomes less of a matter of writing style and more of a matter of plain bad writing are different.
I think the main problem I have with Meyer's writing is her imagery. Sometimes she'll just press the pause button on the action, ramble on about the amazing godlike beauty of some random vampire the reader doesn't care about, then go on. I guess I don't like Meyer's overcomplicated style because it does nothing but add padding, at least in my view. I like it more when the author gets straight to the point instead of either a) dancing around the central focus, or b) repeating it over and over again rather than moving on. Have you ever read the Percy Jackson series? But again, it's just personal preference. I found the PJO series to have a kind of snappy flair and rhythm I wished I could see in Meyer's style.
I guess I just really disliked it because it felt like she was trying to imitate Jane Austen. If you look closer you can definitely see the similarities in a lot of stuff: plot, characters, writing style. Mimicking another's writing style will usually fail, and to me it came off as melodramatic and stilted. But I'm glad you found more enjoyment in it than I did, maybe I was being too particular, or maybe I expected too much from all the hype.
Otherwise I have to admit Meyer has an amazing way with words, the way she writes so fluidly and beautifully when she isn't smacking the reader over the head with Edward's dazzling perfection. I certainly hope I could write like that when I grow up, since I aspire to be an author.
I think the main problem I have with Meyer's writing is her imagery. Sometimes she'll just press the pause button on the action, ramble on about the amazing godlike beauty of some random vampire the reader doesn't care about, then go on. I guess I don't like Meyer's overcomplicated style because it does nothing but add padding, at least in my view. I like it more when the author gets straight to the point instead of either a) dancing around the central focus, or b) repeating it over and over again rather than moving on. Have you ever read the Percy Jackson series? But again, it's just personal preference. I found the PJO series to have a kind of snappy flair and rhythm I wished I could see in Meyer's style.
I guess I just really disliked it because it felt like she was trying to imitate Jane Austen. If you look closer you can definitely see the similarities in a lot of stuff: plot, characters, writing style. Mimicking another's writing style will usually fail, and to me it came off as melodramatic and stilted. But I'm glad you found more enjoyment in it than I did, maybe I was being too particular, or maybe I expected too much from all the hype.
Otherwise I have to admit Meyer has an amazing way with words, the way she writes so fluidly and beautifully when she isn't smacking the reader over the head with Edward's dazzling perfection. I certainly hope I could write like that when I grow up, since I aspire to be an author.
IT WAS WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:()!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I make my point clear?
LOL Blueturtles, you definitely did.
To each their own. :) I was talking more about the writing than the plot or character development, though.
To each their own. :) I was talking more about the writing than the plot or character development, though.
I disagree that SM's style is like Jane Austen's. I don't like Austen's style very much, although I have enjoyed a couple of her books. Austen did more telling than showing. SM's writing is most definitely showing over telling, which I enjoy more. She does write fluidly and with passion, which reminds me more of the Brontes (although there are still distinct differences) whereas Austen seems stiff and formal by comparison.
Maybe. I, personally, loved Jane Austen's style. I guess it was more of her sense of humor than the actual way she wrote. Maybe she did tell instead of show, but so did SM. She told us that Bella didn't relate well to others her age. She told us that she and Charlie were not "verbose." She told us personality traits instead of effectively using narration and POV to portray those traits.
I will say that SM significantly improves her writing with each book she puts out. She improves vastly on the show, don't tell area, so I guess I could excuse that.
I think most of the similarity I see between SM and Austen isn't only the writing style (it's not THAT similar, just a little, and she drops this the further she writes), it's the characters. SM clearly wanted Bella to be like Elizabeth Bennett. Vivacious, spirited, strong, yet nothing particularly special. That seems to be the way she portrays Bella anyway, and SM has said herself that the first book of Twilight is loosely based on Pride and Prejudice.
I've never read any Bronte except for bits and pieces of Jane Eyre, and I do agree that Bronte's writing is much more fluid and passionate than Austen. But you do have to remember that P&P is a satire, not about the MC angsting about whatever situation she's found herself in. I think Meyer was trying to, as gracefully as possible, combine the writing styles and passion of the classics she liked.
I will say that SM significantly improves her writing with each book she puts out. She improves vastly on the show, don't tell area, so I guess I could excuse that.
I think most of the similarity I see between SM and Austen isn't only the writing style (it's not THAT similar, just a little, and she drops this the further she writes), it's the characters. SM clearly wanted Bella to be like Elizabeth Bennett. Vivacious, spirited, strong, yet nothing particularly special. That seems to be the way she portrays Bella anyway, and SM has said herself that the first book of Twilight is loosely based on Pride and Prejudice.
I've never read any Bronte except for bits and pieces of Jane Eyre, and I do agree that Bronte's writing is much more fluid and passionate than Austen. But you do have to remember that P&P is a satire, not about the MC angsting about whatever situation she's found herself in. I think Meyer was trying to, as gracefully as possible, combine the writing styles and passion of the classics she liked.
I think New Moon is the worst book in the whole series.
Yes, but the similar elements between the two stories are also shared by countless other stories. As my publisher often says, there are only about seven stories in existence anyway, and all stories follow those seven storylines to some degree.Writing can still be fluid in a satire. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed books like P&P and Sense and Sensibility, but I always felt a bit frustrated when reading Austen.
Oh! I was talking about the passion part of the writing in satire. I do agree that Austen can be very stiff sometimes. I meant that satire is not the type of writing that is designed to move you to emotion, as Meyer and Bronte's writing is, it's the type of writing that is supposed to be witty and thought provoking, to put different perspectives in a satirical light.
I misworded that. I meant that Meyer felt as though book 1 was a modern version of P&P. She kind of associated her story with it, I guess you could say. Edward being all gentlemanly, like Mr. Dray, etc.
I do agree with you a bit on Austen, though. Now that I think of it, I both love and dislike her style. Love because of her sense of humor and use of irony, dislike because of how stiff and jarring her writing can be. I think it depends on how you decide whether the negative and positive aspects overshadow each other.
I misworded that. I meant that Meyer felt as though book 1 was a modern version of P&P. She kind of associated her story with it, I guess you could say. Edward being all gentlemanly, like Mr. Dray, etc.
I do agree with you a bit on Austen, though. Now that I think of it, I both love and dislike her style. Love because of her sense of humor and use of irony, dislike because of how stiff and jarring her writing can be. I think it depends on how you decide whether the negative and positive aspects overshadow each other.
No, I thought that New Moon was the worst book in the sereis- Bella just spends so long pining after him, it's unbelievable. I used to love the Twlight books...but now I really dislike them :)
GeOrG!a :) wrote: "No, I thought that New Moon was the worst book in the sereis- Bella just spends so long pining after him, it's unbelievable. I used to love the Twlight books...but now I really dislike them :)"
I agree with the first part. New Moon really does suck.
I agree with the first part. New Moon really does suck.
It's true that Bella got really annoying as a zombie. I guess though (and heads up to any Twilight fans, you may find this offensive even though I do not mean it that way) I found three main things torturous about Bella's internal monologue: Bella whining her head off, Bella's refusal to not have her lips so firmly pressed to Edward's sparkly ass, and Bella describing Edward over. And over. And OVER again. Since two of those are Edward, once he got kicked out of the book I only had to deal with one form of torture rather than three.
But it's just personal preference. XD
But it's just personal preference. XD
Jocelyn wrote: "Bella whining her head off, Bella's refusal to not have her lips so firmly pressed to Edward's sparkly ass, and Bella describing Edward over. And over. And OVER again. Since two of those are Edward, once he got kicked out of the book I only had to deal with one form of torture rather than three. "
Normally this is how I'd have felt but the "hole" in Bella's chest was so much worse than the insipid trifecta that I really couldn't wait for Edward to come back so she'd shut up.
Like giving a toy to a screaming baby.
I personally think that New Moon was better than twilight. With Edward out of the picture the book had more room to explore other topics rather than rotate around Edward and the other vampires.
I think New Moon was much better than Twilight. The editing was not the best, but still the plot was much more interesting and we see Bella can do different things than just be with Edward. The addition of werewolves was very cool and made the series much better.
I think NM was much better than Twilight. This is actually my favorite book in the entire series to be honest. There's just something about the way Stepheine wrote this book that made it my favorite.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Plot wise, New Moon was better, it did at least have something going on. But Bella's just whiny on everything.