Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
I'm not sure which comments are directed to me anymore and which are not, but I just want to clarify that I have not called a single person a "hater". Not even once.
Waiting in line so long isn't really too different from all the fans. She just did it for an opposite reason.
I do think it's normal that she would want to see Meyer in person and ask her, face to face, how Meyer felt on the antifeminist thing. Maybe it's a bit unusual to wait so long to see a celebrity she doesn't like, but it's not horribly weird. A girl named Heather Faust, who was a fan of Twilight that was disappointed in Breaking Dawn, did a similar thing, except it was a letter, and it was to Seth instead of Stephenie Meyer.
Yes, I would be saying the same thing if it happened to JK Rowling. When have I ever shown that I was biased in favor of Rowling? If Rowling behaved like an immature, self-absorbed brat, I wouldn't like her either. I would still like her books, but I would dislike her as a person. If someone went in line to Rowling's signing, asked why her characters were stereotypes/archetypes (I'm using a common argument against HP's characters, btw), and Rowling ignored her and threw a tantrum about it outside the signing, I'd certainly be annoyed at that.
All right, maybe demanding someone if they were ashamed of themselves is a little rude. I certainly wouldn't be too pleased if someone did that to me. But Meyer still should have handled it more maturely. I feel no sympathy for her, seeing as she still has millions of fans. So why is she so insecure that she has to announce this entire thing to the world? Just one person comes up to her and says she doesn't like her books, and Meyer throws a fit about it?
I do think it's normal that she would want to see Meyer in person and ask her, face to face, how Meyer felt on the antifeminist thing. Maybe it's a bit unusual to wait so long to see a celebrity she doesn't like, but it's not horribly weird. A girl named Heather Faust, who was a fan of Twilight that was disappointed in Breaking Dawn, did a similar thing, except it was a letter, and it was to Seth instead of Stephenie Meyer.
Yes, I would be saying the same thing if it happened to JK Rowling. When have I ever shown that I was biased in favor of Rowling? If Rowling behaved like an immature, self-absorbed brat, I wouldn't like her either. I would still like her books, but I would dislike her as a person. If someone went in line to Rowling's signing, asked why her characters were stereotypes/archetypes (I'm using a common argument against HP's characters, btw), and Rowling ignored her and threw a tantrum about it outside the signing, I'd certainly be annoyed at that.
All right, maybe demanding someone if they were ashamed of themselves is a little rude. I certainly wouldn't be too pleased if someone did that to me. But Meyer still should have handled it more maturely. I feel no sympathy for her, seeing as she still has millions of fans. So why is she so insecure that she has to announce this entire thing to the world? Just one person comes up to her and says she doesn't like her books, and Meyer throws a fit about it?
Well, I consider writing a letter to Seth a lot more normal than waiting in the cold for hours to ask a rude, snyde question. I'm not suggesting that all people who don't love everything about Stephenie and Twilight should have no contact with her. I'm just saying be more civilized about it, and if you're not, don't be too surprised when you're ignored.
You keep saying Stephenie Meyer threw a tantrum. What are you talking about?
I didn't say you were biased. It was just a question.
Sorry. Once again, I exaggerated.
Meyer didn't throw a tantrum. But, at least in my view, she comes off as a bit whiny. Kind of like, "omg, people actually dislike my books? Who knew? They are so odd." Like she can't understand the reasons people dislike her books, and because of that she thinks they're weird.
Heather Faust sent it to Seth because Seth is the one who controls Meyer's website and email. Literally. He deletes all the hate mail, and even some of the fan mail. Maybe that's why the girl felt compelled to see Meyer in person, because if she tried to mail it to Meyer there was a 99.99% chance that Meyer would not read it, or maybe even not receive it. If Seth even deletes the FAN mail, the girl shouldn't expect too much by doing it in a more "civilized" way either. And this is also an assumption, but I have heard from many Twilight fans that Meyer never seems to directly answer questions from her fans. She just answers with a yes or a thank you. This may not be true, I don't know because I've never met Meyer before. The girl might have heard this rumor and felt a bit more of a need to make it clear to Meyer that she was serious when she was asking her question. Maybe she went a little overboard, but I think it was at least a little understandable.
Meyer didn't throw a tantrum. But, at least in my view, she comes off as a bit whiny. Kind of like, "omg, people actually dislike my books? Who knew? They are so odd." Like she can't understand the reasons people dislike her books, and because of that she thinks they're weird.
Heather Faust sent it to Seth because Seth is the one who controls Meyer's website and email. Literally. He deletes all the hate mail, and even some of the fan mail. Maybe that's why the girl felt compelled to see Meyer in person, because if she tried to mail it to Meyer there was a 99.99% chance that Meyer would not read it, or maybe even not receive it. If Seth even deletes the FAN mail, the girl shouldn't expect too much by doing it in a more "civilized" way either. And this is also an assumption, but I have heard from many Twilight fans that Meyer never seems to directly answer questions from her fans. She just answers with a yes or a thank you. This may not be true, I don't know because I've never met Meyer before. The girl might have heard this rumor and felt a bit more of a need to make it clear to Meyer that she was serious when she was asking her question. Maybe she went a little overboard, but I think it was at least a little understandable.
Gerd wrote: "At best, it could be construed that the girl "hated" twilight - she simply dislikes the course Meyer took with the characters in her book. Again, for all those out there that can't tell the difference: This is not expressing an hatred! As an author she should rather wonder what she might have done wrong, when readers get a (felt) wrong impression.Yes, the way she posed the question was impolite, and few authors would like to be asked if they are not ashamed of their writing - if they really were they wouldn't have put it out in the world, so, on top of impolite it's a unnecessary question - but being confrontational is not the same as showing "hatred" to somebody or something.
Really, this whole accusing everyone that dares to confront certain parts of the novel as "hater" is starting to annoy me.
What's wrong with you people that you can't understand your own language?"
Hater is descriptive, it is not a derogatory term like twitard. The word hater has undergone a change in recent times as far as connotations. It can be used in a specific instances to describe a person who hates something, but it can also be used to describe a specific mindset that is general and indicative to the person. In the latter instance, that person's hatred is considered to be more a symptom of a problem they have than something telling about the object of their fury. (This is the 'haters are gonna hate' variety, the focus is on what kind of payoff the hater gets and not his specific objections.)
What separates the hater from the non-fan is (as I've said before) the amount of hysteria displayed. As part of any society, there are going to be things that you don't like. I don't like Star Trek, but I'm not a hater of Star Trek. I don't call fans derogatory names or say the books/movies should be burned. I don't think it's the end of Western Civilization that it exists. If people enjoy it, it's not really up to me to judge that. It's the lack of civility and perspective and maturity that defines a hater.
I always go back to this example, but it was the first instance I remember of this closed perspective that is becoming more prevalent. If you remember in the U.S. in the mid-90's, there was this huge explosion of hatred directed at the purple dinosaur character, Barney. He was a character that was popular with little kids, much like Big Bird or Elmo and the haters were, by and large, teens and adults. My English teacher hated Barney and would sing his theme song in class (you know, 'I love you, you love me, we're a happy family...'). This hatred was widespread and at the height of it, there was a stadium of people who cheered while someone in a Barney costume was attacked. I think that was when I first noticed that the culture started changing so that nearly all entertainment (even those that were directed at small children) had to appeal to adult sensibilities. If you look at Disney movies, you can see that the older stuff is geared entirely to children, with a child's sensibility in mind in contrast to now, where much of it goes over their heads. It's a bit like the prevalence of fractured fairy tales.
I think that this shows a general trend toward defining yourself by a hatred of something rather than a love of something. Is there a difference between spending your time being a fan of Green Day than being a hater of Mariah Carey? I think that it's healthier to define yourself as something rather than defining yourself as against something. Martin Luther King Jr, for instance, was more defined by his love than by his hatred. That doesn't mean that he wasn't against things, but that his focus was not on hating. He wasn't self-defined negatively, whereas the Toronto girl was acting more on her hatred.
Mickey wrote: "What separates the hater from the non-fan is (as I've said before) the amount of hysteria displayed."
Exactly. I just wanted to ask, is Twitard really such a derogatory term? I mean, it is. I won't deny that. If I was a Twilight fan, and someone called me a Twitard, I'd be thoroughly insulted. But aren't Twitards used to refer to the rabid fans, not just fans in general? Like the fans that cut their necks and ask Robert Pattinson to suck their blood? Just like what separates a non-fan and hater is the amount of hysteria displayed, like you said, the same thing applies to the difference between a fan and a, excuse the term, Twitard.
I don't think the Toronto girl was acting out of hatred, though. It seemed more like she was acting out of curiosity. Like she thought, if I wore my heart on my sleeve just for a few seconds in front of Stephenie Meyer, what would she say? Something like that.
Exactly. I just wanted to ask, is Twitard really such a derogatory term? I mean, it is. I won't deny that. If I was a Twilight fan, and someone called me a Twitard, I'd be thoroughly insulted. But aren't Twitards used to refer to the rabid fans, not just fans in general? Like the fans that cut their necks and ask Robert Pattinson to suck their blood? Just like what separates a non-fan and hater is the amount of hysteria displayed, like you said, the same thing applies to the difference between a fan and a, excuse the term, Twitard.
I don't think the Toronto girl was acting out of hatred, though. It seemed more like she was acting out of curiosity. Like she thought, if I wore my heart on my sleeve just for a few seconds in front of Stephenie Meyer, what would she say? Something like that.
Cassie wrote: "Nothing, really. But Jocelyn is a fan, so I ask to present the same exact situation, but from a non-hate filled perspective."
I don't hate Twilight 100%. I found many things to dislike about it, such as overuse of Deus Ex Machina, thin plotting, overall lack of story structure, lack of real conflict, archetypes, stereotypes, Mary Sues, and generic plot elements, as well as blatant ripoffs of Austen and Shakespare. But there are still positive aspects of Twilight, or at least positive aspects in my view. For one, it is a very honest portrayal of first love, very passionate and real despite how much I disliked it. The first book was horribly and sloppily written, but then Meyer surprised me with astonishing improvement on the overall flow and emotion of the writing with every new book she put out, as long as Edward wasn't around for her to abuse her thesaurus. It's very fluid and passionate, almost graceful in a way, and sometimes even quite poetic.
I don't consider myself to "hate" Twilight. I strongly dislike it, more like. But I don't think it's complete and utter crap.
I don't hate Twilight 100%. I found many things to dislike about it, such as overuse of Deus Ex Machina, thin plotting, overall lack of story structure, lack of real conflict, archetypes, stereotypes, Mary Sues, and generic plot elements, as well as blatant ripoffs of Austen and Shakespare. But there are still positive aspects of Twilight, or at least positive aspects in my view. For one, it is a very honest portrayal of first love, very passionate and real despite how much I disliked it. The first book was horribly and sloppily written, but then Meyer surprised me with astonishing improvement on the overall flow and emotion of the writing with every new book she put out, as long as Edward wasn't around for her to abuse her thesaurus. It's very fluid and passionate, almost graceful in a way, and sometimes even quite poetic.
I don't consider myself to "hate" Twilight. I strongly dislike it, more like. But I don't think it's complete and utter crap.
@JocelynAgain, Stephenie did not say that it was odd that someone didn't like her book... She thought it was odd that someone would wait in the cold for hours just to tell her.
It doesn't bother me that Stephenie doesn't read all her letters, fan mail or hate mail. I don't think any public figure outside of politics should be oblicated to read all their mail. Especially if they get so much. But that's just me.
2nd comment
Twitard means Twilight Retard. It doesn't matter if a fan is "rabid" (though I still doubt they have rabies) or obsessed or over the top. That does not constitute calling someone a retard when they are not mentally retarded. There are real mentally retarded people in the world, and using "retard" as a term to ridicule people is just all around disrespectful.
3rd
Congratulations.
Cassie wrote: "(“The worst I can remember happened at my appearance in Toronto. A girl (who must have sat in line all day to get the seat she had) asked during the Q&A how I could write such an antifeminist main character and if I wasn’t ashamed of myself for letting young girls read my misogynist works. I don’t get that. I mean, I’ve gotten that question from reporters and seen it online various places, and I think I can defend myself ably. What I don’t get is why you would come out to a signing for an author you hated, let alone stand out in the cold all day to get in. People are odd.”) - persephone magazine"I wouldn't even consider this an honest question, but an unnecessarily rude statement of opinion. There's an embedded accusation in there which assumes the actual question (which Meyer's already answered and posted on her website). This girl's parents obviously haven't raised her right if she thinks that's appropriate.
I'm going to apologize in advance if I repeat someone else's sentiments. I read maybe seven responses on the front page and just couldn't go through all six pages. Yeesh! Lol.It always amazes me to hear such extreme opinions from Twi-haters (sorry, but anyone who is incessantly vocal about their dislike for something is a hater). One opinion in particular that gives me a double take is the "anti-feminist" argument. I'll agree that Twilight is written poorly and that not everyone will get a kick out of it, but to come up with such outlandish views of a silly teen romance... wow. Sometimes I think people take up these arguments just so they will have a legitimate reason to gripe.
Anyhoo, my opinion is that most people who stick around to hate something just have nothing better to do. I know this won't be a popular opinion, but as someone who has hate for a few books herself and doesn't feel the need to diminish the fun others have, I can see no other motive than to share misery. It does not make sense.
Mickey wrote: I wouldn't even consider this an honest question, but an unnecessarily rude statement of opinion. There's an embedded accusation in there which assumes the actual question (which Meyer's already answered and posted on her website). This girl's parents obviously haven't raised her right if she thinks that's appropriateI agree that there are ways and means to ask questions - and if this young girl did come out and ask the question in the way it has been written above that was rude. However, as previously mentioned people in this modern world no longer have the conception of manners and common courtsey that many of us were brought up to respect. How much media do we see that provides a bad influence after all?
Dorothy wrote:sorry, but anyone who is incessantly vocal about their dislike for something is a hater
This has already been covered in great depth - with the basic gist being if you call someone a hater it is the equivalent of you being called a Twihard or similar. Still everyone has thier own definition of different words - I just think it a strange one as I doubt you would apply it say political rallys or protests.
Taking this thread in its entirety - I think this has been the most enlightening of Twilight topics - it has made me reconsider a number of my favourite books. For example - Gone with the Wind features a relationship which is arguably as 'bad' as that of Edward and Bellas but I have very rarely heard that relationship being criticised. This is my main reason for participating in these threads to have someone challenge points of view in such a way that you might consider something which you might not normally.
Dorothy wrote: "I'm going to apologize in advance if I repeat someone else's sentiments. I read maybe seven responses on the front page and just couldn't go through all six pages. Yeesh! Lol.It always amazes me ..."
Great post, Dorothy!
Carina wrote: "Taking this thread in its entirety - I think this has been the most enlightening of Twilight topics - it has made me reconsider a number of my favourite books. For example - Gone with the Wind features a relationship which is arguably as 'bad' as that of Edward and Bellas but I have very rarely heard that relationship being criticised. This is my main reason for participating in these threads to have someone challenge points of view in such a way that you might consider something which you might not normally."I never read "Gone with the Wind" (I found it quite hard to get through the whole superficialities portrayed in the characters in the first chapter), but I have heard on a few occasions that it isn't a romantic novel at all, right down to alluding to a rape scene between the "Hero" and the "Heroine", so yes, there is critical assessment of the novel.
Just not very much so among its devoted fans.
Gerd wrote: "I never read "Gone with the Wind" (I found it quite hard to get through the whole superficialities portrayed in the characters in the first chapter), but I have heard on a few occasions that it isn't a romantic novel at all, right down to alluding to a rape scene between the "Hero" and the "Heroine", so yes, there is critical assessment of the novel.Just not very much so among its devoted fans"
I think it is that I know no-one else who has read the book and am a new member to this site (and have never been on any other sites) so have never experienced the discussion. But it has made me think - why is just this book (Twilight) that gets heavy and obvious criticism and not a book which basically supports rape (the film version shows Scarlett being very 'content' after this). I have had to come to the conclusion that it is the popularity of Twilight that makes it more 'popular' to criticise. Perhaps in a few years when the popularity has died down then so will the criticism.
Carina wrote: "I have had to come to the conclusion that it is the popularity of Twilight that makes it more 'popular' to criticise. Perhaps in a few years when the popularity has died down then so will the criticism."It's for one the huge popularity that twilight enjoys which naturally invites attacks, and also that it is written for YA’s, with a lower end audience in mind. The fact that the huge success of twilight seems to have paved the way for a following of much worse YA titles certainly doesn't help either. :)
Thing is that a lot of the stuff people critizise in the twilight series is pretty common fare in so called Romance.
Gerd wrote: "It's for one the huge popularity that twilight enjoys which naturally invites attacks, and also that it is written for YA’s, with a lower end audience in mind. The fact that the huge success of twilight seems to have paved the way for a following of much worse YA titles certainly doesn't help either. :)Thing is that a lot of the stuff people critizise in the twilight series is pretty common fare in so called Romance.
"
That is certinaly true - before I read the second Twilight book I really enjoyed a series of books by Christine Feehan where the Carpathians only became "vampires" if they didn't find thier soul mate - the person who 'kept thier darkness at bay'. In all of the books I read the women had very little choice in the matter - if they were "the one" they *had* to be with the Carpathian. It wasn't until I read about imprinting and thought how horrible and creepy that was that I recognised the same aspect within Feehans novels.
Carina wrote: "This has already been covered in great depth - with the basic gist being if you call someone a hater it is the equivalent of you being called a Twihard or similar. Still everyone has thier own definition of different words - I just think it a strange one as I doubt you would apply it say political rallys or protests. "Well... I am a Twihard, lol. That's the fandom name for Twilight fans, isn't it? I don't know. I can never keep up.
You're right. I wouldn't apply it to a political rally, but politics and fantasy novels are so incredibly different. Politicians can either help or royally screw up in office. Rallies are designed to create momentum and sway voters so the "best" candidate is chosen. I call book haters just that because they are trying to create a negative sway for no other reason than to ruin the fun had by others. That's not to say someone can't dislike something and talk about it. I do that constantly. But to harp on something that has no real impact is pointless.
Mickey wrote: "Great post, Dorothy! "Thanks :)
Peace wrote: "what the diff between the whole twi saga, HP,and some others book that out there?"I think Twilight is so widely hated because of its popularity combined with how poorly it's written. Harry Potter is mostly loved because of this amazing world JKR created, and those who don't love it don't care because it is well written. Same with other books. Twilight has sparkly vamps and the word "chagrin" about fifty billion times. It gives people a reason.
There's also something to be said for Twi-fans. There are some pretty crazy ones. Honestly, I think the whole thing comes down to "bandwagon" syndrome. Someone got really excited about Twilight, so someone else did and then someone else, and then, "OMG! TWILIGHT IS THE BEST EVAR!"
Conversely, someone on the first page mentioned hating Twilight and then hating it more and more after every hate post she found online. It's mob mentality at its best.
Peace wrote: "but if eveyone just post everything about, not like the book or movie, type of thing? "What do you mean?
Honestly, I have no idea. As far as obsessions go, I have a two-sided opinion. I think obsessions that bring you happiness, like book or movie franchises, are awesome. Obsessions that breed negativity are a waste of time and energy. But people can't help themselves. It's human nature, I guess.(I really hope I responded correctly, or I'm going to feel like a dunce).
In response to Mickey (page 1)You don't necessarily define yourself by hating it. I define myself as someone who definitely isn't a 'Twihard', because I prefer well-written books. Though having said that I like HG & I wouldn't say they are well-written in comparison to other books I read. But y'know, that's just being a book critic isn't it? Not a Twilight hater XD
Dorothy wrote: "Peace wrote: "what the diff between the whole twi saga, HP,and some others book that out there?"
I think Twilight is so widely hated because of its popularity combined with how poorly it's written..."
Interesting. I actually found Twilight to be well written after the first book. Book 1 was horribly and awfully written, I won't deny that. I could have done better in my first draft when I was ten years old. But she shows improvement with every book she puts out. It's very fluid and poetic and passionate, if you can overlook every single time she tries to remind the reader for the millionth time of Edward's earth-shattering, godlike, beautiful, stunning, blah blah blah beauty. And, of course, the thesaurus rape, which Meyer DOES tone down with every book. Rowling sometimes isn't too much better.
I didn't think Harry Potter was well written at all. I still prefer Harry Potter BY FAR over Twilight, but I felt that the execution of the books were just plain bad. She overuses adverbs, tells instead of shows, and her pacing is way, way, way too rushed, like she has too much story and plot to cram into her books. When I was reading the Deathly Hallows it was like she was stuffing an entire trilogy into a single novel. Which is basically the opposite of Meyer having too LITTLE plot to try to stretch it over her 500+ page books.
And, while I still believe Harry Potter is the better series, both stories suffer from a massive weakness in their plotting: Deus Ex Machina. Both series are filled to the brim with Deus Ex Machina. Neither of them, in my opinion, will ever be considered great literature.
Just my thoughts. :)
I think Twilight is so widely hated because of its popularity combined with how poorly it's written..."
Interesting. I actually found Twilight to be well written after the first book. Book 1 was horribly and awfully written, I won't deny that. I could have done better in my first draft when I was ten years old. But she shows improvement with every book she puts out. It's very fluid and poetic and passionate, if you can overlook every single time she tries to remind the reader for the millionth time of Edward's earth-shattering, godlike, beautiful, stunning, blah blah blah beauty. And, of course, the thesaurus rape, which Meyer DOES tone down with every book. Rowling sometimes isn't too much better.
I didn't think Harry Potter was well written at all. I still prefer Harry Potter BY FAR over Twilight, but I felt that the execution of the books were just plain bad. She overuses adverbs, tells instead of shows, and her pacing is way, way, way too rushed, like she has too much story and plot to cram into her books. When I was reading the Deathly Hallows it was like she was stuffing an entire trilogy into a single novel. Which is basically the opposite of Meyer having too LITTLE plot to try to stretch it over her 500+ page books.
And, while I still believe Harry Potter is the better series, both stories suffer from a massive weakness in their plotting: Deus Ex Machina. Both series are filled to the brim with Deus Ex Machina. Neither of them, in my opinion, will ever be considered great literature.
Just my thoughts. :)
"@Jocelyn
Again, Stephenie did not say that it was odd that someone didn't like her book... She thought it was odd that someone would wait in the cold for hours just to tell her.
It doesn't bother me that Stephenie doesn't read all her letters, fan mail or hate mail. I don't think any public figure outside of politics should be oblicated to read all their mail. Especially if they get so much. But that's just me.
2nd comment
Twitard means Twilight Retard. It doesn't matter if a fan is "rabid" (though I still doubt they have rabies) or obsessed or over the top. That does not constitute calling someone a retard when they are not mentally retarded. There are real mentally retarded people in the world, and using "retard" as a term to ridicule people is just all around disrespectful.
3rd
Congratulations."
You're right, using the term Twitard IS disrespectful and rude. I didn't say it wasn't. But I can understand at least that other Twilight fans may feel offended.
I didn't say that Meyer had to read all her mail, I simply thought that maybe the Toronto girl heard that, and she calculated that her chances of communicating at all with Meyer were basically zero. It's just me speculating. If I were a celebrity I probably wouldn't read all my mail either. So I agree with you on that.
Again, Stephenie did not say that it was odd that someone didn't like her book... She thought it was odd that someone would wait in the cold for hours just to tell her.
It doesn't bother me that Stephenie doesn't read all her letters, fan mail or hate mail. I don't think any public figure outside of politics should be oblicated to read all their mail. Especially if they get so much. But that's just me.
2nd comment
Twitard means Twilight Retard. It doesn't matter if a fan is "rabid" (though I still doubt they have rabies) or obsessed or over the top. That does not constitute calling someone a retard when they are not mentally retarded. There are real mentally retarded people in the world, and using "retard" as a term to ridicule people is just all around disrespectful.
3rd
Congratulations."
You're right, using the term Twitard IS disrespectful and rude. I didn't say it wasn't. But I can understand at least that other Twilight fans may feel offended.
I didn't say that Meyer had to read all her mail, I simply thought that maybe the Toronto girl heard that, and she calculated that her chances of communicating at all with Meyer were basically zero. It's just me speculating. If I were a celebrity I probably wouldn't read all my mail either. So I agree with you on that.
Jocelyn wrote: Interesting. I actually found Twilight to be well written after the first book. Book 1 was horribly and awfully written, I won't deny that. I could have done better in my first draft when I was ten years old. But she shows improvement with every book she puts out. It's very fluid and poetic and passionate, if you can overlook every single time she tries to remind the reader for the millionth time of Edward's earth-shattering, godlike, beautiful, stunning, blah blah...If you ignored that, you'd be ignoring Edward is a Gary-Stu. Her characters definitely aren't well written! I think her writing does get better, but all of them you'll see I only thought were 'OK', because it is too long. However, the Short Second life of Bree Tanner- that was short & it was amazing! She obviously lost her obsession with thesauruses! I loved that so much more... And that's saying something, as I should prefer the book with more werewolf appearances (I'm a fan of werewolves, no matter what.) I'm not saying I can't read long books, because I can... But I'd prefer Meyer's shorter novels!
You're right, I AM ignoring the fact that Edward is a Gary Stu. That was how I managed to enjoy the book better. Every time when Bella launched into a huge speech about the (un)awesomeness of Edward, I just skipped over them. Since those large clumps of description have absolutely no relevance to the (mostly nonexistent) plot whatsoever, it's better for me to skimp over them.
Yeah, her writing isn't absolutely brilliant. But the overall flow of her writing is wonderful, in comparison to Rowling. Rowling still has trouble with transitions and sometimes I felt jarred while reading her books, even though I loved them. Both authors overuse adverbs. Both authors overuse Deus Ex Machina. Both authors tell instead of show. The Half-Blood Prince was by far the best written and best paced, but unfortunately Rowling went back to her old rushed and hurried style.
Meyer is still married to her husband the thesaurus, but she's starting to get over her obsession with it. Maybe they'll divorce. Then we'll all be happy. :)
I've never read the Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, but maybe I'll get around to it someday. XD
Yeah, her writing isn't absolutely brilliant. But the overall flow of her writing is wonderful, in comparison to Rowling. Rowling still has trouble with transitions and sometimes I felt jarred while reading her books, even though I loved them. Both authors overuse adverbs. Both authors overuse Deus Ex Machina. Both authors tell instead of show. The Half-Blood Prince was by far the best written and best paced, but unfortunately Rowling went back to her old rushed and hurried style.
Meyer is still married to her husband the thesaurus, but she's starting to get over her obsession with it. Maybe they'll divorce. Then we'll all be happy. :)
I've never read the Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, but maybe I'll get around to it someday. XD
Jocelyn wrote: Meyer is still married to her husband the thesaurus, but she's starting to get over her obsession with it. Maybe they'll divorce. Then we'll all be happy. :) I've never read the Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, but maybe I'll get around to it someday. XD "
Ooh, divorce. I think only if he suggested it- she'd hate to be blanked by him because that would upset him. And actually, I would recommend The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner- even to Twilight haters (or as this term is not appreciated... those opposed to the saga).
I wish Meyer would go for English writing classes instead...but if she did that, her husband the thesaurus would be unhappy that she'd been unfaithful. Looks like the thesaurus is obsessed with Meyer as Meyer is with the thesaurus.
But hey, they're improving. I hope it works out for them. :D
But hey, they're improving. I hope it works out for them. :D
Amy wrote: "In response to Mickey (page 1)You don't necessarily define yourself by hating it."
Are you saying that there are no people that do or are you saying you're not one?
It's a spectrum. Someone should get up a diagnostic test about where to place people.
Maybe something like:
If you multiply the amount of hours you spend discussing or thinking about how much you hate Twilight in a week with the amount of times you've insulted either Meyer or fans and used the argument that Twilight is responsible for ruining Western civilization or the younger generation or literature, you can get a number that shows you where you are on the spectrum.
Or you could have a test that allows you to rate your personal response to a series of statements like "If you heard today that Stephenie Meyer was diagnosed with a painful terminal disease, what would be your response?" "If you saw Stephenie Meyer at the airport, what would your reaction be?" "Twilight fans are __________." Agree or disagree: The world would be a better place if the Twilight series had never been published.
Mickey wrote: Or you could have a test that allows you to rate your personal response to a series of statements like "If you heard today that Stephenie Meyer was diagnosed with a painful terminal disease, what would be your response?" "If you saw Stephenie Meyer at the airport, what would your reaction be?" "Twilight fans are __________." "Perhaps it is just me but the way you phrased that last paragraph nakes it sound as though you think those of us who dislike the book are not decent human beings... Though your entire post obviously slants towards making the extremes so that may have been your point.
Mickey wrote: "Are you saying that there are no people that do or are you saying you're not one?It's a spectrum. Someone should get up a diagnostic test about where to place people."
I'm saying, some people that don't particularly like it aren't obsessed... But those that spend loads of time hating on it, obviously aren't one of them. I'm saying this question cannot be answered with Yes/No only- no matter how well explained they try to make their answer.
Your ideas on it being a spectrum are extremely interesting ;) I wouldn't be obsessed on either end... Infact, I spend more time discussing Hunger Games, a series I do like & saying it isn't written well. Harry Potter I'm not sure, I haven't read them. But turns out all of these popular series will have movies made of them & they will get more popular, meaning more haters & lovers join the pile of people with an opinion on it... Doesn't mean that there aren't people who'd be like, 'Meh. Not bothered' XD
Hope I explained that?
Amy wrote: "I'm saying, some people that don't particularly like it aren't obsessed... But those that spend loads of time hating on it, obviously aren't one of them."I don't think that anyone has said that there aren't people who simply don't like the books. Everyone has books that they don't like, but it's the reaction to this that separates a hater from a normal person.
Dorothy made an excellent distinction between fans and haters. Personally, I like people who spend their time liking books as opposed to people who spend their time hating them. I think it's a different orientation to reading. I don't really consider people who spend their time hating books to be real readers. Books are generally used by them in order to say something about the type of people they think they are, whereas when I meet another person who I can tell loves books, even if our tastes aren't similar, I feel a kinship with them.
I'm pretty sure you don't feel a kinship with me Mickey ... and I *really* love books. ;)
Mickey wrote: I don't think that anyone has said that there aren't people who simply don't like the books. Everyone has books that they don't like, but it's the reaction to this that separates a hater from a normal person."Sorry, I misunderstand the fact people mentioned it defining some people. OK, maybe it does. And you're right, those people I would dislike too for spending time hating a book, rather than focusing on their good. There will always be people who rate more books badly than others... But people use the rating system differently. Don't worry... I'm not bothered anymore ;)
Mickey wrote: I don't really consider people who spend their time hating books to be real readers.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I mean, I respect your opinion and all. If you don't consider them to be real readers, that's fine.
But I really don't think we spend our time "hating" it. We spend our time analyzing it, breaking it down and dissecting it. Being critical of something is not the same as hating it. I love Harry Potter, but as you can see I have picked out many of its flaws. Does that mean I spend my time hating it? I spend half my time fangirling over Percy Jackson, but I also pick out many of its flaws. I'm not going around yelling, "OMG I HATE TWILIGHT IT IS SO AWFUL!!!" Or any other "haters" on this thread, for that matter.
Isn't it possible, therefore, that people who love books might feel offended or insulted by books that they dislike? I'm not just talking about Twilight, I'm talking about any book in general that anyone may dislike. Readers can be defined by their love for books, but they can be also at least, in a tiny part, defined by what they dislike.
You're right in the fact that people who spend their time liking something rather than disliking it might be more enjoyable to hang around. Personally, though, I like people who are objective. Someone who says, "Oh, it's awesome, but it's not perfect, because of so and so," or someone who says, "I don't like it, but I DID like some parts of it that were nice." It's all a matter of personal preference, I guess.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I mean, I respect your opinion and all. If you don't consider them to be real readers, that's fine.
But I really don't think we spend our time "hating" it. We spend our time analyzing it, breaking it down and dissecting it. Being critical of something is not the same as hating it. I love Harry Potter, but as you can see I have picked out many of its flaws. Does that mean I spend my time hating it? I spend half my time fangirling over Percy Jackson, but I also pick out many of its flaws. I'm not going around yelling, "OMG I HATE TWILIGHT IT IS SO AWFUL!!!" Or any other "haters" on this thread, for that matter.
Isn't it possible, therefore, that people who love books might feel offended or insulted by books that they dislike? I'm not just talking about Twilight, I'm talking about any book in general that anyone may dislike. Readers can be defined by their love for books, but they can be also at least, in a tiny part, defined by what they dislike.
You're right in the fact that people who spend their time liking something rather than disliking it might be more enjoyable to hang around. Personally, though, I like people who are objective. Someone who says, "Oh, it's awesome, but it's not perfect, because of so and so," or someone who says, "I don't like it, but I DID like some parts of it that were nice." It's all a matter of personal preference, I guess.
Alex wrote: "I'm pretty sure you don't feel a kinship with me Mickey ... and I *really* love books. ;)"
Yeah. I agree. I'm pretty sure Mickey feels anything but a kinship with me either. And I've been a bookworm since second grade.
Yeah. I agree. I'm pretty sure Mickey feels anything but a kinship with me either. And I've been a bookworm since second grade.
Backing up your opinion is key ;) I think she means, in part, those that hate just for the sake of it, are annoying. Just saying you dislike a book, and not giving a reason, is a bit lame... You expect a reason, no? Not just a rating of 0-1 star. Even 2 stars could be explained... 3, 4, 5 & you're on your way to saying you don't dislike many books...Sometimes not being objective is easier, if it's a book with little haters & you think the people who like it will kill you... You just hide that bad rating among the generous ratings for books you do like...
Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "I'm pretty sure you don't feel a kinship with me Mickey ... and I *really* love books. ;)"Yeah. I agree. I'm pretty sure Mickey feels anything but a kinship with me. And I've been a ..."
Seconded!
Amy wrote: "Backing up your opinion is key ;) I think she means, in part, those that hate just for the sake of it, are annoying. Just saying you dislike a book, and not giving a reason, is a bit lame... You ex..."
I guess. I just thought that maybe Mickey misinterpreted the anti-Twilighters on this thread to be spending their time "hating" it.
I guess. I just thought that maybe Mickey misinterpreted the anti-Twilighters on this thread to be spending their time "hating" it.
Jocelyn wrote: I guess. I just thought that maybe Mickey misinterpreted the anti-Twilighters on this thread to be spending their time "hating" it.Maybe... Oh well, I'm gonna read my ebook now (the dialogue in this book is golden. I love it...)
Jocelyn wrote: "I wish Meyer would go for English writing classes instead...but if she did that, her husband the thesaurus would be unhappy that she'd been unfaithful. Looks like the thesaurus is obsessed with Mey..."Actually I think she has a degree in English lol
Amy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: I guess. I just thought that maybe Mickey misinterpreted the anti-Twilighters on this thread to be spending their time "hating" it.Maybe... Oh well, I'm gonna read my ebook now (th..."
What is it that you're reading? Please share!
Allison wrote: What is it that you're reading? Please share! "I'm readingEvery Other Day I'm more than half-way through. I would recommend it to anybody less squeamish than me... I think that's why I think the dialogue is golden because that's where blood isn't mentioned... It's got a great plot & a kick-ass heroine!
Amy wrote: "Allison wrote: What is it that you're reading? Please share! "I'm readingEvery Other Day I'm more than half-way through. I would recommend it to anybody less squeamish than me... I think that's wh..."
Awesome, thanks :-)
Allison wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I wish Meyer would go for English writing classes instead...but if she did that, her husband the thesaurus would be unhappy that she'd been unfaithful. Looks like the thesaurus is o..."
She does...but apparently she didn't pay attention. Actually, she said that she only took them just to attend college.
She does...but apparently she didn't pay attention. Actually, she said that she only took them just to attend college.
Amy wrote: "Backing up your opinion is key ;) I think she means, in part, those that hate just for the sake of it, are annoying. Just saying you dislike a book, and not giving a reason, is a bit lame."No, I don't have a problem with people not giving reasons why at all. If I don't finish a book, I never rate it. (An exception to this rule is a book of essays, particularly if they include book reviews. I generally don't read reviews of books that I haven't read.) Although I do find it a little annoying to read a review like: 'This book was so boring, I couldn't even get through the first chapter.' That's just unhelpful.
What I'm saying is annoying is when people can't get over their objections and must bring it up in discussion after discussion. They derail the conversation so that there's not many discussions about other things. In this thread alone, we've had long drawn-out conversations about Bella's cliffjumping, Bella's thoughts on her new classmates and whether they showed sociopathic tendencies, whether Twilight is antifeminist. This really doesn't relate to the topic at hand, and the fact of the matter is, anyone who's spent any time on these threads has had this conversation many times before. But this is an aside.
When I refer to haters, I'm referring to people who would have a significantly high number on the first diagnostic test I gave and whose answers would be what you'd expect from a hater in the last. It's sad, but there are a lot of people like that. It doesn't have anything to do with backing up your opinions (so many just repeat ones that don't fit the story at all), I'd say it's more about how much hysteria is displayed and how much intolerance to the story or the author. If you can tell that the poster is serving some personal needs through criticizing the story, I think that's a good sign of a hater.
Mickey wrote: "In this thread alone, we've had long drawn-out conversations about Bella's cliffjumping, Bella's thoughts on her new classmates and whether they showed sociopathic tendencies, whether Twilight is antifeminist."
Threads always go onto tangents. It's hard not to. And even if it didn't, it does, indirectly, have to do with the matter at hand. Us anti-Twilighters are showing, in a way, that we can be obsessed and sometimes we're not, simply with the fact that we're getting into these conversations.
And isn't that the entire point of Goodreads? To interact with people and see different perspectives on the books you read?
and the fact of the matter is, anyone who's spent any time on these threads have had this conversation many times before.
How do you know this? It's possible that this could be our first time participating in a discussion like this. It's not a "fact of the matter." In fact, I'd never had a discussion like this before I found Goodreads and made an account. I think it's perfectly reasonable that people would want to share their opinions, or at least release the energy they've been getting from disliking/liking it. Some people might hate a book so much right after reading it that they'll post a bunch of rude stuff on the Internet, then later cool down and realize that what they did was rude. Or whatever.
(so many just repeat ones that don't fit the story at all)
Human beings don't have perfect memories. Sometimes they confuse plot points and forget them. Then a fan will correct them, and the person will say, "Oh right, I remember that now," or they would say, "Yes, that's what happened, but I interpreted it in a different way." It's happened to me a lot, even on this very thread, when I forgot some plot points and a fan came up to me and corrected it. Inaccuracy isn't rude of a person. It IS rude if an inaccuracy is pointed out, and instead of either rebutting it or acknowledging it, they just ignore it without backing it up. This didn't happen too many times in this thread, if at all, as far as I can see.
If you can tell that the poster is serving some personal needs through criticizing the story, I think that's a good sign of a hater.
Personal needs? I have posted stuff on here for personal needs. Say, boredom. I'm bored. I come on here to get rid of my boredom. Am I a "hater?"
Some people just feel the need to voice their opinion. Either they're bored, like me, or they're curious. Sometimes they hate something so much they want to see if they're alone. What does criticizing a story have to do with anything? It's just dissecting it. And really, who cares? It's their problem. Who cares what their motives are for posting on the Internet? Does it really matter?
Threads always go onto tangents. It's hard not to. And even if it didn't, it does, indirectly, have to do with the matter at hand. Us anti-Twilighters are showing, in a way, that we can be obsessed and sometimes we're not, simply with the fact that we're getting into these conversations.
And isn't that the entire point of Goodreads? To interact with people and see different perspectives on the books you read?
and the fact of the matter is, anyone who's spent any time on these threads have had this conversation many times before.
How do you know this? It's possible that this could be our first time participating in a discussion like this. It's not a "fact of the matter." In fact, I'd never had a discussion like this before I found Goodreads and made an account. I think it's perfectly reasonable that people would want to share their opinions, or at least release the energy they've been getting from disliking/liking it. Some people might hate a book so much right after reading it that they'll post a bunch of rude stuff on the Internet, then later cool down and realize that what they did was rude. Or whatever.
(so many just repeat ones that don't fit the story at all)
Human beings don't have perfect memories. Sometimes they confuse plot points and forget them. Then a fan will correct them, and the person will say, "Oh right, I remember that now," or they would say, "Yes, that's what happened, but I interpreted it in a different way." It's happened to me a lot, even on this very thread, when I forgot some plot points and a fan came up to me and corrected it. Inaccuracy isn't rude of a person. It IS rude if an inaccuracy is pointed out, and instead of either rebutting it or acknowledging it, they just ignore it without backing it up. This didn't happen too many times in this thread, if at all, as far as I can see.
If you can tell that the poster is serving some personal needs through criticizing the story, I think that's a good sign of a hater.
Personal needs? I have posted stuff on here for personal needs. Say, boredom. I'm bored. I come on here to get rid of my boredom. Am I a "hater?"
Some people just feel the need to voice their opinion. Either they're bored, like me, or they're curious. Sometimes they hate something so much they want to see if they're alone. What does criticizing a story have to do with anything? It's just dissecting it. And really, who cares? It's their problem. Who cares what their motives are for posting on the Internet? Does it really matter?
Jocelyn wrote: "How do you know this? It's possible that this could be our first time participating in a discussion like this. It's not a "fact of the matter." In fact, I'd never had a discussion like this before I found Goodreads and made an account."well, by "spent any time on these threads," I seriously doubt that mickey meant people who have just recently started an account. some of us have been having the same arguments over and over, having to defend ourselves and explain that no, twilight is not the first book we've ever read. I have never, in all my life, been made to feel like I should be ashamed of something that I enjoy as much as I have here on these twilight threads. there has been an overwhelming amount of scorn and condescension directed toward the fans and the author. this may have slacked off some recently, but you'll have to pardon any of us that continue to be a little sensitive about it.
perhaps you should read through some of the older twilight threads- maybe you'd see the other side of it a little better. I've been insulted in countless ways by other posters who just want twilight fans to "see the light." I think that there's a line between voicing a dissenting opinion and belittling others in order to feel superior, and that line was crossed long ago. mickey's examples in the "spectrum test" are actual examples of things people have said! I'm sorry, but no matter how much YOU dislike a book, it is rather selfish in my eyes to think the whole WORLD would be better off without it, or that the author should either die or never be heard from again. avoid it if you want, but let other people enjoy what they enjoy without being made to feel embarrassed or ashamed for enjoying it.
Kirby wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "How do you know this? It's possible that this could be our first time participating in a discussion like this. It's not a "fact of the matter." In fact, I'd never had a discussion l..."
I can see the other side of the argument quite well, actually. I've had Twilight fans for friends, and they've told me what THEY think of the books. I strongly dislike Twilight, but I do understand its redeeming qualities, like its rather beautiful writing. While I still believe Bella is an insufferable coward, she definitely isn't as weak and pathetic as anti-Twilighters sometimes make her sound. The relationship between Bella and Edward has more chemistry than people give it credit for. I don't think it's believable, but it's not utterly and completely ridiculous.
I just pointed that out because Mickey treated it like a fact. It's not a fact. It's probable, and in some cases highly likely, but it is not a fact. I just felt like, I don't know. Maybe if Twilighters told antis to get off the Internet or stop spending time hating something, then...if Twilighters were so sick of having the same conversation again, why can't they get off? I don't know. I don't mean that I actually want them to get off and are worthless idiots who don't know how to get a life. I don't know about anyone else, but I actually enjoyed these conversations, because while I disagree with many fans, I CAN see the other side of the argument, and it opens up my perspective of literature in general. Which I don't think anyone can argue is a bad thing.
I don't think Stephenie Meyer should die a painful death, or that the whole world would be better off without Twilight. I mean, I get the main point of Twilight. It's escapism. It's designed to entertain. I know its purpose was never for people to analyze it, or even overanalyze it depending on your point of view. It's mostly, in my view, the popularity that causes this entire debate, more than the actual content of the books. That's why people argue and debate over it, I think.
But yeah, no one should feel ashamed for what they like. It's more about what they say that make people start rolling out the insults, and how they react to it. It's all, like always, a matter of perspective.
I can see the other side of the argument quite well, actually. I've had Twilight fans for friends, and they've told me what THEY think of the books. I strongly dislike Twilight, but I do understand its redeeming qualities, like its rather beautiful writing. While I still believe Bella is an insufferable coward, she definitely isn't as weak and pathetic as anti-Twilighters sometimes make her sound. The relationship between Bella and Edward has more chemistry than people give it credit for. I don't think it's believable, but it's not utterly and completely ridiculous.
I just pointed that out because Mickey treated it like a fact. It's not a fact. It's probable, and in some cases highly likely, but it is not a fact. I just felt like, I don't know. Maybe if Twilighters told antis to get off the Internet or stop spending time hating something, then...if Twilighters were so sick of having the same conversation again, why can't they get off? I don't know. I don't mean that I actually want them to get off and are worthless idiots who don't know how to get a life. I don't know about anyone else, but I actually enjoyed these conversations, because while I disagree with many fans, I CAN see the other side of the argument, and it opens up my perspective of literature in general. Which I don't think anyone can argue is a bad thing.
I don't think Stephenie Meyer should die a painful death, or that the whole world would be better off without Twilight. I mean, I get the main point of Twilight. It's escapism. It's designed to entertain. I know its purpose was never for people to analyze it, or even overanalyze it depending on your point of view. It's mostly, in my view, the popularity that causes this entire debate, more than the actual content of the books. That's why people argue and debate over it, I think.
But yeah, no one should feel ashamed for what they like. It's more about what they say that make people start rolling out the insults, and how they react to it. It's all, like always, a matter of perspective.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Master and Margarita (other topics)Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
You did realize that she told Stephenie Meyer that she should be ashamed of herself, right? I don't see how that's polite. She stood in line for who knows how long just to attack her characters."
I absolutely agree! I think one of the marks of an obsessive hater is a complete lack of perspective. To think that this type of behavior is okay shows a skewed sensibility.
There was once a thread about something like "If you could say something to Meyer, what would you say?" or something like that and it was really eye-opening to see the responses. One said she would tell her how she was going to drop her in a lava pit and her books along after her. Many said they would say things like, 'For the sake of humanity/literature, please don't write anymore'. These are not rational, normal responses to a book you don't like and to say that an author shouldn't write because you personally don't enjoy the product while you know others do is incredibly selfish and childish. This Toronto girl sounds crazy. It's difficult to rationalize that sort of nasty behavior towards another human being, especially when that other person's only crime was to write a character she didn't like. That's having zero perspective and zero class.