Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
Once upon a time I was obsessed, I admit.
My life was always some how related to twilight, so I started going against so I wouldn't go all wackado but I just can't so am still obsessed and it will always be a part of my life
My life was always some how related to twilight, so I started going against so I wouldn't go all wackado but I just can't so am still obsessed and it will always be a part of my life
Cassie wrote: "I have to agree that I've also had these same conversations before. You begin to feel like you're on a merry-go-round after a while. At first it's intriguing and even fun, but after a while, you ju..."
Cassie, just to clarify, thesaurus rape is a general term used to refer to times when someone overuses a thesaurus. As you can see, and excuse the inappropriateness here for a bit, it is scientifically impossible to rape a thesaurus. It's been used to describe the writing of many other authors besides Meyer, like Christopher Paolini, the author of Eragon. It's not a rape joke, though I can see how it can come off as one. I won't do that again, though, if it offends you or anyone else.
Wow, people have actually threatened to kill you? Then anti-Twilighters are even worse than I'd originally thought. I guess both sides are pretty even.
Cassie, just to clarify, thesaurus rape is a general term used to refer to times when someone overuses a thesaurus. As you can see, and excuse the inappropriateness here for a bit, it is scientifically impossible to rape a thesaurus. It's been used to describe the writing of many other authors besides Meyer, like Christopher Paolini, the author of Eragon. It's not a rape joke, though I can see how it can come off as one. I won't do that again, though, if it offends you or anyone else.
Wow, people have actually threatened to kill you? Then anti-Twilighters are even worse than I'd originally thought. I guess both sides are pretty even.
Jocelyn wrote: "I can see the other side of the argument quite well, actually. I have friends who are Twilight fans, and are actually quite mature and respectful. "that's not really what I meant by the other side. I mean the side where the fans are insulted and looked down on- which, as I said, has let up some...but not entirely. the fact that you feel the need to point out that some of your friends are the "mature and respectful" fans attests to that.
as I said, you might would understand the defensive attitude that some of us have if you read through some old threads. I think that when you start having to defend yourself instead of the book, it's gotten a little ridiculous.
and, I didn't mean to insinuate that you wished a painful death on SM...I'm just saying that most of us have heard plenty of other people say it.
No, I didn't mean YOU accused me of wishing SM to die a painful death, it was just a general statement. :)
I didn't mean to separate Twilight fans into two different groups, like the "rabid ones" and the "mature" ones. I just meant to say that I do understand that Twilight fans are, in fact, not complete idiots like many antis seem to think. My pointing out my friends is just to say that I'm fine if you like Twilight, not that mature fans are so rare that my friends are ACTUALLY, like, omg so respectful in comparison to those rabid ones! They're like so special! I'll reword my comment so it doesn't come off that way.
Yeah, I can understand the defensive attitude. The same thing's happened to me. Looks like fans and anti-Twilighters aren't too different, after all. Just people on opposite sides of a gaping chasm.
I didn't mean to separate Twilight fans into two different groups, like the "rabid ones" and the "mature" ones. I just meant to say that I do understand that Twilight fans are, in fact, not complete idiots like many antis seem to think. My pointing out my friends is just to say that I'm fine if you like Twilight, not that mature fans are so rare that my friends are ACTUALLY, like, omg so respectful in comparison to those rabid ones! They're like so special! I'll reword my comment so it doesn't come off that way.
Yeah, I can understand the defensive attitude. The same thing's happened to me. Looks like fans and anti-Twilighters aren't too different, after all. Just people on opposite sides of a gaping chasm.
Mickey wrote: "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"I did consider that I had misinterpreted your statement last time but now I really do not think I have. Do you have such a low opinion of those people who dislike this book to think that we are not decent human beings? This is now the second time you have suggested that all people who would 'rate the book poorly' would also be happy if the author suffered some harm. How dare you make this assumption without knowing us personally. I would never wish anyone any kind of harm - I was physically and mentally bullied in school but that does not mean I wish those people harm - so why on earth would I wish harm or troubles on someone I have never and will never meet?
Mickey wrote: 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.
If someone were to use your idea of a 'rating' system to differentiate between a 'hater' and a 'Twihard' I would probably be closer to a 'Twihard' as I spend very little time talking against Twilight (maybe 5-10 minutes on the days I spend on this thread which is not every day)and have never said anything 'harsh' against Meyer (I have criticised her writing but have also done that for other authors so do not feel that this is in any way out of the norm for a book review site), or the fans nor do I think that this has ruined YA books - I think anything which encourages reading is an excellent thing as long as people take it from what it is - fantasy!
Taking your second 'test' - I have already said that I would never wish anyone, even my worst enemy, harm and I would never say that a book has the potential to make the world better or worse in any manner.
Kirby wrote: as I said, you might would understand the defensive attitude that some of us have if you read through some old threads. I think that when you start having to defend yourself instead of the book, it's gotten a little ridiculous.
It is unfortunate that there are such immature people on this site - I have myself been personally insulted on another thread and had to start defending myself - it is not a nice thing to have to do but unfortunately there are a number of people in this world who think an argument is won if they use an ad hominem attack.
Jocelyn wrote:Yeah, I can understand the defensive attitude. The same thing's happened to me. Looks like fans and anti-Twilighters aren't too different, after all. Just people on opposite sides of a gaping chasm.
Excellently put.
There will always be people that want things wiped off this Earth- another example is Justin Beiber. He gets so much hate, I don't personally like his music, but I think he's a nice person. I don't know as much as Meyer as him (I am a teenage girl who has to deal with 'Justin Beiber' goss after all XD) but I'm sure she's a nice person too. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's in the eye of the beholder. Things are interpreted in different ways, and some people naturally see the worse, while others the best in something. And then there's those who do anyalyze, and come up with both. And yes, quite a lot of them are on Goodreads, right?
Carina wrote: "Do you have such a low opinion of those people who dislike this book to think that we are not decent human beings? This is now the second time you have suggested that all people who would 'rate the book poorly' would also be happy if the author suffered some harm. How dare you make this assumption without knowing us personally. I would never wish anyone any kind of harm - I was physically and mentally bullied in school but that does not mean I wish those people harm - so why on earth would I wish harm or troubles on someone I have never and will never meet?"Are you being serious, Carina? I'm starting to get annoyed at the outlandish responses. If I were implying that ALL people who don't like Twilight wish Meyer harm, I wouldn't have introduced a test which discusses a spectrum of responses and one of the questions wouldn't have been about such a scenario, would it? Because I would have thought that all people who dislike Twilight would have the same response, wouldn't I?
You need to think before you start ranting.
Also, the rating system is not separating a hater from a fan. It's about degrees of being a hater. I don't see the point in having a test about whether you're a fan or a hater.
If you're low on the spectrum, good for you. I don't recall saying or thinking anything about where you'd land, so you need to relax. Do you think there are not people that would score high? Because I think that there are such people.
Yes Mickey I was being serious - you introduced a test where one of your questions was: If you heard today that Stephenie Meyer was diagnosed with a painful terminal disease, what would be your response? - I find it incredibly hard to imagine what on earth you could expect as a response to this question other than something like 'I hope she does not suffer too much' or 'what a horrible thing to happen' - instead you phrase it in such a way to imply that the way you respond will effect your opinion of Twilight. Considering your 'test' I do not see how my responish is outlandish. Also - as you pointed out to me before - it is not common courtesy to point out to other posters how they should act so it would be nice if you followed your own advice (please note I am in no way suggesting you ought to follow your own advice just saying pot - kettle - black)
Cassie wrote: "I have to agree that I've also had these same conversations before. You begin to feel like you're on a merry-go-round after a while. At first it's intriguing and even fun, but after a while, you just get bored as the same exact images pass by to the same repetetive melody. Most of what I usually say, I skipped because I've gotten tired of saying it."
Exactly! This is the part that annoys me. This thread has a topic, but the same conversation ensues and it's one that we've had before. I think all non-fans need to understand that their opinions about the books and their objections about it are not the only thing people want to talk about. If you want to talk about Bella's supposed suicide attempt, go make a thread about it or resurrect the threads that deal with that. Why go on a different topic and interfere with it?
It's actually not normal for threads to go off topic so often. In Harry Potter threads, if the topic is about Snape and James, there are no long discussions about the quality of Rowling's writings or whether you liked the books. People stay on topic, for the most part. This gives people the option of talking about different topics instead of always discussing the same things.
Going back to your first post when you talked about how this posting population seems to be not representative of the actual numbers of fans vs haters, I think the lack of interesting discussions and the lack of topics (or, more importantly, discussions because the topics are often discounted) that would appeal to the fan is probably at the root of it.
@Carina,I'm simply not interested in having a long conversation with you, so I'll keep this short.
There are people who have said they wish harm to come to Meyer. I think feeling this way would be an important part of gauging how much hatred you have for the Twilight series/author/fans. It absolutely would belong on a Hater test.
Are you saying that there are not haters who have expressed those wishes before? Because I can show you quotes. Many people here could contribute as well. If your problem is that you are objecting to being lumped in with such people, then having a test would be a way of showing a degree of difference, wouldn't it? I'm actually doing the opposite of painting all haters with the same brush.
Rather than bore people here with conversation about what happened on another thread, I'm hiding it:
(view spoiler)
Ironic, much?"so I'm surprised you haven't gotten any perspective on how odd and controlling your requests were on that thread"
Mickey wrote: "@Carina,I'm simply not interested in having a long conversation with you, so I'll keep this short. "
Nor I with you.
I have never seen anyone threaten an author which is why I find it so hard to believe anyone would do so - if people say that this has happened though then fair enough. As I have pointed out in numerous others of my posts I dislike the term hater as I think others dislike the terms Twihard and Twitard. People use the term hater to cover a wide range of people - as pointed out earlier on many people object being called a hater when we dislike the series - you say a test would show degress of difference - well, yes it would but you are still calling it a hater test so still lumping everyone together under one category.
I am also am not upset about our previous conversation - I refernce it merely because you told me something that I should not do but then appear to do it yourself - something I find incredibly strange. Also you ought to go back and read the thread as I made one suggestion which you then focussed on for about 3 pages... I have seen people on other threads ask someone for something they found positive amongst all the negatives and have never seen someone react to a simple question in the way you did and still have.
My real objection to your previous posts is the way you seem very happy to lump people together - as if dislike for something makes them all the same - I really cannot understand this, and the only thing I can think of to explain it is that there were some exceptionally rude people on this site which I have, so far, not had the displeasure of meeting but which you have.
Anyways, I really do not want this to derail per the previous topic so if you do wish to continue this PM me instead rather than dragging in other people.
No, Carina, I don't want to PM you, because we both agree we don't want a conversation. You raised an objection to something I posted, I responded with how your objections were unfounded, and you've just repeated your original objections. It's not lumping people together to introduce a test that discusses degrees.In fact, it would be the opposite. If you've taken such tests before (women's magazines used to have them all the time, although I don't know if they still do), if you score on very low end of the spectrum, you are generally not considered much of whatever they're testing. Again, the purpose of those tests is to differentiate. To be accused of lumping people together doesn't make much sense at all.
In our previous conversation, I told you it was not your job to tell people how to respond. There was no "question". I had to tell you several times to let me take care of my half of the conversation, because you were literally telling me what to say and how to say it. That's not the usual way conversations go. I've been on here for a year and a half, and I've never experienced something like that before. Why are we autopsying this? You really need to get over it.
Carina wrote: "I have never seen anyone threaten an author which is why I find it so hard to believe anyone would do so "Oh, dude. It so has happened. I see it all the time. Not so much with Twilight anymore, since the franchise is wrapping up. But do you know how many threats and abhorrent comments I've seen toward EL James and Fifty Shades of Grey fans? It's absolutely ridiculous. Someone said that FSoG helped spice up their marriage and someone else responded with, "If you needed this book, your marriage isn't good enough to be saved." I completely get hating the book, the content, whatever (though not harping on it; that bugs me), but to attack people... it happens and it's disgusting.
One day Mickey will get to have the conversation that she "wants to have" and then the universe will instantly disappear in a puff of logic, because the rest of us probably think that's not how conversations are "supposed" to go...
Mickey wrote: "If you've taken such tests before "I haven't because I do not read womens magazines - still if you say that is how they work and by scoring low you are not considered as part of that 'group' then I apologise for my objection. I appreciate the clarification (which is what I did on the previous thread when you said you didn't understand what I meant) though.
In terms of our previous conversation obviously we view it very differently - just as people view Twilight, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc differently. Perhaps we can just let bygones be bygones and let the thread return to something not between the two of us.
Dorothy wrote: "Oh, dude. It so has happened. I see it all the time. Not so much with Twilight anymore, since the franchise is wrapping up. But do you know how many threats and abhorrent comments I've seen toward EL James and Fifty Shades of Grey fans? It's absolutely ridiculous. Someone said that FSoG helped spice up their marriage and someone else responded with, "If you needed this book, your marriage isn't good enough to be saved." I completely get hating the book, the content, whatever (though not harping on it; that bugs me), but to attack people... it happens and it's disgusting. ."Really? That is depressing... I mean I have never liked ad hominem attacks, but to attack an author or even a reader for thier point of view... wow.
Dorothy wrote: "Oh, dude. It so has happened. I see it all the time. Not so much with Twilight anymore, since the franchise is wrapping up. But do you know how many threats and abhorrent comments I've seen toward EL James and Fifty Shades of Grey fans? It's absolutely ridiculous."Yeah, I think that most of the ridiculous haters I've seen on here have moved on to the 50 threads. It's just more of an indication that there are people who hang around just to be nasty to others. It has nothing to do with the books themselves.
Carina wrote: "Perhaps we can just let bygones be bygones and let the thread return to something not between the two of us."Agreed.
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 ..."Huh, that's interesting. The reason I consider Harry Potter to be so well written is because of the immersion into the wizarding world and the beautiful characters that accented the timeless story of good vs. evil. It has problems, I'll give you that. All books do. But I don't think those flaws detract from the overall product.
As for Twilight, I am SO surprised you thought the books got better. I though New Moon was better, because it used some accidental foreshadowing from Twilight, but after that point it was down, down, down hill. Meyer fell in love with her secondary character, Jacob, and fell out of love with the vampire she made us fall in love with in the first half of the series. I get it, because I do some writing on the side, so I can understand how a character might not be speaking to you. However, instead of trying to get Edward back, she extended Jacob's role and then a series with the main theme of Edward and Bella's all-encompassing love turned into the Jacob show. I actually liked Jacob's character, but she let him ruin the story, and by the time Breaking Dawn came around, there wasn't anything left BUT Jacob. Oh, and Renesmee.
I will concede that her technique became marginally better as the books proceeded. Maybe this is where we ultimately disagree, in the components of what "well written" means. I'm looking to the sky, and you're looking at the earth? It's intriguing, haha.
Carina wrote: "Really? That is depressing... I mean I have never liked ad hominem attacks, but to attack an author or even a reader for thier point of view... wow. "I know. I've tried getting into discussions with these people, but then the attacks turn on me, saying I'm a, "Pathetic loser who no one would want to have sex with." I'm not even a fan of the book! It's so crazy.
Mickey wrote: "Yeah, I think that most of the ridiculous haters I've seen on here have moved on to the 50 threads. It's just more of an indication that there are people who hang around just to be nasty to others. It has nothing to do with the books themselves."
Definitely. Some people just have nothing better to do than be mean. What's even more interesting is that a lot of the EL James haters are actually Twi-fans, since the story stemmed from Twi-fic. I want to scream, "Hypocrite!" at these people, because they know what it feels like to be called names for liking something, and now they are doing it to others. Ugh.
I think a lot of you need to realise that internet banter is ... banter. See, I found both some of those Meyer comments and that 50 Shades one funny and if someone said something like that to me, my first thought would be that person is being absurd, not attacking. Obviously, they're expressions of negativity towards something but in a rhetorical, ridiculously outrageous kind of way. As someone who uses that kind of humour a lot I'm not easily offended when others do it back ... and most people that hang around internet forums/discussion groups a great deal encounter it a lot (it's quite a British form of comic irony, really). I've offended a lot of people in the past, mind, but I think the onus is on both sides here to learn to communicate - I think it would help if a lot of people realised that internet communication is very different from face-to-face communication since you don't have visual tells and clues. If someone is saying "I want Meyer to die" and adopting very standoffish, physical body language" then one knows that's what they mean. I suspect in 90% of these cases it's actually meant with a relaxed wink and a nod.Which all isn't to say that they're not "haters" or whatever and that some people don't spend too much time on this rather narrow topic ... but a huge deal is being made out of something very little here. It's the internet, people like to chat and joke and jostle and sometimes it becomes like a school playground. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes profoundly annoying, sometimes the conversation gets quite interesting, other times it goes round and round and round to nowhere.
So... if someone straight up called you pathetic and sexually undesirable, you'd take it as a joke? These cases that I talked about were not joking situations. The first case was actually someone who got increasingly angry as the conversation went on, and she started out pretty angry. These people want the book and everything related to the book, meaning people, to be wiped from the face of the planet.I'll agree that maybe people don't find anything wrong in their remarks, but it's not because "they're joking! Everything's fine!" It's because the anonymity of the internet protects them from owning up to their despicable comments.
Dorothy wrote: "So... if someone straight up called you pathetic and sexually undesirable, you'd take it as a joke? These cases that I talked about were not joking situations. The first case was actually someone who got increasingly angry as the conversation went on, and she started out pretty angry. These people want the book and everything related to the book, meaning people, to be wiped from the face of the planet."No, but one needs a bit more context to decide whether something is amusing or an example of a "hater". If it's obvious that someone wants everything relating to a book wiped out from the entire planet then they're obviously mentally deranged. I've met some posters online who I'm quite sure do have mental issues but I think that they're as few and far between as they are in real life. I've posted on forums for many years and rarely encountered such consistently vehement aggressive attitudes as you describe though I've known occasions where things get very out of hand. You do often get forum witch-hunts against regular posters happening.
I think it's worth also bearing in mind that people tend to come online to relieve their frustrations, and anger that's accumulated throughout the day tends to unwittingly seep out in these kinds of dialogues that are removed from the "real world" (not saying that's a justification, it's just what tends to happen). A lot of people who post online are lot are also lonely, socially struggling and depressed and so that's why you also tend to get some over-enthusiastic opinions, both pro and anti.
Dorothy wrote: "Definitely. Some people just have nothing better to do than be mean. What's even more interesting is that a lot of the EL James haters are actually Twi-fans, since the story stemmed from Twi-fic. I want to scream, "Hypocrite!" at these people, because they know what it feels like to be called names for liking something, and now they are doing it to others. Ugh."Yeah, I've seen a lot of different responses coming out of Harry Potter fans who hate Twilight when Harry Potter is being attacked.
It's interesting how different books put you in different places of the spectrum. I've never been a hater of a book here, though. But I have had experiences on different parts of the fangirl spectrum. For instance, I don't consider myself an obsessive fangirl of Twilight. It doesn't really bother me when people criticize it. (And it could also be the fact that you have to get immune to attacks if you spend a lot of time on these threads.) But I got involved in a discussion of one of George Eliot's books and that was definitely the worst behaved I've ever been on Goodreads. I'm surprised they didn't throw me out of the group because I was getting offended by people's views right and left. It wasn't quite as bad as posting something like "WHAT?! YOU LIKE AUSTEN'S CHARACTERIZATIONS BETTER THAN ELIOT'S!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?" but everyone participating was thoroughly sick of not being able to post something without a response from me either defending Eliot or saying how great she was. There have been two other Eliot books that have been discussed since that debacle (although not in that particular group. I suspect they fear my return...) and, while I followed them, I did not participate. I hope one day I can participate in an Eliot discussion without being an obnoxious fangirl, but that might never happen.
In the same vein, I've belonged to library book clubs who let members pick the books, but discontinued the practice because of how hard it is to have a discussion when you know a member really loves that book.
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. :)"Do Mormons even have a word for divorce? :D
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 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..."
Yep, never put too much weight on a rating system. One can say a book isn't worth a single star, and yet enjoy it massively - even if, maybe, for all the wrong reasons. :)
People tend to forget that the star rating system is no fixed mark by which the quality, or lack, of a book can be measured. As said, people use different systems to rate a book for themselves.
Jocelyn wrote: "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."
I think it's the same as with the overly hysterical fans; for them twilight is not the reason to their behaviour but more of a crutch. Most likely they only use it to reflect a part of their live on it which they likely feel they don't have any control over otherwise. You will find the same people, or at least their kin, obsessing over the next popular book (or any media hype) that will come along, with just the same fervour.
Mickey wrote: "It's interesting how different books put you in different places of the spectrum. I've never been a hater of a book here, though. But I have had experiences on different parts of the fangirl spectrum. For instance, I don't consider myself an obsessive fangirl of Twilight. It doesn't really bother me when people criticize it. (And it could also be the fact that you have to get immune to attacks if you spend a lot of time on these threads.) But I got involved in a discussion of one of George Eliot's books and that was definitely the worst behaved I've ever been on Goodreads. I'm surprised they didn't throw me out of the group because I was getting offended by people's views right and left. It wasn't quite as bad as posting something like "WHAT?! YOU LIKE AUSTEN'S CHARACTERIZATIONS BETTER THAN ELIOT'S!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?" but everyone participating was thoroughly sick of not being able to post something without a response from me either defending Eliot or saying how great she was. There have been two other Eliot books that have been discussed since that debacle (although not in that particular group. I suspect they fear my return...) and, while I followed them, I did not participate. I hope one day I can participate in an Eliot discussion without being an obnoxious fangirl, but that might never happen" I know you're ignoring me but I want to comment on this briefly...
I think the issue is the basis on which most conversations about literature take place. From high school onwards a lot of importance focusses on whether one like s a book or not, what's one's emotional and personal response to characters/situation etc. Books aren't really placed in historical context and most aesthetic/stylistic considerations are pretty much ignored, so we have this situation where "I like Twilight, because I do ... because I like the characters" is considered to be a really great response to a book (it's great, people are reading - YAY!)
University literature educations tend to be a battle of undoing all the bad work that is done at lower levels, and university grads don't tend to talk about literature like this because , frankly these responses to books aren't very interesting. Ok, you like this book better than that book - so what? Why is this book successful is a more interesting question ... how does this book relate to cultural consideration in a broader context is even more interesting.
Most conversations on goodreads are pre-Grad so are going to be predicated on notions of "I like this book" or "I don't like this book". Even if the questions are better formulated that's still how it's going to be. Therefore people's natural response to your not enjoying George Eliot as much is ultimately going to be "Well, I like her more, she's the best author EVA (actually, pretty much she is, yeah. But then, so is Jane Austen, basically). People don't really *know* how to take the conversation forward so it just goes around in circles with a lot of territory claiming because ... well.. we're not taught to find any other approach all that interesting are we?
Alex wrote: "University literature educations tend to be a battle of undoing all the bad work that is done at lower levels, and university grads don't tend to talk about literature like this because , frankly these responses to books aren't very interesting. Ok, you like this book better than that book - so what? Why is this book successful is a more interesting question ... how does this book relate to cultural consideration in a broader context is even more interesting."Sure, but almost only on a academic level. ;)
Peace wrote: "what ever."kk
Stop... I didn't even understand half of that.
Mickey wrote: There are people who have said they wish harm to come to Meyer.
I have to be honest with you, Mickey. Do you know that they are exaggerating? Do you honestly think they would try to hunt down Meyer's address and set her house on fire or what? They exaggerate it to put emphasis on it. Kind of like, when people are disappointed in a book they wanted to like, they say, "I wish I could hang that author." I once met an Eragon fan who was disappointed in the last book, and he said, "I wish I could hunt down Paolini and cut off his head!" Yeah. I'm not sure if even a FEW mean it literally. Once you mentioned a thread that said, "What would you do to Stephenie Meyer?" (At least I think it was, or if not it's somewhat close to that.) Someone said, "I would throw her down a lava pit and her books down with her." Yeah, because of course any random person could find a lava pit, drag Stephenie Meyer over there, and throw her down.
Perhaps a few mean in literally, perhaps not, but it isn't nearly as common as you make it sound.
I have to be honest with you, Mickey. Do you know that they are exaggerating? Do you honestly think they would try to hunt down Meyer's address and set her house on fire or what? They exaggerate it to put emphasis on it. Kind of like, when people are disappointed in a book they wanted to like, they say, "I wish I could hang that author." I once met an Eragon fan who was disappointed in the last book, and he said, "I wish I could hunt down Paolini and cut off his head!" Yeah. I'm not sure if even a FEW mean it literally. Once you mentioned a thread that said, "What would you do to Stephenie Meyer?" (At least I think it was, or if not it's somewhat close to that.) Someone said, "I would throw her down a lava pit and her books down with her." Yeah, because of course any random person could find a lava pit, drag Stephenie Meyer over there, and throw her down.
Perhaps a few mean in literally, perhaps not, but it isn't nearly as common as you make it sound.
@ Dorothy
I don't necessarily mean that the books overall get better, just the writing itself. I still think the story lines are thin, the pacing sucks, the characters are flat and lack little to no character development, but I cannot ignore Meyer's steady improvement on her prose.
Sorry for not clarifying :)
I don't necessarily mean that the books overall get better, just the writing itself. I still think the story lines are thin, the pacing sucks, the characters are flat and lack little to no character development, but I cannot ignore Meyer's steady improvement on her prose.
Sorry for not clarifying :)
i> Mickey wrote: "You've been here a while, so I'm surprised you haven't gotten any perspective on how odd and controlling your requests were on that thread. You don't tell others how to structure their responses up to telling them what format to use."
A long time I've figured out you're ignoring me, but whatever. XD
I don't think Carina's requests are "odd and controlling" at all. It's basically her way of saying that she's a little put off, and she wishes that you would clarify your points better and be slightly more civil about it. From your post someone would think she demanded you bow down to her and worship her.
Aren't you doing the exact same thing you're telling her not to do, Mickey? I'll quote again: "You don't tell others how to structure their responses up to telling them what format to use."
You don't tell others what to leave out of their comments, either. For god's sake it's the First Amendment. She can do whatever she wants. If you find the request annoying, just say that "no Carina, I don't want to because I feel it is necessary." Or something like that.
Was Carina's "request" really such an odd request? Also - as you pointed out to me before - it is not common courtesy to point out to other posters how they should act so it would be nice if you followed your own advice
From that comment, I'm just going to assume that you DID point out what Carina said you did instead of checking through all those pages to see if you did. She's basically asking you not to be a hypocrite. And rather politely at that.
And. It's a REQUEST. Not a demand, or an order. Carina is making it clear that she knows that it is YOUR choice whether you decide to grant her request or not. She didn't say, "STOP BEING A F**KING HYPOCRITE OMG I DEMAND YOU TO LISTEN TO ME!!!!" You need to relax as well, because you're almost taking it as a personal attack.
But, as you both said, let bygones be bygones. Forgive the intrusion.
A long time I've figured out you're ignoring me, but whatever. XD
I don't think Carina's requests are "odd and controlling" at all. It's basically her way of saying that she's a little put off, and she wishes that you would clarify your points better and be slightly more civil about it. From your post someone would think she demanded you bow down to her and worship her.
Aren't you doing the exact same thing you're telling her not to do, Mickey? I'll quote again: "You don't tell others how to structure their responses up to telling them what format to use."
You don't tell others what to leave out of their comments, either. For god's sake it's the First Amendment. She can do whatever she wants. If you find the request annoying, just say that "no Carina, I don't want to because I feel it is necessary." Or something like that.
Was Carina's "request" really such an odd request? Also - as you pointed out to me before - it is not common courtesy to point out to other posters how they should act so it would be nice if you followed your own advice
From that comment, I'm just going to assume that you DID point out what Carina said you did instead of checking through all those pages to see if you did. She's basically asking you not to be a hypocrite. And rather politely at that.
And. It's a REQUEST. Not a demand, or an order. Carina is making it clear that she knows that it is YOUR choice whether you decide to grant her request or not. She didn't say, "STOP BEING A F**KING HYPOCRITE OMG I DEMAND YOU TO LISTEN TO ME!!!!" You need to relax as well, because you're almost taking it as a personal attack.
But, as you both said, let bygones be bygones. Forgive the intrusion.
@Jocelyn, I'm not ignoring you, but if I don't find anything that I want to respond to in a person's post, I'm not under any obligation to respond. This is my free time. All this is voluntary. I'm not interested in ranting and name-calling. Why don't you find someone who is?
As far as your appraisal of Carina and I's conversation, we were talking about a different thread that she keeps referring to and we've decided to drop the subject. Where do you get off trying to put yourself in the middle? Go and read something you like if you're bored.
Mickey, I never demanded that you NOT ignore me. I couldn't care less if you did or not. My exact words are: "but whatever." You're right, you're not under any obligation to respond. It's your right. I never said otherwise.
It was just my personal thoughts on your conversation. Like I said, "forgive the intrusion." You don't need to care. You don't even need to read it. Like we both said, you are under no obligation to respond.
I never made any references to Carina's reference of the other thread you mention. I was making a reference to Carina's request. Also - as you pointed out to me before - it is not common courtesy to point out to other posters how they should act so it would be nice if you followed your own advice This was on this thread. I mean the request, not you pointing out the common courtesy thing. Sorry for not clarifying.
Again. I did not mean to scold you or anyone else, it was just my personal thoughts as I scrolled through the comments. That's all. I'll reword my comments so it does not come off that way.
Go read something if I'm bored? It's not as simple as that. I don't really have anything to read at the moment. When that happens to me, I log onto Goodreads and interact with people. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point to this site.
I know you've decided to drop the subject. This is what I said: "But, as you both said, let bygones be bygones. Forgive the intrusion." I agree with you. So why do you feel the need to mention it? Like I said. It's just my personal thoughts. If you want to ignore it, be my guest.
It was just my personal thoughts on your conversation. Like I said, "forgive the intrusion." You don't need to care. You don't even need to read it. Like we both said, you are under no obligation to respond.
I never made any references to Carina's reference of the other thread you mention. I was making a reference to Carina's request. Also - as you pointed out to me before - it is not common courtesy to point out to other posters how they should act so it would be nice if you followed your own advice This was on this thread. I mean the request, not you pointing out the common courtesy thing. Sorry for not clarifying.
Again. I did not mean to scold you or anyone else, it was just my personal thoughts as I scrolled through the comments. That's all. I'll reword my comments so it does not come off that way.
Go read something if I'm bored? It's not as simple as that. I don't really have anything to read at the moment. When that happens to me, I log onto Goodreads and interact with people. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point to this site.
I know you've decided to drop the subject. This is what I said: "But, as you both said, let bygones be bygones. Forgive the intrusion." I agree with you. So why do you feel the need to mention it? Like I said. It's just my personal thoughts. If you want to ignore it, be my guest.
The question isn't 'Why do I feel the need to mention it', the question is 'Why do you?' I don't care if it's your personal opinion. I don't have a high opinion of your personal opinion. You basically have no idea what the whole conversation was about. Quit wasting space.
Mickey, you have to remember that context counts as well. I asked why you felt the need to mention it because I agreed with you. I felt the need to mention MY statement because you seemed to have misinterpreted it. Like I said, "forgive the intrusion." You don't need to care about it. I NEVER implied in ANY way that you should care about my opinion. If anything, I did the exact opposite.
Do I have to repeat myself? If you don't care about my opinion, then ignore it. I said that it was just my thoughts because you seemed to take it as a personal attack, which it was not. You don't need to shove it in my face YES, I DO NOT LIKE YOUR OPINION. Do you even get it? I AGREE WITH YOU. MY OPINION IS INSIGNIFCANT. IGNORE IT.
For the last time. I AGREE WITH YOU. So why on earth are you using it against me? You say you don't care about my opinion, yet you seem to take everything I say as a personal attack. For god's sake, it's not. Chill out.
Quit wasting space? It's my choice whether to "waste space" on this thread, not yours. And how is it washing space just to clarify what you clearly took as a personal attack?
Do I have to repeat myself? If you don't care about my opinion, then ignore it. I said that it was just my thoughts because you seemed to take it as a personal attack, which it was not. You don't need to shove it in my face YES, I DO NOT LIKE YOUR OPINION. Do you even get it? I AGREE WITH YOU. MY OPINION IS INSIGNIFCANT. IGNORE IT.
For the last time. I AGREE WITH YOU. So why on earth are you using it against me? You say you don't care about my opinion, yet you seem to take everything I say as a personal attack. For god's sake, it's not. Chill out.
Quit wasting space? It's my choice whether to "waste space" on this thread, not yours. And how is it washing space just to clarify what you clearly took as a personal attack?
It's childish to think that a phrase such as "forgive the intrusion" or "I'm sorry if this offends you, but" or "Don't be mad, but" means that you shouldn't expect the totally valid response to the rest of your post. These aren't magic words. You can't refer to them later and say, "But I told you not to get mad!" It doesn't work that way. Mind your own business and stop being rude.
I don't think it cleans up anything, Mickey. The phrases I used to do that is just to CLARIFY that it is not a personal attack. Especially since you out of all the people on this thread takes EVERYTHING as a personal attack.
It's childish to use those phrases? You know what I think is childish? I think taking everything as a personal attack and ordering people around whether to apologize or not is childish.
I DON'T think that those phrases clear everything up. I use them to clarify the purpose of my posts. Process this tiny fact for once, Mickey, because you clearly don't seem to be getting it.
Maybe they're not magic words, but what in the hell more do you want? Like I said a while ago, should we hunt down your address and pay tribute for the unforgivable crime of having an opinion? Gosh, sounds like a good idea. You don't have to forgive people, you don't even need to acknowledge it, but what else can we do? It's the best any human being on the Internet can offer, and you shouldn't scold them for it. Again. WHAT THE HELL MORE DO YOU WANT, THEN???
Mind my own business? That's exactly what I did. I told you to ignore me. I told you that you were free to ignore me. If you hate my guts so much, THEN FREAKING IGNORE ME. How hard is this to process? Really? Why can you not get this beaten into your head? How hard is that to grasp?
You tell me to stop being rude? I tell you to stop taking everything as a personal attack. I have a right to say whatever the hell I want. If you don't like it, THEN IGNORE IT.
It was nothing more than a humble observation. Stop taking every damn thing I say as a personal attack. IT. IS. NOT.
It's childish to use those phrases? You know what I think is childish? I think taking everything as a personal attack and ordering people around whether to apologize or not is childish.
I DON'T think that those phrases clear everything up. I use them to clarify the purpose of my posts. Process this tiny fact for once, Mickey, because you clearly don't seem to be getting it.
Maybe they're not magic words, but what in the hell more do you want? Like I said a while ago, should we hunt down your address and pay tribute for the unforgivable crime of having an opinion? Gosh, sounds like a good idea. You don't have to forgive people, you don't even need to acknowledge it, but what else can we do? It's the best any human being on the Internet can offer, and you shouldn't scold them for it. Again. WHAT THE HELL MORE DO YOU WANT, THEN???
Mind my own business? That's exactly what I did. I told you to ignore me. I told you that you were free to ignore me. If you hate my guts so much, THEN FREAKING IGNORE ME. How hard is this to process? Really? Why can you not get this beaten into your head? How hard is that to grasp?
You tell me to stop being rude? I tell you to stop taking everything as a personal attack. I have a right to say whatever the hell I want. If you don't like it, THEN IGNORE IT.
It was nothing more than a humble observation. Stop taking every damn thing I say as a personal attack. IT. IS. NOT.
Jocelyn wrote: "Mickey wrote: There are people who have said they wish harm to come to Meyer.I have to be honest with you, Mickey. Do you know that they are exaggerating? Do you honestly think they would try to ..."
I fond that to be a bit ironic... It's not okay to take anyone's violent aggression seriously, but it's completely okay to take a fan seriously and question their mental state when they say "I want to become a vampire" or "Twilight is my Bible".
(And just to clarify, before it's mentioned, I'm not saying that you said this, or that you said I said you said it, or that I said you said I said that you said I said you said this. I don't want to get into that. It's just a broad statement based on observations, not targeting anyone.)
I think that people should be free to read what they want to read, and they can deny reading Twilight even if they adore it-especially because of the amount of "bashing" involved when you admit that you like Twilight. I love reading the series, and even though I do, I don't like the characters themselves. Still, I don't wish Meyer any harm. She's writing the way she wants to-if you don't like her series, don't read it! It's that simple. And you need to let other people read it. People all have different tastes.
Jocelyn, Would a reasonable person consider it a personal attack to be told that they have "indirectly" called people idiots? (Not just once, but twice. The second time was actually after an apology from you where you went on and on about how sorry you were and how rude that was of you, and within a day, decided to accuse me again.) You've also called me a hypocrite and implied that it is due to a mental deficiency that I don't ignore you. Those are personal attacks, even if you don't acknowledge them as such. You can't change things by simply renaming. There are no magic words here, Jocelyn.
But I get it: You're a hater, and this goes beyond the book. You are a classic case of someone who needs to attack others. You have nothing to contribute anymore, so this is the only thing you can think of.
Your defense is silly. First off, I never wanted an apology from you, because I know how little that actually means, based on the first one you gave me (or was it the second?). I want you to stop getting into things you know nothing about and throwing around wild accusations. Referring to it as an opinion and crying about how I'm somehow infringing on your First Amendment rights because I get annoyed at name-calling is a really thin defense. I know you have more social skills than that defense implies.
I've told you before when you've used the whole ADHD defense that you should take ownership of your disability and work at learning how to control it. Nobody is interested in being apologized to constantly. It doesn't wipe the slate clean. Magic words also don't wipe the slate clean. You need to think before you post instead. I gave you the suggestion to wait a while after writing before you post anything so you can avoid embarrassing yourself repeatedly by writing such posts. You're obviously still just blurting out things and somehow, you're expecting that everyone will be okay with this. That's not going to happen. You've said once that you are working on learning how to manage yourself so that you won't act like this anymore. I don't see effort on your part. What I see is someone who is nasty to others, and then apologizes or makes really lame excuses (mostly both at the same time) and then does the same thing again. If you want to be known as someone who can have an intelligent and rational discussion, you are seriously blowing it with these posts.
I'm just done with it. What a waste of time.
Cassie wrote: "I fond that to be a bit ironic... It's not okay to take anyone's violent aggression seriously, but it's completely okay to take a fan seriously and question their mental state when they say "I want to become a vampire" or "Twilight is my Bible"."Yeah, there's a definite double standard there.
@Alex and @JocelynThis is mostly a response to Alex, but something Jocelyn said struck a chord. When I read the final pages of the Inheritance Cycle, I was one of those people who said, "If I ever meet Christopher Paolini, I'm going to string him up and..." yeah. It was said out of frustration and not at all serious. I didn't post it online, but if I had seen the likes (and I have against Twilight), I would not have thought much more than was meant.
While I agree that those who truly wish harm to authors are few, those who cross the line in their hyperbolic threats are many. Frustrated and disgusted responses, again, I find nothing wrong with. But when a person becomes increasingly angry and volatile, spewing words with such venom to the aim of affecting those they're speaking with, this person is inciting his own feelings just for the sake of having company.
And this is only counting those who threaten violence, not the massive amounts of people who insult and berate the author and fans outside of the material. Saying Meyer is a terrible writer is an opinion based on her work. Anything said in strict relation to Meyer's profession is acceptable (if not always tactful). Mean-spirited assaults on her character, her religion, or toward fans for no other reason than they like the book are not in any way acceptable behavior.
Something else was said about book discussions by you, Alex. If someone says they like it and gives no other reasoning, it lends to a back and forth where no ground can be made. I agree. This is also the case with "haters." Someone will come onto a board and say they hate the books and how could anyone like them, and... that's basically it. They don't care to listen to fans' point of view. They only wish to drill their dislike into the mix.
As for over-enthusiastic pro vs. con, sadly, this is just human nature. People don't like the middle ground for some reason. They nearly always fall to extremes. Perhaps because it is easier to see one side so clearly without considering anything contradictory?
Jocelyn wrote: "@ DorothyI don't necessarily mean that the books overall get better, just the writing itself. I still think the story lines are thin, the pacing sucks, the characters are flat and lack little to ..."
I know what you were saying. I was unclear, sorry. I thought it interesting that the prose was what you noticed. I'm a fan of prose, but, to me, good writing is in story and plot, not necessarily prose. While it's a contributor, it's not as high up as something like character development.
It always intrigues me how differently two people can view the same thing. I can say the sky is blue and you could say the sky is purple and yellow, and we're both right. It all depends on where, when, and how we see what we're seeing.
I don't think people who like it have to be obsessed with it. I mean, you could know all about the Twilight series and still be less than thrilled with it, but I don't think those hard-haters are secretly obsessed with it or something like that.
Annie wrote: "I don't think people who like it have to be obsessed with it. I mean, you could know all about the Twilight series and still be less than thrilled with it, but I don't think those hard-haters are s..."I don't think that was the point of the question. It's not that they secretly love Twilight, but that they are just as obsessed with their hate as Twihards are with heir love.
@ Mickey
I took down my old comment, because I figured this was not going to work if I took my old approach to things. If this miscommunication continues any longer we're both just going to get madder and madder. I'm not going to insult you as a person or throw back any insults, because I've realized that instead of clarifying what I'm trying to say, I'm confusing you more. So, here we go.
"Would a reasonable person consider it a personal attack to be told that they have "indirectly" called people idiots? (Not just once, but twice. The second time was actually after an apology from you where you went on and on about how sorry you were and how rude that was of you, and within a day, decided to accuse me again.)"
It's my choice whether I decide what I do is fair. I'm not going to scroll back through the pages to see exactly what I did, but I decided to do it again because I thought it was different from what I did before. You clearly didn't, and that's fine.
Mickey, I felt insulted because you were mocking reasons I personally considered very legitimate. This is what you wrote that compelled me to answer like I did:
"(Oh, you think it's pathetic that Bella was upset when Edward left? You think Bella was suicidal and catatonic? You think blank slate characters are signs of an author's incompetence? You find the writing too purple? Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously...)"
This is what I mean, Mickey. You were mocking us. Not rebutting the statements, just mocking them. Soooooo, don't you think people on the other side might feel, kind of, I don't know, belittled by that statement? And it seems slightly contradictory to what you said before about people going off onto tangents. "Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously..."
"You've also called me a hypocrite and implied that it is due to a mental deficiency that I don't ignore you. Those are personal attacks, even if you don't acknowledge them as such. You can't change things by simply renaming. There are no magic words here, Jocelyn."
When did I use my ADHD as an excuse for rudeness? Because I'll admit, that would be a tad childish of me to do so. What does my calling you a hypocrite have to do with the matter at hand? I'd already narrowed the topic to the sole post where I made an observation on you and Carina's comment. I never said that what you listed up there were not personal attacks, I only said that what I wrote after my observation in response to your replies were not personal attacks. You're generalizing the topic here to a much broader statement, beyond what this conversation is about.
But I get it: You're a hater, and this goes beyond the book. You are a classic case of someone who needs to attack others. You have nothing to contribute anymore, so this is the only thing you can think of."
Are you stereotyping me?
No, this is an honest question. I can't help but feel like I'm being labeled at the "you are a classic case of someone who needs to attack others." Like, "ugh, another person who attacks people for stupid reasons." Do you know me personally? How do you feel so confident in my personality that you would make such a strong statement? Can you tell me this?
"Your defense is silly. First off, I never wanted an apology from you, because I know how little that actually means, based on the first one you gave me (or was it the second?)."
When did I imply that you wanted an apology from me? I may be dense in your eyes, but I'm not so stupid as to be unable to see that you clearly don't want anything from me. I apologize because I feel obligated to do so, not because you or anyone else demanded it. If it's so meaningless to you, then ignore it instead of mocking me for it.
"I want you to stop getting into things you know nothing about and throwing around wild accusations."
So all civility is gone from our conversations, huh? You're resorting to ordering me around? Well, excuse my babyish wording for the next few seconds, but...I don't think that's very nice.
"Referring to it as an opinion and crying about how I'm somehow infringing on your First Amendment rights because I get annoyed at name-calling is a really thin defense."
Crying? All right, maybe my comments DO come off as whiny from time to time...but I never insulted you for being annoyed at name-calling did I? When did I? If I ever specifically scolded you for being annoyed at that, well, you'll have to show me an excerpt from one of my comments when I did that. I did not attack you for "infringing" my rights, I felt the need to defend the fact that I was allowed to have an opinion.
"I know you have more social skills than that defense implies."
I hope you don't think of that as a compliment, Mickey. I really hope not. Especially since you know so little about me. Do you know me personally? How are you so confident in this statement? Instead, I feel kind of belittled. I seriously hope you don't think of that as encouragement either, because it doesn't come off that way.
"I've told you before when you've used the whole ADHD defense that you should take ownership of your disability and work at learning how to control it. Nobody is interested in being apologized to constantly."
You've told me before? That means I have to follow it?
When did I ever use ADHD as an excuse? If I did, I'll admit, once again, that that would be quite childish and immature of me. I didn't use ADHD as an excuse. I referenced it as an occasional reminder that I might possible unintentionally say offensive things, and for people to keep in mind that because of it I might not have meant it.
"It doesn't wipe the slate clean. Magic words also don't wipe the slate clean. You need to think before you post instead."
I asked what more you wanted because what else can anyone offer, besides an apology, to show that they regret what they did? And whether I think before I post is a matter of opinion. Sometimes, I'll admit that I was a little reckless. Other times, well, I still stand by what I say. Again, is it such a crime to defend my opinion? What's wrong with that?
"I gave you the suggestion to wait a while after writing before you post anything so you can avoid embarrassing yourself repeatedly by writing such posts."
Whether I "embarrass" myself, Mickey, is a choice that belongs to me, not you. It's also a matter of opinion. Clearly, to you, I made a fool of myself. Others might not think so. This reads like an opinion in an attempt to be disguised as a fact. You're basically saying, "I told you to do something, why didn't you do it?"
"You're obviously still just blurting out things and somehow, you're expecting that everyone will be okay with this. That's not going to happen."
What? How do you know this? How do you know me so well that you are so confident in this statement? This seems, in my view, a very presumptuous and arrogant assumption. Am I such a shallow person that you could sum up my actions so simply like this?
"You've said once that you are working on learning how to manage yourself so that you won't act like this anymore. I don't see effort on your part."
I'm not sure how much I can speak for myself without being scolded, but whatever, I'll take the risk. You don't see any effort on my part? I took down one of my old offensive comments and rewrote it so it was not offensive. I took the time to fix my mistake. That's not effort? What?
"What I see is someone who is nasty to others, and then apologizes or makes really lame excuses (mostly both at the same time) and then does the same thing again."
Whatever, lady. That's a matter of opinion. I don't care what you think of me, and as you've made clear you don't care either what I think of you.
Nasty? This whole conversation started because you misinterpreted a simple observation of another conversation, for which I don't blame you. I saw that you misinterpreted it and tried to clarify it. Then you took that as me trying to get attention:
"I don't care if it's your personal opinion. I don't have a high opinion of your personal opinion. You basically have no idea what the whole conversation was about. Quit wasting space."
HO HUM, Mickey. That's not too respectful either, is it? I tried to clarify again, because I agreed with you. You don't care about my opinion. I also don't care whether you care about my opinion either. So why is that used to attack me? My saying that it was my opinion was a clarification as the purpose of my post. Just as an observation. Not an attack, not to get attention. Just a simple observation.
"If you want to be known as someone who can have an intelligent and rational discussion, you are seriously blowing it with these posts."
Mickey, I knew I was being nasty. I did that on purpose. I responded in kind. You insulted me, I insulted you back. It's even now. Are you happy or not? This whole thing started because of miscommunication. I tried to clarify what I meant, then you took it as a personal attack. Look, I'm not saying it's your fault, but you clearly failed to see the entire purpose of any of my posts. Again. I was simply clarifying what I saw you misinterpreted. I might have done it rather rudely, but that doesn't make it any less of a clarification.
"I'm just done with it. What a waste of time."
You should have been done with it a long, long, loooooong time ago Mickey. You're absolutely right. This entire conversation is a waste of both your and my time. I defended my opinion and got scolded for it. Whatever.
To quote Carina: let bygones be bygones.
Well, is that nice or what? Did I follow your suggestion? How did I do?
(...yes, that's sarcasm.)
I took down my old comment, because I figured this was not going to work if I took my old approach to things. If this miscommunication continues any longer we're both just going to get madder and madder. I'm not going to insult you as a person or throw back any insults, because I've realized that instead of clarifying what I'm trying to say, I'm confusing you more. So, here we go.
"Would a reasonable person consider it a personal attack to be told that they have "indirectly" called people idiots? (Not just once, but twice. The second time was actually after an apology from you where you went on and on about how sorry you were and how rude that was of you, and within a day, decided to accuse me again.)"
It's my choice whether I decide what I do is fair. I'm not going to scroll back through the pages to see exactly what I did, but I decided to do it again because I thought it was different from what I did before. You clearly didn't, and that's fine.
Mickey, I felt insulted because you were mocking reasons I personally considered very legitimate. This is what you wrote that compelled me to answer like I did:
"(Oh, you think it's pathetic that Bella was upset when Edward left? You think Bella was suicidal and catatonic? You think blank slate characters are signs of an author's incompetence? You find the writing too purple? Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously...)"
This is what I mean, Mickey. You were mocking us. Not rebutting the statements, just mocking them. Soooooo, don't you think people on the other side might feel, kind of, I don't know, belittled by that statement? And it seems slightly contradictory to what you said before about people going off onto tangents. "Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously..."
"You've also called me a hypocrite and implied that it is due to a mental deficiency that I don't ignore you. Those are personal attacks, even if you don't acknowledge them as such. You can't change things by simply renaming. There are no magic words here, Jocelyn."
When did I use my ADHD as an excuse for rudeness? Because I'll admit, that would be a tad childish of me to do so. What does my calling you a hypocrite have to do with the matter at hand? I'd already narrowed the topic to the sole post where I made an observation on you and Carina's comment. I never said that what you listed up there were not personal attacks, I only said that what I wrote after my observation in response to your replies were not personal attacks. You're generalizing the topic here to a much broader statement, beyond what this conversation is about.
But I get it: You're a hater, and this goes beyond the book. You are a classic case of someone who needs to attack others. You have nothing to contribute anymore, so this is the only thing you can think of."
Are you stereotyping me?
No, this is an honest question. I can't help but feel like I'm being labeled at the "you are a classic case of someone who needs to attack others." Like, "ugh, another person who attacks people for stupid reasons." Do you know me personally? How do you feel so confident in my personality that you would make such a strong statement? Can you tell me this?
"Your defense is silly. First off, I never wanted an apology from you, because I know how little that actually means, based on the first one you gave me (or was it the second?)."
When did I imply that you wanted an apology from me? I may be dense in your eyes, but I'm not so stupid as to be unable to see that you clearly don't want anything from me. I apologize because I feel obligated to do so, not because you or anyone else demanded it. If it's so meaningless to you, then ignore it instead of mocking me for it.
"I want you to stop getting into things you know nothing about and throwing around wild accusations."
So all civility is gone from our conversations, huh? You're resorting to ordering me around? Well, excuse my babyish wording for the next few seconds, but...I don't think that's very nice.
"Referring to it as an opinion and crying about how I'm somehow infringing on your First Amendment rights because I get annoyed at name-calling is a really thin defense."
Crying? All right, maybe my comments DO come off as whiny from time to time...but I never insulted you for being annoyed at name-calling did I? When did I? If I ever specifically scolded you for being annoyed at that, well, you'll have to show me an excerpt from one of my comments when I did that. I did not attack you for "infringing" my rights, I felt the need to defend the fact that I was allowed to have an opinion.
"I know you have more social skills than that defense implies."
I hope you don't think of that as a compliment, Mickey. I really hope not. Especially since you know so little about me. Do you know me personally? How are you so confident in this statement? Instead, I feel kind of belittled. I seriously hope you don't think of that as encouragement either, because it doesn't come off that way.
"I've told you before when you've used the whole ADHD defense that you should take ownership of your disability and work at learning how to control it. Nobody is interested in being apologized to constantly."
You've told me before? That means I have to follow it?
When did I ever use ADHD as an excuse? If I did, I'll admit, once again, that that would be quite childish and immature of me. I didn't use ADHD as an excuse. I referenced it as an occasional reminder that I might possible unintentionally say offensive things, and for people to keep in mind that because of it I might not have meant it.
"It doesn't wipe the slate clean. Magic words also don't wipe the slate clean. You need to think before you post instead."
I asked what more you wanted because what else can anyone offer, besides an apology, to show that they regret what they did? And whether I think before I post is a matter of opinion. Sometimes, I'll admit that I was a little reckless. Other times, well, I still stand by what I say. Again, is it such a crime to defend my opinion? What's wrong with that?
"I gave you the suggestion to wait a while after writing before you post anything so you can avoid embarrassing yourself repeatedly by writing such posts."
Whether I "embarrass" myself, Mickey, is a choice that belongs to me, not you. It's also a matter of opinion. Clearly, to you, I made a fool of myself. Others might not think so. This reads like an opinion in an attempt to be disguised as a fact. You're basically saying, "I told you to do something, why didn't you do it?"
"You're obviously still just blurting out things and somehow, you're expecting that everyone will be okay with this. That's not going to happen."
What? How do you know this? How do you know me so well that you are so confident in this statement? This seems, in my view, a very presumptuous and arrogant assumption. Am I such a shallow person that you could sum up my actions so simply like this?
"You've said once that you are working on learning how to manage yourself so that you won't act like this anymore. I don't see effort on your part."
I'm not sure how much I can speak for myself without being scolded, but whatever, I'll take the risk. You don't see any effort on my part? I took down one of my old offensive comments and rewrote it so it was not offensive. I took the time to fix my mistake. That's not effort? What?
"What I see is someone who is nasty to others, and then apologizes or makes really lame excuses (mostly both at the same time) and then does the same thing again."
Whatever, lady. That's a matter of opinion. I don't care what you think of me, and as you've made clear you don't care either what I think of you.
Nasty? This whole conversation started because you misinterpreted a simple observation of another conversation, for which I don't blame you. I saw that you misinterpreted it and tried to clarify it. Then you took that as me trying to get attention:
"I don't care if it's your personal opinion. I don't have a high opinion of your personal opinion. You basically have no idea what the whole conversation was about. Quit wasting space."
HO HUM, Mickey. That's not too respectful either, is it? I tried to clarify again, because I agreed with you. You don't care about my opinion. I also don't care whether you care about my opinion either. So why is that used to attack me? My saying that it was my opinion was a clarification as the purpose of my post. Just as an observation. Not an attack, not to get attention. Just a simple observation.
"If you want to be known as someone who can have an intelligent and rational discussion, you are seriously blowing it with these posts."
Mickey, I knew I was being nasty. I did that on purpose. I responded in kind. You insulted me, I insulted you back. It's even now. Are you happy or not? This whole thing started because of miscommunication. I tried to clarify what I meant, then you took it as a personal attack. Look, I'm not saying it's your fault, but you clearly failed to see the entire purpose of any of my posts. Again. I was simply clarifying what I saw you misinterpreted. I might have done it rather rudely, but that doesn't make it any less of a clarification.
"I'm just done with it. What a waste of time."
You should have been done with it a long, long, loooooong time ago Mickey. You're absolutely right. This entire conversation is a waste of both your and my time. I defended my opinion and got scolded for it. Whatever.
To quote Carina: let bygones be bygones.
Well, is that nice or what? Did I follow your suggestion? How did I do?
(...yes, that's sarcasm.)
Dorothy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "@ Dorothy
I don't necessarily mean that the books overall get better, just the writing itself. I still think the story lines are thin, the pacing sucks, the characters are flat and..."
Yeah, same here. Writing isn't terribly important to me, I was just narrowing the topic to the prose itself. My fault for being vague :) I'm just very critical of things, and I notice a lot of stuff that other people usually ignore.
I have enjoyed badly written books, because like you, I care more about plot and character development, etc. I felt that the execution of HP was bad, and the execution of Twilight was good. The plot and characters of HP were good, and the plot/characters of Twilight were bad.
I don't necessarily mean that the books overall get better, just the writing itself. I still think the story lines are thin, the pacing sucks, the characters are flat and..."
Yeah, same here. Writing isn't terribly important to me, I was just narrowing the topic to the prose itself. My fault for being vague :) I'm just very critical of things, and I notice a lot of stuff that other people usually ignore.
I have enjoyed badly written books, because like you, I care more about plot and character development, etc. I felt that the execution of HP was bad, and the execution of Twilight was good. The plot and characters of HP were good, and the plot/characters of Twilight were bad.
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)
Most of what I usually say, I skipped because I've gotten tired of saying it.
I'm only assuming, but it looks like other people get bored of the repetetiveness, seeing as how a few saam to have abandoned, or are on the verge abandoning, the open minds they've entered with. Now leaving comments like "Stephenie Meyer didn't pay attention in school" or "Stephenie Meyer's husband is a thesaurus" or rape jokes (I consider "thesaurus rape" to be a rape joke). Nobody was leaving these mindless low blows in the beginning.
(I include myself in this. I've been more sarcastic than I need to be)
But still, it's a lot better than most conversations I've had. Nobody's threatened to kill me, called me delusional, or accused me of being "just another typical twitwrd who tYp3s lyK dIisss" just because I made a typo. And no one's left any of those ridiculous "Twilight is gay, that's why" comments.
This discussion isn't nearly as tiresome as most, for me.