Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 451-500 of 2,281

[Mickey]

Jocelyn wrote: "Well, I think it would be okay if it would be something like:

Mickey: they could melt into a puddle.
Me: Eh, cool idea.

I'm pretty sure that's fine, is it? Seems harmless to me. Does that fly with you?

Yes, it wasn't cool of me to talk about you. I'll stop that."

I would say no. Just because it's a slippery slope. There's no reason to respond to each other. There are other ideas to consider than each other's.

[[deleted user]]

It's not my agreement. Mickey refuses to respond to any of my posts but I'm still perfectly free to comment on any of the things that she says.

Yeah, I know. I was talking about me.

(Mickey, I hope you're not offended at this, since it isn't addressed to you and isn't about you. Just in case you are.)

You're a disgrace to the human race Jocelyn. Your name should be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler and Bin Laden. Go home and think on that.

HA! I will take that as a compliment. It seems to me that any teenager who has as much power to change the world as Hitler and Bin Laden is one of the most remarkable teenagers of all. ~_^

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Well, I think it would be okay if it would be something like:

Mickey: they could melt into a puddle.
Me: Eh, cool idea.

I'm pretty sure that's fine, is it? Seems harmless to me. D..."

Very well, then. Yes, I can see how it's risky. I won't do it, since that's true, there are other ideas I can comment on.

Agreed?

[Dorothy]

-_-

Saw your response to Alex in my feed and didn't know the context. Was coming to defend your honor. Is leaving now.

(lol)

[[deleted user]]

Dorothy wrote: "-_-

Saw your response to Alex in my feed and didn't know the context. Was coming to defend your honor. Is leaving now.

(lol)"

Lol, Dorothy. Thanks. Feel very special. :)

[Bill]

Even if we take out the awful syntax and the rape/murder of vampire lore, by the way, Meyers is still comparatively pathetic:

Dracula: a subtle indictment of Victorian-era sexual repression. One of three brilliant classic horror novels (along with Shelley's Frankenstein and Robert Lewis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde). Has vampires in it.

'Salem's Lot: A not-so-subtle indictment of small town politics and the innate hypocrisy of small-town attitudes. Launched a career and made horror a mainstream genre (as opposed to something a little better than porn). Has vampires in it.

The Light At The End: a blatant indictment of New York City's culture of "who cares?" at the mid-point of the '80s, as well as shots across the bow of nihilism and punk culture. Launched the "splatterpunk" movement of horror, and revitalized the horror genre in general. Has vampires in it.

Interview With the Vampire: a subtle defense of alternative lifestyles, as well as putting a more sympathetic face on vampires (making them more anti-heroes than straight villains). Has vampires in it.

Twilight: a shallow vampire novel about a girl who wants to bang a vampire. Spawned a lot of garbage novels about other girls who want to get horizontal and superimposed with other supernatural beings. Has a sparkly faerie, but no real vampires.

Any questions?

[[deleted user]]

As a follow-up to Bill's comment...

This might seem pretty lame of me, but I decided to search up "vampire" on dictionary.com. For what reason, I honestly don't know. I just did.

1.a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night.
2.(in Eastern European folklore) a corpse, animated by an undeparted soul or demon, that periodically leaves the grave and disturbs the living, until it is exhumed and impaled or burned.
3.a person who preys ruthlessly upon others; extortionist.
4.a woman who unscrupulously exploits, ruins, or degrades the men she seduces.
5.an actress noted for her roles as an unscrupulous seductress: the vampires of the silent movies.

I guess I'll just leave it at that and let everyone discuss it without my input.

[Alex]

As well as being an evil troll, it turns out that Bill is also a bit of a mad genius.

[Alex]

Dorothy wrote: "Saw your response to Alex in my feed and didn't know the context. Was coming to defend your honor. Is leaving now."

Did you not read Twilight? What Jocelyn needs is a beautiful man to defend her honour. (Preferably one with paedophilic, stalkerish tendencies.)

[[deleted user]]

I tried reading The host, but got SOOOO BORED!!! I then, a little while later, tried reading the first of the Twilight books. I hated it. I think that she writes very simply, meaning she dosn't develop characters or events very much. I found both books to be quite predictable. I also hated both of the storylines. I think the ideas were good, but the way she carried them out was not. I'm sorry, but I really don't like her writing.

[Beth Buning]

Ida wrote: "The first thing that hit me when I started reading the book one was how childish the writing was, so yes I think it's bad. There are countless blogs dedicated to how horrible Meyer's writing is, fr..."

I feel I have little tolerance for bad writing. I have put down several popular books for this very reason. But for some reason, in spite of being very skeptical through most of the first book, the story hooked me. I have read much worse! Most of what I noticed were typos, which is more of an editing thing.
As for the movies, I watched only the first one, and was not overly impressed.

[Zoran]

Alex wrote: "Did you not read Twilight? What Jocelyn needs is a beautiful man to defend her honour. (Preferably one with paedophilic, stalkerish tendencies.)"

But he must also be rich and play a piano.

Oh, and a 150 years old virgin, too.

[Diane]

I think the word use of scintillating and incandescent is already discussed further in these threads. (I still have a lot of posts to skim through.)

Jocelyn wrote: "First of all, there are about ten thousand adjectives in there, which is not a good idea. Again, writing may be subjective, but throwing in adjectives left and right, inserting them before every single noun, is repetitive and unnecessary.
"

Again, according to the literary world.
But I don't think "adjective-overuse" should be a no-no. For the love of adjectives, I just think it's being a bit pedantic to try to follow all the rules. Rules that are always changing. It's all just arbitrary.
Yes, you can follow your rules and use these to judge books but don't expect everybody to. My point in posting was not to devalue your opinion but to say that differing opinions could both have a place in the reading world.

Alex wrote: "That said, as I've argued in other threads, the extent to which Twilight represents an anti-feminist resurgence is quite troubling.
"
I think your feminist opinions are counter-productive to feminist agenda. But that's just my opinion.
Now I understand why some feminists dislike men calling themselves "feminists".

[Diane]

Alex wrote: "Diane wrote: "If it communicates what it's supposed to then that is what "communicating well" is for me

You have pretty low standards for what constitutes good writing then. Tha, to me, would be..."

Well, no actually for me good writing communicates well and makes you feel.

Very subjective standards.

Really? You don't think people who have comprehensively studied literature every day of their lives for years and years know more about and/or have better opinions than those who "just like to curl up with a good book after a hard day's accounting?"


"Better opinions"? Nope. More studied opinions according to a certain body of knowledge (most likely arbitrary)? Yes.

Literary canon even now isn't very inclusive. It's mostly still dead white guy club.

Shucks. Was that because I'm dumb?

Nope, because you're stubborn.

I'm not trying to devalue your opinion just don't say that yours isn't the only valid one.

[Diane]

Jocelyn wrote: " If writing were as subjective as some people claim, or in the future turns out to be, I'm going to immediately delete my Goodreads account and stop loving books as much as I do now, and possibly sob my heart out.
"
So you'd hinge your love of books on the objectivity of good writing?

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: " If writing were as subjective as some people claim, or in the future turns out to be, I'm going to immediately delete my Goodreads account and stop loving books as much as I do now..."

No, not at all. I just don't like it when people act as though writing is so subjective, that pretty much any writing in existence could be considered good.

[Diane]

Bill wrote: "Seems like it doesn't matter if I come in dripping sweetness and sunshine, or pull no punches and come out swinging: I'll still be treated like shit for having a view contrary to the Gospel According to Twitards.
"
Haha because you were soooo respectful. Poor you being bullied by twilight fans.

You use offensive terminology and wish ill on a person. Srsly. So respectful.
I crey at the injustice.

[Zoran]

Diane wrote: "Yes, you can follow your rules and use these to judge books but don't expect everybody to. My point in posting was not to devalue your opinion but to say that differing opinions could both have a place in the reading world. "

Well, just as I said waaay before - some readers do care about the quality of writing, and some don't - they just want a certain type of content and preferably a "happily ever after" ending.

And they both exist in reading world.

Maybe you think that "good writing" equals "throwing in a billion of adjectives". Well, yeah, you can think that if you like...

...and I'll think that "good singer" equals "pretty face".

Isn't that great?

We can all have our oppinions, long live postmodern relativism.

(I hope I managed to communicate my sarcasm here, but maybe I should repeat it nearly infinite number of times and use more adjectives)

[Diane]

Zoran wrote: "Diane wrote: "Yes, you can follow your rules and use these to judge books but don't expect everybody to. My point in posting was not to devalue your opinion but to say that differing opinions coul..."

Quality is arbitrary.

Sarcasm! So original! xD

[Diane]

Jocelyn wrote: "No, not at all. I just don't like it when people act as though writing is so subjective, that pretty much any writing in existence could be considered good.
"
I'm of the opinion that any writing in existence could be considered good.

You can hold that piece of work and study it through the "literature" lens but those opinions does not negate or lessen the value of writing just because it doesn't pass their standards.

Language, as is writing, is a very personal thing.
Societal attitudes come into play to determine that is acceptable but they're just that: attitudes.

I admire authors that study that craft and hone their skill. There is a discipline to writing.
But I don't believe that the "good writing" label should only belong only to them, that writing should be left to those who have studied it for many years. Non-standard forms of language and writing are perfectly acceptable.

[Zoran]

Diane wrote: "Sarcasm! So original! xD "

Is originality also arbitrary? :-p

Diane wrote: "But I don't believe that the "good writing" label should only belong only to them, that writing should be left to those who have studied it for many years."

Sure. Some people study it for years, some pick it up right away. And some don't. Like SM.

Diane wrote: "Non-standard forms of language and writing are perfectly acceptable."

Yes, if they bring something new. Like, writing in a street-language, or internet-language, writing in a form of chatroom and so on.

Adjective overuse, endless repetitions, mary sue Edward... nope, unless you are writing a parody.

[Zoran]

Diane wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I'm of the opinion that any writing in existence could be considered good."

Ok, well, I can't accept your oppinion, but I'm not going to try and change it.

[Diane]

Zoran wrote: "Is originality also arbitrary? :-p
"
Hmm, I don't think so.
Though there is nothing new under the sun, so maybe. xD

Zoran wrote: "Yes, if they bring something new. Like, writing in a street-language, or internet-language, writing in a form of chatroom and so on.

Adjective overuse, endless repetitions, mary sue Edward... nope, unless you are writing a parody.
"

Yes, street language. I quite like street language in fiction. Though it takes a while to get used to.

I'm just gonna quote one of my favorite tumblr bloggers:
You can have preferences about what you like or dislike in language, and you can try to affect the ongoing evolution of the larger language by broadcasting those views. But you should understand that everything you’re protesting is still a grammatical utterance for someone. You might not want it to be, but it is. And because language is so often a reflection of someone’s identity and sense of group membership, it deserves to be respected.
-Joe Kessler

[[deleted user]]

You can hold that piece of work and study it through the "literature" lens but those opinions does not negate or lessen the value of writing just because it doesn't pass their standards.

That's the main point, though. I, personally, believe there are two ways to study writing, 1) from a literary standpoint, and 2) just as a personal thing. From a literary standpoint, it's all about word usage, technical details, etc. For the personal thing, it's just how much it entertained the reader and connected with them on that kind of level. I think the literary standpoint perspective of it is very, very narrow, though there is a different range of how narrow it can be. On THAT level, yes, IMO, it does lessen the value. The personal things are things like entertainment. Which does not lessen the value.

Language, as is writing, is a very personal thing.

Well, like I said, for me it's fifty-fifty. Part of it is not personal but the technical issues/strengths with the writing, the other part of it is personal, like entertainment value.

I admire authors that study that craft and hone their skill. There is a discipline to writing.

Yes, me too.

But I don't believe that the "good writing" label should only belong only to them, that writing should be left to those who have studied it for many years.

That's true. I still think, though, that people who have studied it hold more...respectable opinions? Not better, but someone whose opinion one is more likely to, well, respect. I don't think the "good writing" label only belongs to people who have studied it a long time, just more.

[Diane]

Jocelyn wrote: " I think the literary standpoint perspective of it is very, very narrow, though there is a different range of how narrow it can be. Some things can hardly be argued, like misspellings, grammar mistakes, or words used in the wrong context."

Exactly my point. It is very narrow, which is why I don't hold it in a much higher regard. It represents a smaller group of people but imposed upon majority.

I was taught to value brevity over verbosity. Years later I wonder where my love of long sentences has gone. I realized it was because I was taught to dislike purple prose and run-on sentences. Yes, there is a reason to this but I see them now as more preferential.

Everyone has their own internal grammar and the way they communicate is a result of that grammar. Wide spread or not, I think their language is not less respectable than more standard forms of language.

Jocelyn wrote: "That's true, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I still think, though, that people who have studied it hold more...respectable opinions? Not better, but someone whose opinion one is more likely to, well, respect. I don't think the "good writing" label only belongs to people who have studied it a long time, just more.
."

Hmmm, this is where we differ.
I think non-literary opinions should be respected equally, they're not more or less respectable to me.

[Zoran]

LOL, oh this is priceless:

Mickey wrote: "And who's seeking to organize fans? "

And now, on the other topic:

Mickey wrote: "I've noticed they tend to form a pack very quickly. What we need is more fan presence and more fan interaction.

What are some of the more populated Twilight groups out there? Do any of you belong to these groups? I wonder what it would take to get them to come over here."

I don't know, for me it's really hard to believe this. "Hey, someone thinks that this book sucks! Quickly, get reinforcements!"

LOL this is great!

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "That's true. I still think, though, that people who have studied it hold more...respectable opinions? Not better, but someone whose opinion one is more likely to, well, respect. I don't think the "good writing" label only belongs to people who have studied it a long time, just more. "

so, does this mean that you would value SM's opinion over your own, would think it deserves more respect than yours? since she has a degree and you don't?

[[deleted user]]

Exactly my point. It is very narrow, which is why I don't hold it in a much higher regard. It represents a smaller group of people but imposed upon majority.

That's why the other half, the other way for examining literature (for me), is on a personal level.

And then that's why readers debate things. It would be a pretty boring place if we all just parted our respective ways and never tried to explain why we liked or disliked a book, right?

My main point is that...it's illegitimate to say that the value of writing canNOT be debated simply because it's subjective. I remember seeing a very long review from one of my friends on Goodreads, part of it talking about the technical flaws of the writing, then one of the commenters were like, "you can't analyze it that way because writing is a matter of opinion." And I couldn't help but think, "Really....?"

Hmmm, this is where we differ.
I think non-literary opinions should be respected equally, they're not more or less respectable to me.

Even then, people (in general, as a whole) inevitably will respect an experienced person's opinion than just a random person. Let's say two people were arguing over the value of a book. If one person said, "this book is good because Elizabeth Hand of the Washington Post said so" as opposed to "my friend from tenth grade said so" obviously, referencing an experienced person is going to lend more credibility than referencing a less experienced person. (I know my example was kind of stupid...I just dumbed it down a bit.)

But yes, that's where we differ...literary critics and the like, IMO, get more respect for their opinions than others who don't have their experience.

[Lori]

M.R. wrote: "I think most of the problems with Twilight could actually be blamed on bad editing. Most books undergo intensive rewriting AFTER the author has completed the final draft. The editing is supposed to..."

Agreed! About the technical mistakes and the bad writing and shallow main characters. But the fact remains, a tabula rasa character is NOT necessary for the reader to invest in the story, however that's precisely why many people did!!

They were just able to throw themselves in this ideal (but actually creepy) romance with the perfect (but rather smothering) guy. The idea of the perfect love, that absolutely nothing outside of it could interfere with the sentiment, and that it would never end. No divorce, no cheating, no abandoning, etc, etc, etc. It's quite appealing...

[Lori]

LOL if there is something misogynistic about "Twilight", that's the whole Bella - Edward relationship, and her comple..."

Soooo true!

[Diane]

Jocelyn wrote: "My main point is that...it's illegitimate to say that the value of writing canNOT be debated simply because it's subjective. I remember seeing a very long review from one of my friends on Goodreads, part of it talking about the technical flaws of the writing, then one of the commenters were like, "you can't analyze it that way because writing is a matter of opinion." And I couldn't help but think, "Really....?"
."

Hmm, I don't think writing shouldn't be debated or discussed because things are subjective.
It's just that as you implied, non-literary opinions are not as "respectable" and tend to be glossed over, laughed at, devalued, etc.
You certainly can analyze writing. I do agree with you on that.

If one person said, "this book is good because Elizabeth Hand of the Washington Post said so" as opposed to "my friend from tenth grade said so" obviously, referencing an experienced person is going to lend more credibility than referencing a less experienced person. (I know my example was kind of stupid...I just dumbed it down a bit.)

Yes in general probably but not to me. xD
(I don't think your example is stupid in any degree, I actually get what you're trying to say.)

Of course, it would be naive to expect people to have the same view. All I'm asking for people to respect opinions; I've read far too many comments imply not having literary-canon standards makes one a bad reader.

p.s. sorry, off-topic. (can't find your HG thread) I've been re-reading a bit of hunger games, was your dislike of the pacing due to Collins glossing over some fighting parts yet prolonging "Katniss-parts"?

[Bill]

Diane wrote: ""Haha because you were soooo respectful. Poor you being bullied by twilight fans.

You use offensive terminology and wish ill on a person. Srsly. So respectful.
I crey at the injustice.

Aw, isn't that cute... You think that a.) I was talking about this thread and being respectful (yeah, right... I learned early that Twitards are only respectful to their own) and b.) I feel bullied (BWAHAHAHAHA!!! It is to laugh! It's an internet forum... only a weak-minded pussy feels threatened by faceless posters who could be thousands of miles away... MWUAHAHAHAHA!!!).

Tell us... did you do this for Mickey? Are you hoping that she'll bestow Her favor upon you for sticking your neck out for Her Divine Holiness, The Meyers? I think that's sweet... now go sit down before you hurt yourself.

[Diane]

Bill wrote: "Diane wrote: ""Haha because you were soooo respectful. Poor you being bullied by twilight fans.

You use offensive terminology and wish ill on a person. Srsly. So respectful.
I crey at the injust..."

Yes, because every fan is exactly the same. And we gang up on people.

Read the threads man. You should see that's not the case.

You should check yourself.

a.) using the term twitards
b.) making fun of people who are affected by cyber-bullying

You want respect? Start respecting others.

[Mickey]

Doesn't Bill remind you of Paul, Diane?

[Diane]

Mickey wrote: "Doesn't Bill remind you of Paul, Diane?"

Yes he most certainly does!
So that's why this has been so familiar. We've been through this before, lol. xD

[Bill]

Diane wrote: "Bill wrote: "Diane wrote: ""Haha because you were soooo respectful. Poor you being bullied by twilight fans.

You use offensive terminology and wish ill on a person. Srsly. So respectful.
I crey ..."

Who says I want respect from Twibots? I saw the thread... I came to voice my opinion... I stayed for the entertainment.

I noticed that you have nothing to say about my posts, just me. This is typical fanatic behavior: attack the poster, try to discredit him/her, and never actually address the content of the posts. You don't have a position other than "I like Twilight, so you can't criticize it... sit down and shut up!", just like the rest of the fanatics.

Oh... I wasn't making fun of cyber-bullying. I'm down playing it as a real problem for me because... gee... it's not like someone's going to jump through my monitor and try to kill me or anything. I work on and with computers... I fear nothing a computer can do, and neither should anyone else.

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "Hmm, I don't think writing shouldn't be debated or discussed because things are subjective.
It's just that as you implied, non-literary opinions are not as "respectable" and tend to be glossed over, laughed at, devalued, etc.
You certainly can analyze writing. I do agree with you on that."

Did I imply that? Sorry...Let me clarify. I think literary opinions are more respectable, but I don't think non-literary values deserve less value or respect. Hopefully that made some sense...:)

(I don't think your example is stupid in any degree, I actually get what you're trying to say.)

Haha, thanks.

All I'm asking for people to respect opinions; I've read far too many comments imply not having literary-canon standards makes one a bad reader.

Oh, did mine imply that? If it did, apologies...I didn't mean to.

The problem here is that while we might respect people's opinions, oftentimes they won't be taken seriously unless they make some attempt to support that opinion. And then when they support that opinion, then people say it's illegitimate to support it because writing can't be analyzed that way or this way or whatever way. It's inevitable, I think, that people who can explain why they felt a certain way about a book, will be taken more seriously and be more respected towards than a person who doesn't. (Not to say that if you're not an experienced person with literature, you somehow are incapable of supporting your opinion.) Does that make any sense....? (I hope so, I might have said it confusingly.)

p.s. sorry, off-topic. (can't find your HG thread) I've been re-reading a bit of hunger games, was your dislike of the pacing due to Collins glossing over some fighting parts yet prolonging "Katniss-parts"?

Well, partly. I'm going to generalize it a bit more...I felt like HG didn't have a good sense of plot relevance. Plot relevance/character-development relevance, for me, is what decides how much emphasis an author should put on a certain scene, character, plot point, etc. And pacing is all about emphasis, how much time you're spending on certain parts of the story, because that's what decides the overall rhythm of the novel. So my problem with HG's pacing was that sometimes Collins would spend less time on plot points and characters that had more relevance than plot points/characters that had less, which Collins emphasizes more.

[[deleted user]]

Bill wrote: "Diane wrote: "Bill wrote: "Diane wrote: ""Haha because you were soooo respectful. Poor you being bullied by twilight fans.

You use offensive terminology and wish ill on a person. Srsly. So resp..."

Bill, I think the thing Diane is addressing is not that you want respect, but that you criticize fans for showing a lack of respect. That's just my 2 cents, I'm not going to take sides.

[Bill]

Jocelyn wrote: "Bill, I think the thing Diane is addressing is not that you want respect, but that you criticize fans for showing a lack of respect. That's just my 2 cents, I'm not going to take sides."

Here's the thing: I have zero respect for Meyers as an "author" (in case you may have missed that... LOL), and I don't feel that being diplomatic about it serves any purpose when I know I'm not going to get any respect from Twihards/Twitards/whatever you want to call them.

I did try the respectful approach once upon a time. It was like throwing pearls before the swine. When you tell someone, "Hey, try to read this book and see why Edward is as much a vampire as Gandalf is a petrochemical engineer for Exxon," and their response is basically "fuck you!!!", you realize quickly that no civil or respectful conversation will ever take place.

Rather than sit and think of "nice" ways to say "Meyers is a talentless hack who's life's work pisses all over the past century or so of vampire literature," I just shut off the filters and let fly. Eventually, it will sink in that one of us is wrong: the fanatic who blindly defends the Sacred (pile of) Cow(shit), or the horror veteran who can practically recite the rules of every vampire novel ever.

They can hate me all they want: words on an internet forum won't hurt me, but it seems to piss them off beyond all reason, and that seems to be all they really understand.

[[deleted user]]

Bill wrote: "I did try the respectful approach once upon a time. It was like throwing pearls before the swine. When you tell someone, "Hey, try to read this book and see why Edward is as much a vampire as Gandalf is a petrochemical engineer for Exxon," and their response is basically "fuck you!!!", you realize quickly that no civil or respectful conversation will ever take place."

Eh, to each their own. I've had plenty of civil conversations before with fans, I've had some uncivil ones. Every fan is a different person, after all.

My own personal policy is this: I can hate the book all I want, but I won't bring that hate on the fans until their behavior warrants it. Unfortunately, sometimes I slip up and the whole screw-up is my fault. Sometimes it's the other's fault. Sometimes it's both. *shrug*

Find whatever works for you. You seem pretty comfortable with the way you approach things, which appears to be all that matters in your case. If you're happy, good for you.

[Diane]

Jocelyn wrote: "Did I? Sorry for that. Let me clarify. I think literary opinions are more respectable, but I don't think non-literary values deserve less value or respect. Hopefully that made some sense...:)

"
Yes, it made sense. :D

Jocelyn wrote: "The problem here is that while we might respect people's opinions, oftentimes they won't be taken seriously unless they make some attempt to support that opinion....
"
Hmm, quite true. There are people who don't support their opinions but I find that (mostly in the twilight boards) that an unsupported opinion of an antifan is more likely to be accepted than an opinion of a fan. Which is why fans are always on the defensive.

Haha, but that is not quite my issue. The ones who do support their opinions in non-literary terms are usually not taken seriously.

I sympathize with those who analyze the writing and share their opinion only to be met with "no, you can't. you shouldn't...". Though I find this happening less often.
I suppose, there needs to be more respect on both sides.

So my problem with HG's pacing was that sometimes Collins would spend less time on plot points and characters that had more relevance, than plot points and characters that she emphasized more.
I see, and I definitely get what you mean, as I'm re-reading I can sense how some people might have a problem with the pacing.
Also, I have noticed that people who dislike Katniss hated the pacing of the series, so I was wondering if that might be a factor.

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "...but I find that (mostly in the twilight boards) that an unsupported opinion of an antifan is more likely to be accepted than an opinion of a fan. Which is why fans are always on the defensive."

Very true. I think it goes both ways. People who support their opinions are more likely to be respected, but just as likely to be "called out" (for lack of a better word), because their views are specific enough for others to examine, take apart, and if they choose to do so, rebut.

Haha, but that is not quite my issue. The ones who do support their opinions in non-literary terms are usually not taken seriously.

Very true.

I sympathize with those who analyze the writing and share their opinion only to be met with "no, you can't. you shouldn't...". Though I find this happening less often.

Really? Interesting....for me, it's been different. Not just things addressed to me, but for others as well...I'll reference my Goodreads friend again. Almost half the comments were things resembling, "you must want the names and places changed according to your specific rules," or "give it a rest, it's literature, it's a matter of opinion." I guess this depends on personal experience.

I suppose, there needs to be more respect on both sides.

Agreed.

Also, I have noticed that people who dislike Katniss hated the pacing of the series, so I was wondering if that might be a factor.

That's actually possible, since it's first person POV. But even if I liked Katniss, I probably still wouldn't have liked the pacing.

[Alex]

Diane wrote: "I think your feminist opinions are counter-productive to feminist agenda. But that's just my opinion.
Now I understand why some feminists dislike men calling themselves "feminists". "

I think that your feminist opinions are counter-productive to feminist agenda but that's just my opinion.

Now I understand why some feminists are stupid enough to dislike men calling themselves "feminists"

[Alex]

Diane wrote: ""Better opinions"? Nope. More studied opinions according to a certain body of knowledge (most likely arbitrary)? Yes."

A scientist studies for 10 years you say "s/he knows more about science than me" An architect, engineer, mathematician studies for 7 years you say "they know more about these subjects than me". A builder, a plumber, an electrician studies to qualify in their trade and you say "they do this job better than me, they know more about these things"

An Academic studies literature for 10 years and you say "my opinion is just as good theirs"

[Alex]

Jocelyn wrote: "From a literary standpoint, it's all about word usage, technical details, etc. For the personal thing, it's just how much it entertained the reader and connected with them on that kind of level. I think the literary standpoint perspective of it is very, very narrow, though there is a different range of how narrow it can be. On THAT level, yes, IMO, it does lessen the value. The personal things are things like entertainment. Which does not lessen the value."


What do you mean the literary standpoint is very very narrow. You seem to assume that studying a text is an arbitrary, dry, technical thing and that it has no room for personal judgement or entertainment).

Studying literature can be many things, depending on what your interests are but what it most definitely is not is narrow and arbitrary and what it definitely understands is subjectivity of taste. The trouble with this conversation is that Diane knows nothing about Academia or studying literature on an Academic level so she makes these fairly common assumptions that it cannot possibly connect with the common interest because most academics don't happen to like Twilight. Rather than entertaining the possibility that it's simply because it's a fucking shit work of fiction she prefers to cling to this image of Academics as ivory tower, out of touch, can't possibly see literature in the same way as she does types. They don't understand women because they're men, they don't understand asian/ethnic minorities because they're white and they don't like Twilight because it's all subjective anyway.

Diane doesn't like the idea that her opinion is not valid in an area that she knows very little about. I can't say that frightens me - having spent many years of my life with a Lit PhD I know first hand how much effort and intelligence it takes to actually "know" about this stuff and I'm happy to defer to the opinion of someone who clearly knows what they're talking about and has a passion for it. I've not yet met a Twilight supporter who has a genuine passion for literature, actually. It could happen ... we all have some novels/literature that we just like even though it's a bit shit. I have a soft spot for the Dragonlance chronicles, although they're terrible and terribly written.... ZOMG I can say that about a book I've loved since I was 12 and not feel threatened. (I need to lie down now)

[Diane]

Alex wrote: "Now I understand why some feminists are stupid enough to dislike men calling themselves "feminists".
"
Actually you didn't even know my reasons, or ask.
Then you go and call me names just because my opinion does not match yours.


A scientist studies for 10 years you say "s/he knows more about science than me" An architect, engineer, mathematician studies for 7 years you say "they know more about these subjects than me". A builder, a plumber, an electrician studies to qualify in their trade and you say "they do this job better than me, they know more about these things"

You are comparing writing with exact sciences.
Linguistics is closer to science than writing. Writing leans towards art though it is not without science.

[Alex]

Diane wrote: "Alex wrote: "Actually you didn't even know my reasons, or ask.
Then you go and call me names just because my opinion does not match yours.".

I didn't ask because I don't care.

You are comparing writing with exact sciences.
Linguistics is closer to science than writing. Writing leans towards art though it is not without science.

Yes that's the point I'm making. People see art as something they have an inherent right to understand. Whereas other fields represent "knowledge", Art is the mighty "subjective" anyone can have a piece of that pie so long as they voice an opinion. What I'm suggesting is that the reality of it isn't like that because to actually understand art you need not just a lot of knowledge, but an excellent grasp on how to use and apply that knowledge. (as in Sciences)

[Diane]

Alex wrote: "Diane wrote: "Alex wrote: "Actually you didn't even know my reasons, or ask.
Then you go and call me names just because my opinion does not match yours.".

I didn't ask because I don't care.

You..."

Exactly. You don't care about this particular woman because you don't care for what she has to say, you only care about women you agree with.

In linguistics, language not as narrow as literary canon seems to be.

More from Joe Kessler:
"There is no such thing as ‘bad language’. Period. It doesn’t exist. Linguists don’t make value judgments about language. That’s like saying many chemists have agreed that certain molecular weights are objectively bad. It just doesn’t make any sense.

You can have preferences about what you like or dislike in language, and you can try to affect the ongoing evolution of the larger language by broadcasting those views. But you should understand that everything you’re protesting is still a grammatical utterance for someone. You might not want it to be, but it is. And because language is so often a reflection of someone’s identity and sense of group membership, it deserves to be respected."

And I think this is reflected in writing as well.

[Alex]

Diane wrote: "Exactly. You don't care about this particular woman because you don't care for what she has to say, you only care about women you agree with.."

Why the big "you don't care about my utterances" crybaby statement. I've had a fairly lengthy discussion with you on this forum in the other thread. I gave you time of day and an opportunity to say your piece. What more am I supposed to do - agree with you? If I were to agree with you then you'd just become "another one of those women I only talk to because I agree with"

Why are you quoting a linguist in a conversation about literature?

[Diane]

Alex wrote: "Diane wrote: "Exactly. You don't care about this particular woman because you don't care for what she has to say, you only care about women you agree with.."

Why the big "you don't care about my ..."

I never said I wanted you to agree me. I was just pointing out how quick you were to call me names without knowing my reason for my statement.

Part of the quote. Sorry, couldn't decide which to cut so I just pasted the whole thing there.

I'm quoting a linguist because written language is still language.