Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Zoran wrote: "What does that have to do with anything? "
Well, books are written language if you haven't noticed. What applies to language in general, applies to written language.
Diane wrote: "Zoran wrote: "What does that have to do with anything? "
Well, books are written language if you haven't noticed. What applies to language in general, applies to written language."
Yes, but when I read this quotation of yours I get the feeling that this guy was talking about are you going to use rich vocabulary or narrow vocabulary, academic or street talk, saying "hell" or "heck" and things like that.
What does that have to do with repetitiveness, overusage of adjectives or superficial characterisation?
(plus, I wouldn't agree that any kind of language is good. Maybe there is a good situation for every language, but you can't just throw certain language wherever you want)
Diane wrote: "...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.""I like this quote! It's like a point I made earlier about books that use improper grammar and reflect the way people talk and think instead of reflecting "the rules". It depends on what the writing is supposed to do. If you think good writing is all about following established rules, then there's a problem with a book like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye, but if it's to accurately depict a person, time or place, I think it adds to the overall package, whether the language is "good" or not. People speak and think in imperfect language. I think that should be reflected in writing stories about them.
Mickey wrote: "People speak and think in imperfect language. I think that should be reflected in writing stories about them. "I agree with this, but I wasn't aware that this was an issue?
Zorann wrote: What does that have to do with repetitiveness, overusage of adjectives or superficial characterisation?
Mickey wrote: "Zorann wrote: What does that have to do with repetitiveness, overusage of adjectives or superficial characterisation?"I don't see those as characteristics of certain type of language. I see those as an inability of writer to use languege properly.
Whatever language she chooses to use.
Zoran wrote: "I don't see those as characteristics of certain type of language. I see those as an inability of writer to use languege properly."That's the problem, Zoran. There's a big difference between how people use language and how they "should" use language (in other words, using "languege [sic] properly").
Most of the rules of good literature are broken by one canonical author at least. If you've read a lot, you know this and you know the limitations of thinking that there is a formula or set of rules that writers must follow in order to use language properly. If you are stuck on determining whether an author follows the rules, you miss a lot of the artistry.
I'll give you a recent example to illustrate my point. I just finished reading Neil Gaiman's American Gods. The book has two separate and distinct styles. One is very straightforward and almost mundance (when dealing with Shadow) and the other (historical passages, and when the gods come into focus) is very lyrical and uses gorgeous language. My personal preference has always been for the latter. If I simply had Shadow's passages, I would think that Gaiman might not be capable of beautiful, lyrical language, because he's writing more simply (even though makes sense in the story).I think the difference in style is highlighting another layer of difference between humans and gods, as well as highlighting the difference between the gods' heydays and their present states.
There was a big difference in style between Jacob's chapters in Breaking Dawn and Bree's book and Bella's perspective. I think to pretend knowledge of any writer when you don't know them is suspect.
Mickey wrote: " If you are stuck on determining whether an author follows the rules, you miss a lot of the artistry"So, are you stating that doing the same mistake, that every 12 year old kid who decided to become a writer does, and has done for generations, thinking that "more adjectives is allways better and it makes me look smarter", this is artistry?
Look Mickey, you have eaten a McDonalds hamburger and you liked it, ok? It's fine, we all eat junk food sometimes. And we often enjoy it.
But please, let's not pretend that McDonald hamburger is a quality meal or equal to some fancy quisine.
And let's not insult those Michelin top chefs by saying that "it is all arbitrary" and "subjective" and "matter of taste" and stating that McDonald's hamburger is as good as any other dish, because many people enjoy it.
It's not.
And same goes for literature.
I didn't really want to go down this road since it's a little complicated but it seems relevant. In many ways I think that Diane is right, because art is subjective and there's no way to appeal to a set of aesthetic criteria without letting on a whole bunch of cultural biases (masculine, white etc).I think the mistake is that Diane is bringing the wring toolkit to the wring debate. One cannot simply say 'there is no aesthetic criteria, therefore any book is good if I say I like it' because it's mustaking the fact that we're having a debate about aesthetic discourses. Whether one denies their overall truth or not, aesthetics still permeate our culture and one cannot have a social conversation about art without alluding to or engaging with them. In a dimilar way to Zoran's example about judging the worth of a meal ... one cannot talk about hamburgers without understanding the sovial context of earting a hamburger or the language we use to describe the act of hamburger eating 'junk food'.
To get into a debate a out the artistic qualities of Stephanie Meyer is to presuppose - like the hamburger - a shared concept of what artistic qualities actually are. If I simply say 'it's all subjective' I've literally opted out of that conversation and started another one in which I debate different features and concepts in a novel ( who write it, why, what was the audience, what's the political nature of the book, and so on). That's fine and good but it's a different discourse from this one. This one needs to set out what its terms and objectives are, what we're comparing Meyer to and why, and why/how are we holding Meyer up to certain standards? Does Meyer's book meet up to aesthetic standards that we have a shared understanding of? - I think that most, if not all of us would say no, she doesn't
I think to say 'it's all subjective' in this context is to misunderstand the question that's being asked, but in a subtle way - it's a misunderstanding that occurs because there are multiple duscourses for talking about art. Academically it was agreed that talking about aesthetics in art was worthless a long, long time ago.
She wrote twilight first so her writing style progressed personally it was terrible in the twilight series but the host was better.
Anyone still defending Meyers' overuse of adjectives at this point doesn't understand how authors and such have been moving away from that for 300-odd years. You need to look up William Wordsworth, a poet from the late 1700's, and his view on florid prose.Up to his time, poets would load a shotgun with every descriptive imaginable, aim at their poetry and such, and pull the trigger. Wordsworth called them out on it, and insisted that it would be much cleaner if authors used common words and syntax.
The result? "Rime of the Ancient Mariner"... Frankenstein... Blake's "Tyger Tyger"... a host of other beautiful pieces that don't require a trip to dictionary.com every 3 minutes to wonder "just what the hell does this actually MEAN?"
By overloading her "book" with meaningless adjectives and purple prose, Meyers is ignoring what came before, and setting the whole field back to pre-Romantic times.
Now, before someone comes in and says "But it's all subjective anyway!!!" as some lame defense for bad writing... read the Harry Potter novels: same target audience, written in the same period, remarkable descriptive... but Rowling uses restraint, doesn't beat her thesaurus to death, and simply hits her marks every time.
I'm guaranteeing HP will last a lot longer than Twilight, simply because someone will open their eyes in the future and say, "Oh, hey, you know... this 'vampire' novel really does suck ass" and all of us who have been saying it for years will be validated.
Alex wrote: " 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)."
I did say that there was a range of how narrow it could be. The super-narrow stuff is, like you said, the dry technical things like grammar and stuff. The more subjective things are like the author's use of language, how she/he applies it, etc. Also things like pacing, writing flow, etc. That kind of thing is far more subjective.
By "very, very narrow" I mean "very, very, narrow in comparison" to the personal things, like entertainment. I didn't actually mean, like, VERY VERY NARROW. Only narrow in comparison. It's actually pretty subjective, probably a lot more than I make it sound, but it's not nearly so subjective that any analysis of writing can be suddenly negated by "it's subjective, whatever." "You can't analyze it that way because it's subjective." "We don't care about that, we just want to be entertained." "None of that matters, so stop analyzing it."
Diane doesn't like the idea that her opinion is not valid in an area that she knows very little about.
Unfortunately (from Diane's point of view, presumably, and anyone who agrees with her) that's applicable to almost anyone who doesn't know much about that area. It's inevitable.
I did say that there was a range of how narrow it could be. The super-narrow stuff is, like you said, the dry technical things like grammar and stuff. The more subjective things are like the author's use of language, how she/he applies it, etc. Also things like pacing, writing flow, etc. That kind of thing is far more subjective.
By "very, very narrow" I mean "very, very, narrow in comparison" to the personal things, like entertainment. I didn't actually mean, like, VERY VERY NARROW. Only narrow in comparison. It's actually pretty subjective, probably a lot more than I make it sound, but it's not nearly so subjective that any analysis of writing can be suddenly negated by "it's subjective, whatever." "You can't analyze it that way because it's subjective." "We don't care about that, we just want to be entertained." "None of that matters, so stop analyzing it."
Diane doesn't like the idea that her opinion is not valid in an area that she knows very little about.
Unfortunately (from Diane's point of view, presumably, and anyone who agrees with her) that's applicable to almost anyone who doesn't know much about that area. It's inevitable.
Alex wrote: "we all have some novels/literature that we just like even though it's a bit shit."
Agreed. I shamelessly enjoy Eragon, even though deep down I know those books are literary garbage.
Agreed. I shamelessly enjoy Eragon, even though deep down I know those books are literary garbage.
Zoran wrote: "But please, let's not pretend that McDonald hamburger is a quality meal or equal to some fancy quisine."Well, it is small portioned and highly overpriced ... so I'd hazard to say it could be equaled to fancy cuisine. :D
Alex wrote: "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)"
Yes, very true. I mean, someone could urinate on canvas and call it art. Someone could write "u r a fag" and call it writing.
Yes, very true. I mean, someone could urinate on canvas and call it art. Someone could write "u r a fag" and call it writing.
Bill wrote: "Now, before someone comes in and says "But it's all subjective anyway!!!" as some lame defense for bad writing... read the Harry Potter novels: same target audience, written in the same period, remarkable descriptive... but Rowling uses restraint, doesn't beat her thesaurus to death, and simply hits her marks every time."
This is totally irrelevant, but I'll comment anyway...That's true, Rowling doesn't abuse her thesaurus, but like Stephenie Meyer, I think her writing suffers from overuse of adverbs. I don't think HP is particularly well written, though. About using restraint, I'd always thought Rowling used inconsistent--she restrained too much or too little. I've never thought that she hits her mark...a lot of the time her prose stumbles, and instead of searching for the best way to convey exactly what she wants, she prefers to hurry along onto the next scene.
This is totally irrelevant, but I'll comment anyway...That's true, Rowling doesn't abuse her thesaurus, but like Stephenie Meyer, I think her writing suffers from overuse of adverbs. I don't think HP is particularly well written, though. About using restraint, I'd always thought Rowling used inconsistent--she restrained too much or too little. I've never thought that she hits her mark...a lot of the time her prose stumbles, and instead of searching for the best way to convey exactly what she wants, she prefers to hurry along onto the next scene.
Zoran wrote: "So, are you stating that doing the same mistake, that every 12 year old kid who decided to become a writer does, and has done for generations, thinking that "more adjectives is allways better and it makes me look smarter", this is artistry?"This is supposing that you know why Meyer wrote like she did, which is a stretch.
It seems more like you are saying, "I know what "the rules" say you're supposed to write like, and she doesn't- HA! She's not following the rules! I'm going to trumpet the fact that I am a better and more advanced literary person because she doesn't know you're not supposed to use a lot of adjectives and I do!"
This is how most people end up critiquing books. There are literary fads that go through the general reading public. One is the objection to adjectives and adverbs. Another is the preference for smaller books with no "extra" to them. (I've always liked the term that Stephen King used of "literary anorexia" when he discusses this preference. As you probably know, he receives steady criticism for his 1,000+ page books.)
I prefer authors that work at individualizing and concentrating their style rather than "following the rules". I think if you come at a book with a checklist of whether the author is doing what is trendy, you're going to miss the point.
Why wouldn't a teenaged girl who is in love for the first time want to be effusive when discussing the physical perfection of her beloved? If you can't wrap your head around that, then I don't think you'll get much out of reading Twilight. I happen to think that this is the due to a defect in the soil and not the seed, though.
As far as "junk food", I notice that you haven't eaten that many so called 5 star meals from looking at your book list. I don't think that good readers have to disavow any of the reading that they like in order to preserve their identities as good readers. I don't believe in making that distinction between books. Books that are critically acclaimed are not less enjoyable and books that are maligned are not less capable of speaking to a reader.
Jocelyn wrote: "Yes, very true. I mean, someone could urinate on canvas and call it art."Why, they do more or less so, and some do call that art.
I would have to disagree with Alex that art needs knowledge - if it does, it failed. (Good) Art should be self explaining.
Art is in that not too different from writing, you want to transport a message and if you can't get it across, you did something wrong.
Bill wrote: "Anyone still defending Meyers' overuse of adjectives at this point doesn't understand how authors and such have been moving away from that for 300-odd years. You need to look up William Wordsworth, a poet from the late 1700's, and his view on florid prose.Up to his time, poets would load a shotgun with every descriptive imaginable, aim at their poetry and such, and pull the trigger. Wordsworth called them out on it, and insisted that it would be much cleaner if authors used common words and syntax.
The result? "Rime of the Ancient Mariner"... Frankenstein... Blake's "Tyger Tyger"... a host of other beautiful pieces that don't require a trip to dictionary.com every 3 minutes to wonder "just what the hell does this actually MEAN?"
By overloading her "book" with meaningless adjectives and purple prose, Meyers is ignoring what came before, and setting the whole field back to pre-Romantic times."
I think that's a strange criticism.
You make it sound as if literature is something that should steadily progress - like technology.
I would agree, that if we were talking about academic writing, that covering the exact same grounds as others before, is bad writing - but Stephenie Meyer wrote for entertainment, so I don't quite see why it should matter what style she chose to express herself in, how using a dated style is making her a bad writer?
And I find it interesting that you chose to put Frankenstein in there, which was, as the writing goes, a typical product of it's time and in no way progressive in that field.
More over, much the same accusation you make there could be made about Susanna Clarke's novel - but maybe we just don't share the view that she's an excellent writer.
Gerd wrote: "And I find it interesting that you chose to put Frankenstein in there, which was, as the writing goes, a typical product of it's time and in no way progressive in that field."WTF?
More over, much the same accusation you make there could be made about Susanna Clarke's novel - but maybe we just don't share the view that she's an excellent writer.
WTF?
Alex wrote: "WTF?"Simple: she took two completely different arguments (the historical context into which Twilight will fall, and the horrific abuse Meyers inflicts on literature in general), tries to dazzle with pseudo-intellectual brilliance, and just ends up baffling us with a reference to something unrelated. I'll address it after class... stay tuned.
Bill wrote: "Alex wrote: "WTF?"
Simple: she took two completely different arguments (the historical context into which Twilight will fall, and the horrific abuse Meyers inflicts on literature in general), trie..."
I think Gerd is male, Bill.
Simple: she took two completely different arguments (the historical context into which Twilight will fall, and the horrific abuse Meyers inflicts on literature in general), trie..."
I think Gerd is male, Bill.
Well, naturally Frankenstein was a product of its time, since it was written in the time that it was written. Not sure how it would be a product of any other time.I'm not sure how Gerd reaches the conclusion that it wasn't "progressive" (whatever the hell that means anyway). It's certainly one of, if not the most highly regarded novel of the Romantic period, and definitely one of the most discussed/written about. I don't think there's any book written that came out of the blue and changed the face of literature all on its own ... but to criticise Bill's argument by criticising Frankenstein is frankly, mental.
I do agree that Bill's comments look a little like he's arguing art "progresses" over time, which I don't personally agree with.
...but anyway why are we still discussing this? Meyer's writing is self-evidently shit to anyone who actually likes reading.
Jocelyn wrote: "I think Gerd is male, Bill."Ooops. Not only didn't I look (I saw the name, thought it was female, and moved on), but since all of the major players have been female this point, I just wrote in autopilot. Sorry, Gerd.
You know what? I just looked over what I did argue, and realized that I was about to rebut to something totally unrelated to what I was thinking. This is a direct result of reading Goodreads, studying for a physics exam and learning MIPS at the same time. I need to rethink my rebuttal and try again later... my mind is not here.
...and here we go:Gerd wrote: "I think that's a strange criticism.
You make it sound as if literature is something that should steadily progress - like technology.
I would agree, that if we were talking about academic writing, that covering the exact same grounds as others before, is bad writing - but Stephenie Meyer wrote for entertainment, so I don't quite see why it should matter what style she chose to express herself in, how using a dated style is making her a bad writer?
And I find it interesting that you chose to put Frankenstein in there, which was, as the writing goes, a typical product of it's time and in no way progressive in that field.
More over, much the same accusation you make there could be made about Susanna Clarke's novel - but maybe we just don't share the view that she's an excellent writer. "
What I'm saying isn't what you're rebutting.
Look up the Romantics' view of poetry and prose. They claimed that both of these were unnecessarily weighted down by overuse of descriptives and such. To them, it put a distance between the author and the reader, as if the writer was trying to assert an intellectual distance over the reader. By using "plain" language, they said that a reader could connect with the piece much more naturally.
Frankenstein belongs in that group because its author, Mary Shelley, was married to one of Romanticism's chief proponents, Percy Bysshe Shelley. This resulted in a novel that benefits from the "stripped down" approach to writing.
(I'm not making this up, by the way... I took English lit courses years ago, and pulled all of this from memory.)
Meyers ignores this and tries, though effusive prose and florid description, to obfuscate her intellectually-bereft views.
(See what I did there? :-P )
Even if we take Mickey's point that a teenaged girl would use that level of description for a crush, how many normal teenagers (pre-Twilight) would use "scintillating" or "marl" in a sentence? It breaks the suspension of disbelief right there, making that a bad debating point.
You dropped the ball with Clark, since I have no idea who she is, what she wrote, or how it compares to any contemporary literature of any kind.
And no... I'm not arguing anything like "art evolves."
Bill wrote: "Frankenstein belongs in that group because its author, Mary Shelley, was married to one of Romanticism's chief proponents, Percy Bysshe Shelley. This resulted in a novel that benefits from the "stripped down" approach to writing."Try reading some Percy Bysshe Shelley for stripped back clarity of prose. Something's not quite right there... I never managed to actually understand one.
Actually Shelley, Byron, Leigh Hunt and that set were all romantics but I don't think that the influence was very black and white stylistically. Those guys only initially revered Wordsworth... they later hated him with a burning passion since they were a lot more radical and revolutionary than he was and they proclaimed his epic poem "The Excursion" to be an absolute crushing bore (which I understand, it actually is anyway...)
Just thought I'd show off and correct you there. (just because I'm bored, really and it just so happens that my ex was editing an edition of Shelley's poems). Your argument does come across as a bit "evolutionary" since you suggest that Meyer ought to learn from Wordsworth. Why should she learn from Wordsworth particularly? Why not, I dunno, Thomas Pynchon? Or Hemingway, Or Jack Kerouac?
Susannah Clarke wrote Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell which, ironically is a semi-pastiche of Victorian literature. it's also completely, in-arguably brilliant and terrifically well written, so I think it's Gerd who dropped the ball majorly on that one. It went down as a modern classic of fantasy pretty much the second it hit the shelves.
Gerd wrote: "Well, it is small portioned and highly overpriced ... so I'd hazard to say it..."LOL you do have a point here :-)
Alex wrote: "Your argument does come across as a bit "evolutionary" since you suggest that Meyer ought to learn from Wordsworth. Why should she learn from Wordsworth particularly? Why not, I dunno, Thomas Pynchon? Or Hemingway, Or Jack Kerouac?"The point I was trying to make is that overly effusive descriptions are bad writing. I picked Wordsworth because he was vocal about it, and because he's the only one I remember being vocal about it. That's all.
Personally, I'd like it if Meyers had learned from anyone. Period. Anything but that overrated, overhyped, poor excuse for a novel that everyone claimed was a good vampire novel (even though it was... wait for it... MISSING THE DAMNED VAMPIRE).
Hey, this is totally off topic...but are any of your guys's notifications really weird right now? This whole conversation just took place without ANY notification in the button in the upper right hand corner of my page....
Jocelyn wrote: "Hey, this is totally off topic...but are any of your guys's notifications really weird right now? This whole conversation just took place without ANY notification in the button in the upper right h..."Yeah that has been happening to me as well. I also occasionally get an error message saying that Goodreads has too many people on it right now. That could be the problem.
Alex wrote: "One cannot simply say 'there is no aesthetic criteria, therefore any book is good if I say I like it' because it's must taking the fact that we're having a debate about aesthetic discourses. Whether one denies their overall truth or not, aesthetics still permeate our culture and one cannot have a social conversation about art without alluding to or engaging with them. "
I'm not saying there is no aesthetic criteria. I'm asking "whose aesthetic criteria"?
Our culture's? Society's?
Shouldn't it be more personal than that? Picking books you like based on study and literary canon, isn't that a little inauthentic?
Based on the current cultural aesthetic, overly verbose writing isn’t “good writing”. I see no objective reason why.
I don't believe that overall she is a bad writer, personally I adore the Host and the Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, but a lot of the Twilight series wasn't her best work by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know whether it was to do with the plots, the characters she was writing as, but a lot of the books aren't phrased very well, they're a tad over dramatic and yes, there are a fair few spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the series.But the bottom line is, no, I don't think she's a bad writer, but she definitely is not a perfect one.
Diane wrote: "Based on the current cultural aesthetic, overly verbose writing isn’t “good writing”. I see no objective reason why."
It's because a lot of Twilight is pointless filler and padding that adds nothing to the story either as a whole, or even helps enhance little bits of it at the time. Basically, it's unnecessary fluff that should have been cut.
Unnecessary padding affects the story HUGELY. Most notably in the pacing, because the padding bogs down the entire story, slowing down the narrative dramatically for no particular reason. The first book drags on and on and on with almost nothing happening, then finally rushing itself up in the end and tying itself up in a sloppy bow. The overall rhythm of the novel suffers from all this fluffy crap that could have been cut without changing a single thing of the tiniest importance in the book. It's not simply that it's considered bad, it's considered bad for a reason--because it grinds the entire story to a halt. And the purpose of fiction is to tell a story, no? And the author has to find a way to keep that story flowing. Everything that stops it or slows it down without any legitimate reason to do so should be cut.
Overly verbose writing can also make other parts of the story with far more relevance feel a lot more rushed. For me, Twilight was both too long, and too short. Too long because, well, it's 500 pages with a very thin plot, bogged down by pointless filler that has no relevance whatsoever to the main conflict, and too short because what little plot in there was rushed and underdeveloped. Basically, Twilight completely fails on achieving sufficient information density--covering as much information in as little time as possible. When the author fails to achieve that, the whole story feels repetitive, predictable, and frankly kind of stupid. Everything needs to add to the overall story. It has to serve some kind of purpose, and it has to make sense. If it doesn't, then yes, IMO, that's bad writing.
I guess some people are going to come up and start pointing out things like, "if you applied that to many other great classics like the Lord of the Rings, then they would be considered bad books" and whatever. The thing is, "overly verbose" writing (if you want to put it that way; I prefer to use the phrase "more than absolutely necessary") can be effective. That is, if it ADDS something. If it SERVES some kind of PURPOSE. It can further enhance the story (in which case it does not count as padding, because it serves a purpose), and also in a way that's at least somewhat relevant (which also applies to all the other "verbose" books considered to be well written, but does not apply to Twilight IMO).
That's why I think "overly verbose" writing is considered bad. Since I do not have a PhD or any other such literary credential or whatever, I suppose I'm not in too much of a position to argue from that perspective. This is just some speculation on my part, and why I personally consider overly verbose writing to be shitty writing.
It's because a lot of Twilight is pointless filler and padding that adds nothing to the story either as a whole, or even helps enhance little bits of it at the time. Basically, it's unnecessary fluff that should have been cut.
Unnecessary padding affects the story HUGELY. Most notably in the pacing, because the padding bogs down the entire story, slowing down the narrative dramatically for no particular reason. The first book drags on and on and on with almost nothing happening, then finally rushing itself up in the end and tying itself up in a sloppy bow. The overall rhythm of the novel suffers from all this fluffy crap that could have been cut without changing a single thing of the tiniest importance in the book. It's not simply that it's considered bad, it's considered bad for a reason--because it grinds the entire story to a halt. And the purpose of fiction is to tell a story, no? And the author has to find a way to keep that story flowing. Everything that stops it or slows it down without any legitimate reason to do so should be cut.
Overly verbose writing can also make other parts of the story with far more relevance feel a lot more rushed. For me, Twilight was both too long, and too short. Too long because, well, it's 500 pages with a very thin plot, bogged down by pointless filler that has no relevance whatsoever to the main conflict, and too short because what little plot in there was rushed and underdeveloped. Basically, Twilight completely fails on achieving sufficient information density--covering as much information in as little time as possible. When the author fails to achieve that, the whole story feels repetitive, predictable, and frankly kind of stupid. Everything needs to add to the overall story. It has to serve some kind of purpose, and it has to make sense. If it doesn't, then yes, IMO, that's bad writing.
I guess some people are going to come up and start pointing out things like, "if you applied that to many other great classics like the Lord of the Rings, then they would be considered bad books" and whatever. The thing is, "overly verbose" writing (if you want to put it that way; I prefer to use the phrase "more than absolutely necessary") can be effective. That is, if it ADDS something. If it SERVES some kind of PURPOSE. It can further enhance the story (in which case it does not count as padding, because it serves a purpose), and also in a way that's at least somewhat relevant (which also applies to all the other "verbose" books considered to be well written, but does not apply to Twilight IMO).
That's why I think "overly verbose" writing is considered bad. Since I do not have a PhD or any other such literary credential or whatever, I suppose I'm not in too much of a position to argue from that perspective. This is just some speculation on my part, and why I personally consider overly verbose writing to be shitty writing.
Jocelyn wrote: " Since I do not have a PhD or any other such literary credential or whatever, I suppose I'm not in too much of a position to argue from that perspective." LOL, you know that doesn't matter to me. xD
Jocelyn wrote: "It's because a lot of Twilight is pointless filler and padding that adds nothing to the story either as a whole, or even helps enhance little bits of it at the time. Basically, it's unnecessary fluff that should have been cut.
"
But some people LIKE fluff.
For me, if I like the characters enough and I truly want to see some more of their moments whether or not it adds to the storyline then there is something special there.
Though showing more the characters or having more character moments is not the only reason there is fluff. Some fluffy parts serve as a break from the tension of a story, some a showcase of wordplay... it could be any reason really.
There is even a "fluff" genre in fanfiction. Those are mostly fun and light reads. It's indulgent and a lot of people love it.
I don't want all books to have no "extra" to them. But I don't want all books to be "fluffy" either.
Don't you read for the pleasure of reading? For the pleasure of words? For the pleasure of the story?
For some people, fluff adds to that.
While I do understand your reasoning, I still think it's still a matter of preference. I'm not dissing your opinion though, I'm just trying to explain another side of things.
Jocelyn wrote: "Hey, this is totally off topic...but are any of your guys's notifications really weird right now? This whole conversation just took place without ANY notification in the button in the upper right h..."My notifications have been wonky for the past couple of days. I even get error messages.
Diane wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Hey, this is totally off topic...but are any of your guys's notifications really weird right now? This whole conversation just took place without ANY notification in the button in t..."
Yep. Also, sometimes my notifications show the wrong person commenting, as well as inaccurate times--sometimes one person commented five hours ago when it shows seven hours or three hours--GAH! GR should fix existing problems before adding all these new features.
Yep. Also, sometimes my notifications show the wrong person commenting, as well as inaccurate times--sometimes one person commented five hours ago when it shows seven hours or three hours--GAH! GR should fix existing problems before adding all these new features.
Diane is continuing to cling to the idea that if she enjoys it then it's good. Diane Wrote: Shouldn't it be more personal than that? Picking books you like based on study and literary canon, isn't that a little inauthentic?
Who does this? Do I do this? Does Jocelyn do this? Not sure what this is referring to. I certainly don't recall mentioning myself that this is what one ought to do.
I think that one ought to read as broadly as one can.
Diane wrote: "For me, if I like the characters enough and I truly want to see some more of their moments whether or not it adds to the storyline then there is something special there.
Suppose the reader dislikes the characters at that moment, though? Then the author is just stifling the reader with lots of pointless crap, and running a higher risk of making the reader stop caring completely.
Even for characters I like, there are still times when I put the book down, stare at the ceiling, and wonder, "Why am I supposed to give a damn?" whether it's entertaining or not does not change the fact that it is filler, pages and pages of nothing that serve no purpose but to take up space. If it truly is enhancing to the story, it will have some kind of relevance. Sometimes, it's not always plot. It can also be quiet moments of character development. Then it's not filler anymore.
Then, like I said, that brings up another problem. Pacing. This doesn't always happen with filler, but it certainly did happen in Twilight. All the unnecessary crap slowed the entire narrative down until it just halted.
Though showing more the characters or having more character moments is not the only reason there is fluff. Some fluffy parts serve as a break from the tension of a story, some a showcase of wordplay... it could be any reason really."
Fluff isn't always non-action scenes. Quiet moments aren't necessarily filler. It's possible to serve as a break from the story and still have relevance. Action/tension scenes can be filler as well.
And even then...well, in the case of Twilight anyway...the fluff definitely isn't there to break up tension. The first 80% of it is fluff. Fluff,fluff, fluff. A bit of fluff is okay. 400 pages of fluff nonstop is complete overkill. If 80% can be cut without missing too many things of importance, that definitely needs some help.
yes, I do read for pleasure. But here's the thing: when there's too much fluff, sometimes I keep wondering: why on earth should I care? Why should I care about what's happening at the moment if I can just skip it without missing anything of importance? Its the author's job to show the reader why they should care about whats happening, and the author's job alone. They shouldn't rely on the lucky coincidence of the reader just caring anyway. Emphasis on TOO MUCH fluff....like I said, a bit of fluff is fine. But 80%? definitely not. There's just not enough substance to consider it to be even close to quality writing.
I don't think it's the fluff itself that adds to the reader's enjoyment, like you implied. That is to say, the simple fact that it's fluff is not usually the reason people enjoy it. Again, the author shouldn't rely on the possible lucky coincidence that the reader would find enjoyment in the fluff rather than feeling distracted and annoyed.
The bottom line for me is that Meyer's prose can meander around onto irrelevant tangents like it's lost, which as a result makes it look like she's trying to stretch everything to book length. And that is definitely not a sign of a good writer.
At least, throughout the series, she still improves. I think Breaking Dawn had the least amount of irrelevant filler in it, followed closely by Eclipse.
Suppose the reader dislikes the characters at that moment, though? Then the author is just stifling the reader with lots of pointless crap, and running a higher risk of making the reader stop caring completely.
Even for characters I like, there are still times when I put the book down, stare at the ceiling, and wonder, "Why am I supposed to give a damn?" whether it's entertaining or not does not change the fact that it is filler, pages and pages of nothing that serve no purpose but to take up space. If it truly is enhancing to the story, it will have some kind of relevance. Sometimes, it's not always plot. It can also be quiet moments of character development. Then it's not filler anymore.
Then, like I said, that brings up another problem. Pacing. This doesn't always happen with filler, but it certainly did happen in Twilight. All the unnecessary crap slowed the entire narrative down until it just halted.
Though showing more the characters or having more character moments is not the only reason there is fluff. Some fluffy parts serve as a break from the tension of a story, some a showcase of wordplay... it could be any reason really."
Fluff isn't always non-action scenes. Quiet moments aren't necessarily filler. It's possible to serve as a break from the story and still have relevance. Action/tension scenes can be filler as well.
And even then...well, in the case of Twilight anyway...the fluff definitely isn't there to break up tension. The first 80% of it is fluff. Fluff,fluff, fluff. A bit of fluff is okay. 400 pages of fluff nonstop is complete overkill. If 80% can be cut without missing too many things of importance, that definitely needs some help.
yes, I do read for pleasure. But here's the thing: when there's too much fluff, sometimes I keep wondering: why on earth should I care? Why should I care about what's happening at the moment if I can just skip it without missing anything of importance? Its the author's job to show the reader why they should care about whats happening, and the author's job alone. They shouldn't rely on the lucky coincidence of the reader just caring anyway. Emphasis on TOO MUCH fluff....like I said, a bit of fluff is fine. But 80%? definitely not. There's just not enough substance to consider it to be even close to quality writing.
I don't think it's the fluff itself that adds to the reader's enjoyment, like you implied. That is to say, the simple fact that it's fluff is not usually the reason people enjoy it. Again, the author shouldn't rely on the possible lucky coincidence that the reader would find enjoyment in the fluff rather than feeling distracted and annoyed.
The bottom line for me is that Meyer's prose can meander around onto irrelevant tangents like it's lost, which as a result makes it look like she's trying to stretch everything to book length. And that is definitely not a sign of a good writer.
At least, throughout the series, she still improves. I think Breaking Dawn had the least amount of irrelevant filler in it, followed closely by Eclipse.
Alex wrote: "Diane is continuing to cling to the idea that if she enjoys it then it's good. Diane Wrote: Shouldn't it be more personal than that? Picking books you like based on study and literary canon, isn'..."
Nope, not just "if I enjoy it". If someone else enjoys it then maybe it's good for them.
Oh I should've said judging books and writing based on study and literary canon. As is, you seem to put more weight on those things. Maybe your personal preferences are in line with it but maybe it was imposed upon you or something. I know you're a stickler for "authenticity" and maybe cultural indoctrination has taken away from that.
Jocelyn wrote: "Suppose the reader dislikes the characters at that moment, though? Then the author is just stifling the reader with lots of pointless crap, and running a higher risk of making the reader stop caring completely."
Some authors are willing to take that risk. I don't see that as a necessarily good or bad thing.
Fluff isn't always non-action scenes. Quiet moments aren't necessarily filler.
I agree. But think of fluffy as sort of an indulgent thing.
The author shouldn't rely on the possible lucky coincidence that the reader would find enjoyment in the fluff rather than feeling distracted and annoyed.
But I don't think authors should stay away from fluff just because they're afraid some people aren't going to like it. If they feel like writing it, if it's something that they would enjoy reading and if they feel that it's something some of the readers would enjoy, then why not? You can't please everybody, might as well please yourself.
Some people love fluff. I would hate it if all authors just decided to not write any fluff at all. (Or if all authors decided that their stories needed fluff, lol).
I think just the fact that there is a fanfiction genre called "fluff" can attest that people DO enjoy it. This is not just in the twilight fanfiction fandom either. Clearly a lot of people aren't getting enough fluff from some of the books or shows that they love.
Also, I'm pretty sure there is a list/shelf (or two, or more) on goodreads that shows some "fluffy" books.
What may be irrelevant and annoying to you might be something someone else enjoys.
Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Hey, this is totally off topic...but are any of your guys's notifications really weird right now? This whole conversation just took place without ANY notification in ..."That's happening to me today. LOL, I didn't even notice new features, just new bugs.
Diane wrote: "What may be irrelevant and annoying to you might be something someone else enjoys. "True. Some people enjoy McDonalds, some people enjoy Twilight. And not just some, a whole bunch of them.
What can we conclude?
A whole bunch of people doesn't care for quality of cooking or writing.
Zoran wrote: "Diane wrote: "What may be irrelevant and annoying to you might be something someone else enjoys. "True. Some people enjoy McDonalds, some people enjoy Twilight. And not just some, a whole bunch ..."
Still an opinion. One I don't agree with.
Depends what you mean by quality.
Also it should be taken to account that people are different (people have different amount of taste buds, people have different diets, etc). Also more people like McD because more people can afford it.
But really, this isn't even a good comparison.
Language preference/usage varies more from person to person and it evolves a lot faster (than humans and our tastebuds).
Taste in food varies less because we are programmed to like or dislike certain tastes (like too much bitter is bad because bitterness is a sign of potential toxicity).
Zoran wrote: "Diane "True. Some people enjoy McDonalds, some people enjoy Twilight. And not just some, a whole bunch of them.What can we conclude?
A whole bunch of people doesn't care for quality of cooking or writing."
How does this snobbery of yours work, Zoran? You don't read what most people consider the higher quality books yourself. Someone looking at your list could easily conclude that you don't care for quality either, which points to how subjective such a term is.
Think about your own reading in order to try to understand others. I see you've read some Stephen Kings. Are there things about Stephen King that are not considered precisely kosher according to "the rules"? Of course, the first that comes to mind is something I've already mentioned: his verbosity. He writes huge books that meander all over the place. When it was first released, editors had cut some 200 or 300 pages of The Stand, only to have King rerelease an uncut version years later. King also has a huge problem with his endings. I think the ending for It is one of the weakest I've ever read. (He actually did a similar ending for the book Cell, but IMO it worked there.) However, to say that Stephen King is a bad writer or that his fans don't care for quality because his natural tendency as a writer is different from what writing should be like or he doesn't do as well in one aspect of writing is simply not looking at the entire picture, including what he does well and how people respond to it. Basically, you're not seeing the quality that's there.
She is a terrible writer. It has been so long since I tried to read the series that I can't really say much more. I forced my way through the first book and could not finish the second. I liked the plot and I wanted to know how it ended, but I could not continue reading because of the poor writing.
Mickey wrote: "How does this snobbery of yours work, Zoran?"It works very fine, thank you. :-p
Mickey wrote: "You don't read what most people consider the higher quality books yourself."
Yes I do. And I also read a whole lot of other books.
SM is one very good writer, but as storyteller she needs to do more research!Personally I liked the Twilight saga over The host...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Sandworld (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
More...
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)
Elie Wiesel (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Rescue Me Gently (other topics)Sandworld (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)
Elie Wiesel (other topics)
More...
What does that have to do with anything?