Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Mickey wrote: "Going by your book list, there's not a whole lot of so-called quality literature"Maybe you just can't recognise it ;-)
You know, when you try to get some tips on writing from some experienced writer or theoretician, you will be told not to repeat stuff that you have allready said to your reader.
If you ask "why", you will be told that it is an insult to your reader's intelligence.
In practice, it would look a bit like this:
#1: "Bella thinks Edward is beautiful"
Ok, she thinks he is beautifull.
#2: "Bella thinks Edward is beautiful"
Yeah, I know, you allready said so.
#3: "Bella thinks Edward is beautiful"
Do you think I'm an idiot?
#4: "Bella thinks Edward is beautiful"
Are YOU an idiot?
#5: "Bella thinks Edward is beautiful"
WTF? Who published this crap??
...
#18956871460: "Bella thinks Edward is beautiful"
I'm buying a gun.
Well... of course, judging by the popularity of the series, it seems that not everyone's intelligence is insulted by this... or that people just don't care.
JEEEZZ it's called love ok so you obviously have NO taste what so ever and if you LIKED twilight you would NOT post this crap about how bad it is so please please stop EVERYONE WHO HATES TWILIGHT IS LIKE obsessing over it like .twilight is bad.i hate twilight ect ect ect like did you even read it comment and replie if you have a different view on this or if you damn agree :( JEEEZZZZ
Amelia wrote: "She's a horrible writer. She takes describing way too far. Just think about how many times Edward is described. Are the locations described, or even emotions? Nope, just Edward. Then again, Bella d..."If you think Meyer describes too much, try reading J.R.R. Tolkien... (the lord ot the rings author) He made ME puke, and I'm not picky when it comes to what I'm reading...
Alex wrote: "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 mean that Frankenstein was as mainstream for its time, concerning the writing, as one could get - what makes Frankenstein stand out is the ideas it contained.
I don't mean to critizise Frankenstein, not even Bill's argument - I'm just pointing out that it isn't exactly a strong argument he makes when talking about stylistic choice.
Alex wrote: "Gerd wrote: "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?"
Okay, this didn't come out right and sound more snarky than it was meant, what can I say, I'm an old miser. :)
My point is this:
He faults Meyer for using a lot of uncommon, dated words, and for the anachronistic feel that lends to her writing.
But we find exactly the same mechanics with Susanna Clarke - in short, his argument is to broadly delivered to serve its point.
Diane wrote: "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 literar..."
You don't really make enough sense to have a conversation with. I'm not sitting here saying 'this is canon, this is what one must like'. I'm very strongly anti-canon which is why I read an awful lot of popular lit and fantasy/sci-fi.
Gerd wrote: "Alex wrote: "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 Rom..."No, it really wasn't. The market was flooded with unliterary mainstream crap of the kind now famously referred to as Austen's 'Horrid Novels'. A lot of it is full of writing that would make Meyer blush, frankly. I'm not sure how Frankenstein was positioned in terms of the mainstream or how well it sold, but it's a well written book prose - wise compared to many of its contemporaries. Of course, she's writing at a time when novels were automatically considered inferior to poetry anyway...
Gerd wrote: "Okay, this didn't come out right and sound more snarky than it was meant, what can I say, I'm an old miser. :)My point is this:
He faults Meyer for using a lot of uncommon, dated words, and for the anachronistic feel that lends to her writing.
But we find exactly the same mechanics with Susanna Clarke - in short, his argument is to broadly delivered to serve its point. ."
I completely agree with all of this. But don't diss my brloved Susannah Clarke again :p
Sonny wrote: "Awkward phrases and too wordy at times, but overall I think shes a good storyteller, which I think is the most important part of the novel. Go Stephenie!"I completely agree with you. She's not the best author writing wise, but she sure tells an amazing story, which is what really matters.
Honestly I do not think she is a bad writer even thought I hate Twilight. She wrote The Host and I really like that book, she just wrote a terrible series but I am sure she can write other books and make them awesome.
Taylor wrote: "JEEEZZ it's called love ok so you obviously have NO taste what so ever and if you LIKED twilight you would NOT post this crap about how bad it is so please please stop EVERYONE WHO HATES TWILIGHT I..."It is not love. It is a teenage girl with hormonal issues towards a vampire that does nothing more than control that girl with an iron fist.
Diane wrote: "Some authors are willing to take that risk. I don't see that as a necessarily good or bad thing."
My point is that "some people like fluff" doesn't suddenly make padding good writing. It just means it's entertaining. And if good writing were judged by its entertainment value, then we wouldn't be debating over good writing or not.
Also, when authors take risks, they take risks for a reason. They have a purpose behind taking that risk. (And the risk is usually actually RELEVANT to the main conflict.) As far as I can see, droning on and on and on for thousands of times, telling the reader again and again of Edward's earth-shattering beauty, has no purpose whatsoever behind it.
I agree. But think of fluffy as sort of an indulgent thing.
I also said that a little fluff is fine, remember? 80% fluff is way too much. WAY too much.
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.
That's true. But again, my main point is that "some people like it" doesn't automatically make it good writing.
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.
80% of fluff, though? Even by the lowest standards, that's quite a lot of fluff.
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.
That doesn't make it good writing, though. Also, like I said, Twilight has WAY too much fluff. The MAJORITY of it should be non-fluff. I'd say that books should have at most 10-15% fluff. 80% is a complete joke.
My point is that "some people like fluff" doesn't suddenly make padding good writing. It just means it's entertaining. And if good writing were judged by its entertainment value, then we wouldn't be debating over good writing or not.
Also, when authors take risks, they take risks for a reason. They have a purpose behind taking that risk. (And the risk is usually actually RELEVANT to the main conflict.) As far as I can see, droning on and on and on for thousands of times, telling the reader again and again of Edward's earth-shattering beauty, has no purpose whatsoever behind it.
I agree. But think of fluffy as sort of an indulgent thing.
I also said that a little fluff is fine, remember? 80% fluff is way too much. WAY too much.
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.
That's true. But again, my main point is that "some people like it" doesn't automatically make it good writing.
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.
80% of fluff, though? Even by the lowest standards, that's quite a lot of fluff.
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.
That doesn't make it good writing, though. Also, like I said, Twilight has WAY too much fluff. The MAJORITY of it should be non-fluff. I'd say that books should have at most 10-15% fluff. 80% is a complete joke.
I'd like to see any of you who are giving Stephenie Meyer grief about her writing, write a book or even a page as good as she did. The Twilight Saga is adored by millions of people around the world for a reason. And all you people who don't like it are wasting their breath by moaning and groaning about it, don't you have something better to do than spending time posting mean messages about something you hate? You like giving out about the books you hate more than you like reading the books you love :-(
Hannah wrote: "I'd like to see any of you who are giving Stephenie Meyer grief about her writing, write a book or even a page as good as she did. The Twilight Saga is adored by millions of people around the world..."
Just giving my input on that Hannah....this is a discussion board, not a fan board, and trying to put into words why we don't like Stephenie Meyer's writing doesn't mean we're being mean or "wasting our breath moaning and groaning" about it.
Just giving my input on that Hannah....this is a discussion board, not a fan board, and trying to put into words why we don't like Stephenie Meyer's writing doesn't mean we're being mean or "wasting our breath moaning and groaning" about it.
Hannah wrote: "I'd like to see any of you who are giving Stephenie Meyer grief about her writing, write a book or even a page as good as she did. The Twilight Saga is adored by millions of people around the world..."I *can* write as well as Stephanie Meyer and I am in the process of writing a novella. I don't think of myself as a good writer or one who well ever be published or get the sales of Stephanie Meyer, but my self-image is that I could write a book as good as hers, easily. (Since it's, y'know, pretty shit) I can name you a much longer list of novelists I won't ever be anywhere near as good as, if you like. it would be a far more interesting challenge to be as good as Virginia Woolf or Jane Austen, wouldn't it? or even Anne Rice. In my fucking dreams.
Also, check my reviews if you like but I frequently wax lyrical about books that I adore :)
In my opinion, a good writer is one that paints a vivid picture for the reader, entertains, and draws people into his/her story. Many times, this means that the writer needs fluid sentence structure, impeccable grammar, and plausible story line. But that's not always the case. A good writer basically draws in readers. Stephenie Meyer did just that! She didn't even intentionally target an audience. As she recounts her process, she said it came to her from a dream. I don't know. I applaud her for getting so many young people, that don't normally like to read, read. That's a good writer to me. That's an amazing accomplishment. She told a story, completely fictional, that was unique and fresh. Even if I didn't like the books, I'd still say she was a good writer; just as I do J.K. Rowling.
KarenB wrote: "A good writer draws in readers."
Popularity=good writing.
By that rule, that would also mean that unknown authors and books are bad ones. Which is not true, ever.
So I'd like to change the equation to: popularity=/=good writing.
I do agree, though, that getting people to read is always a plus.
Popularity=good writing.
By that rule, that would also mean that unknown authors and books are bad ones. Which is not true, ever.
So I'd like to change the equation to: popularity=/=good writing.
I do agree, though, that getting people to read is always a plus.
Jocelyn wrote: "KarenB wrote: "A good writer draws in readers."Popularity=/= good writing."
The ability to draw a reader in and captivate them is good writing. If a book is popular, then the writer wrote so well that they drew a large audience.
I think you may be referring to grammar. Popularity does not equal good grammar, that's true. But your other sentence is pure speculation.
Jocelyn wrote: "Hannah wrote: "I'd like to see any of you who are giving Stephenie Meyer grief about her writing, write a book or even a page as good as she did. The Twilight Saga is adored by millions of people a..."Yes, this is a disucussion board. But let's be honest. This thread is no longer a discussion--it's a group of people who claim they don't like Twilight just waiting for someone to post a dissenting opinion so they can jump all over them.
That's what this thread has turned into.
Angie wrote: "Te ability to draw a reader in and captivate them is good writing. If a book is popular, the the writer wrote so well that they drew a large audience.."The book was marketed well and had a premise that captivated a large audience. Not the same thing as good writing at all. In fact, you need to dumb down your writing to pull in a large audience because different people have different intellectual/concentration spans.
Angie wrote: "Te ability to draw a reader in and captivate them is good writing. If a book is popular, then the writer wrote so well that they drew a large audience."
Twilight didn't draw me in and captivate me at all. It bored me to death. So IMO, its writing is bad. By that particular rule, anyway.
(In my experience, I've been bored by well-written books. I thought Narnia was a little dull, but I could tell they're well written.)
Popularity does not equal quality writing. If that were true, then unpopular books would be considered bad. It's possible to get lucky and sell a lot of crap. It's possible to be unlucky and write a brilliant book that doesn't sell a lot. There are a million other factors besides the content that could produce a bestseller.
I think you may be referring to grammar. Popularity does not equal good grammar, that's true. But your other sentence is pure speculation.
No, I wasn't referring to grammar.
Twilight didn't draw me in and captivate me at all. It bored me to death. So IMO, its writing is bad. By that particular rule, anyway.
(In my experience, I've been bored by well-written books. I thought Narnia was a little dull, but I could tell they're well written.)
Popularity does not equal quality writing. If that were true, then unpopular books would be considered bad. It's possible to get lucky and sell a lot of crap. It's possible to be unlucky and write a brilliant book that doesn't sell a lot. There are a million other factors besides the content that could produce a bestseller.
I think you may be referring to grammar. Popularity does not equal good grammar, that's true. But your other sentence is pure speculation.
No, I wasn't referring to grammar.
Jocelyn wrote: "KarenB wrote: "A good writer draws in readers."Popularity=good writing.
By that rule, that would also mean that unknown authors and books are bad ones. Which is not true, ever.
So I'd like to c..."
No, that doesn't mean that unknown authors are bad ones at all. It means that some good authors might not have good publicists or they themselves don't know how to get their work out there.
Angie wrote: "Yes, this is a disucussion board. But let's be honest. This thread is no longer a discussion--it's a group of people who claim they don't like Twilight just waiting for someone to post a dissenting opinion so they can jump all over them."
Doesn't it apply to the other side as well for this thread, though? Antis post a dissenting opinion, fans jump on them. Fans post a dissenting opinion, antis jump on them.
Doesn't it apply to the other side as well for this thread, though? Antis post a dissenting opinion, fans jump on them. Fans post a dissenting opinion, antis jump on them.
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "Te ability to draw a reader in and captivate them is good writing. If a book is popular, then the writer wrote so well that they drew a large audience."Twilight didn't draw me in an..."
If I use logic according to Jocelyn, then every book that has a reader who didn't like it was written badly.
I've tried reading several Stephen King books. They didn't draw me in; they didn't captivate me at all. Does that mean he's a bad writer? Not at all. It means his writing doesn't speak to me.
Angie wrote: "If I use logic according to Jocelyn, then every book that has a reader who didn't like it was written badly.
I've tried reading several Stephen King books. They didn't draw me in; they didn't captivate me at all. Does that mean he's a bad writer? Not at all. It means his writing doesn't speak to me."
No, I think my "logic" was the opposite. If you interpreted the first sentence there as serious...no, it was sarcastic.
The part in parentheses was saying that I've read some boring books, but I could tell they're well written. I agree with you on that.
I've tried reading several Stephen King books. They didn't draw me in; they didn't captivate me at all. Does that mean he's a bad writer? Not at all. It means his writing doesn't speak to me."
No, I think my "logic" was the opposite. If you interpreted the first sentence there as serious...no, it was sarcastic.
The part in parentheses was saying that I've read some boring books, but I could tell they're well written. I agree with you on that.
I think the difference is.Antis - Stephanie Meyer is a bad writer because of x y z, here are some examples of her writing, how and why it is bad (overuse of adjectives, bad sentence structures etc etc) and here's some examples of some good writing and why that is good. here's some criteria to appeal to in order to determine if Meyer can write or not.
Pros - Stephanie Meyer is a good writer because I like it, it speaks to me and because she's popular. it's all subjective.
Can anyone else see the difference here?
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "Yes, this is a disucussion board. But let's be honest. This thread is no longer a discussion--it's a group of people who claim they don't like Twilight just waiting for someone to pos..."In some cases, yes. And I'm not going to lie--even myself when I got hot-headed.
However, this has gone beyond a discussion about the book. People's intelligence is being called into question because they enjoy something others don't. Have you not noticed this?
If this was a mature discussion, it wouldn't have veered into personal attacks. I haven't seen 'antis' being belittled because of a book they enjoyed.
I don't understand why someone liking a book they don't is so threatening that they'll go to any lengths to try and discredit the reader, but that's just me.
Narmin wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I think Stephanie is an amazing writer! I mean, People can say they don't like the books, that's they're opinion. But the storyline doesn't make her a good/bad author. People are onl..."Unrealistic characters are the point! Not everybody wants something that "relates to their lives" or whatever, they want something that is a really good read. You don't have to agree with me, but it does deserve the attention it got. It's a huge phenomenon and there are so many fans out there that enjoy Stephanie for creating this.
Jordan wrote: "Narmin wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I think Stephanie is an amazing writer! I mean, People can say they don't like the books, that's they're opinion. But the storyline doesn't make her a good/bad author...."I agree with you. And to further your point, if someone is looking for a book with realistic characters, why in the hell are they reading books with vampires?
The "Good" or "Badness" of an author is determined by us. If you get people to read it, you're a good author, if people put your book down half-way through your a bad author.
Whether you think she is a literary genius or not, she defiantly got people to read it.
Angie wrote: "However, this has gone beyond a discussion about the book. People's intelligence is being called into question because they enjoy something others don't. Have you not noticed this?."I thought maybe people's intelligence was being called into question relating to whether they did or did not say intelligent things. if someone beats me over the head with the same point ad infinitum, refusing to take my long explanatory responses into account, adjusting what they're saying accordingly, I'm not going to give them credit for intelligence, no. Should I?
If this was a mature discussion, it wouldn't have veered into personal attacks. I haven't seen 'antis' being belittled because of a book they enjoyed.
That's because, on the whole, I think we've been backing up what we're saying with arguments. I can't count the amount of times in my life I've had my opinion of a book or a movie criticised. I've literally been called "retarded" and "a fucking idiot" over and over for not liking a particular movie. Get over it - if you like Twilight, have the confidence in your own opinion to develop reasons why you like it and defend yourself.
Have you not seen how outrageously and mercilesslly Mickey has been hounding Jocelyn in this thread? The thing is, Jocelyn has backbone and the guts to stand up for herself so you don't call it what it is. It's only "poor Twilight fans" who are getting abused here.
Narmin wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "And Edward is described as being beautiful, wealthy, strong, loving, caring, immortal and so on. doesn't that kind of sound like perfect man?) and do you think this se..."Nobody likes the book because of their attractiveness! I love books where the main lead is ugly (for example the book "Fairest" Is pretty good, and she's ugly). If you love a book just because of how the character is described to look, than you don't love the book. I love this book because the plot (supernatural creatures) is different. And I know someone is going to reply this and say "It's not different, so many people write about these sort of things" Well, most of those other books were written after Twilight, hence why people are always saying "Oh this is another Twilight- styled book."
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "People's intelligence is being called into question because they enjoy something others don't. Have you not noticed this?"Well...if you've been following the discussion for the last..."
I believe I conceded your last point in the first sentence of my previous response.
As for more respect on both sides, I doubt that'll happen. It's nearly impossible to look down your nose at someone and be respectful to them at the same time.
As for what 'happened' to you...you had a choice, Jocelyn. I agree that a lot of what was said to you was mean and rude, but did you not do some namecalling and belittling of your own? You took part in the conversation; it didn't happen to you. You could have walked away and ignored it, but you chose not to do that. It hardly makes you a victim.
Angie wrote: "It's nearly impossible to look down your nose at someone and be respectful to them at the same time."
Since we can't do both at once, we choose one. Be respectful. Both antis and fans are at fault. Both sides fix up.
Everyone is happy.
Unfortunately, like you said, that's unlikely to happen. *shrug*
Perhaps we should all create a "Arguing over SM's writing" group and negotiate communication rules and stuff?
(That last part wasn't serious, btw.)
Since we can't do both at once, we choose one. Be respectful. Both antis and fans are at fault. Both sides fix up.
Everyone is happy.
Unfortunately, like you said, that's unlikely to happen. *shrug*
Perhaps we should all create a "Arguing over SM's writing" group and negotiate communication rules and stuff?
(That last part wasn't serious, btw.)
Narmin wrote: "Zoran wrote: "Mickey wrote: "If you want to say that Jacob is a Mary Sue, I'm still waiting for how Edward is one."Narmin told you that. It's been probably told to you thousand times before, I wo..."
Just because he looks perfect, doesn't make him perfect. Sure he's that guy girls want to be with, but if you actually paid attention to what you were reading, you'd catch that he's not. The van incident, perhaps? He practically gave away who he was, just to an ordinary girl. His family was angry and he had to lie to Bella about it , which made her angry. I'm not saying I don't like Edward, because I am totally team Edward, but he is most definently not perfect. Also, he almost killed his wife by having a demon child. Lets not forget about that.
Narmin wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "oh, it applies to them because they are both overly idealized, lack noteworthy flaws", primarily function as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the reader(for SM herself a..."I hate to burst your bubble, but they already are. Did you know that some collages are required to read them for lit. class? And if you don't understand that, you need GOOD literature for literature class, just saying
Angie wrote: "And vampires don't sparkle, they're scary.This statement (and others like it) always cracks me up. If you want to get technical, vampires don't do anything because they don't exist!
That's one ..."
I totally agree! People are always saying "I hate the books because vampires are not supposed to sparkle!" Keep in mind that this was all a dream she had, and it's an unexpected twist which makes it fun!
Angie wrote: "Amanda wrote: "The example people give me most for not liking Twilight is because she made the vampires sparkle in the sun. I liked how Edward still had his morals from when we was originally born...."I do agree that when it came to the movies, I feel like they forgot about the whole sparkle thing. I never saw them sparkle, unless it was important for that scene.
But i like that she did that in the books
Sonny wrote: "Awkward phrases and too wordy at times, but overall I think shes a good storyteller, which I think is the most important part of the novel. Go Stephenie!"I definitely agree, the storytelling is so important! So what if you are a literary writer - if your story is boring and not captivating, no amount of literary skill is going to keep me reading.
Stephenie may not have been the most experienced of writers at the time, but hey - Twilight was her first book, and the more a writer writes, the more they can hone their craft. In any case, I am in awe of Meyer's seemingly endless imagination!!!
Millions of loving readers of Meyer's writing must be finding something worth reading - and that makes at least one type of good writer, in my opinion.
Zoran wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Not convincing, Zoran. One flaw that Bella complained about was his overprotectiveness. It caused their separation in New Moon, so it's not something that had no effect on the story...."And over protectiveness isn't a major flaw? He basically told her she was not allowed to see her bestfriend. Edward does all of these things because he does love her, which is great, but just because he is deeply in love with her doesn't make it a minor flaw. If she wasn't completely head over heals in love with him she probably would have broken up with him. So I don't think he is a Mary Sue. he has flaws because you have to remember he was once human and those flaws didn't "erase".
She isn't the best writer, but Twilight is a good story.
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..."i agree about a story of alice and rosalie. haha the bubbly punk and the tourtured bitch. well put, well put.
Angie wrote: "...but did you not do some namecalling and belittling of your own? You took part in the conversation, it didn't happen to you. You could have walked away and ignored it, but you chose not to do that. It hardly makes you a victim.
No, I don't think of myself of a victim. At all. Did I imply that?
I will say that it was immature of me to reference that, I have deleted my comment, and I'll try not to do it again.
That's true, I did do some name calling. But remember, I did say that both antis and fans are at fault.
As a side note: As far as I can remember in Goodreads, every time I did that, I either 1) apologized and conceded that I was rude, or 2) I felt that it was warranted. I know number 2 is kind of immature and childish of me, and I probably should be doing what's best for the situation instead of trying to gratify myself and make myself feel better by lashing back.
Yes, it's immature of me to stick around and take part in the conversation. It's definitely better for me to ignore them. (Heads up: I apologize for breaking our "agreement," but I think this is a little okay). But as you can see, Mickey and I just figured out a way so we wouldn't have to deal with each other.
No, I don't think of myself of a victim. At all. Did I imply that?
I will say that it was immature of me to reference that, I have deleted my comment, and I'll try not to do it again.
That's true, I did do some name calling. But remember, I did say that both antis and fans are at fault.
As a side note: As far as I can remember in Goodreads, every time I did that, I either 1) apologized and conceded that I was rude, or 2) I felt that it was warranted. I know number 2 is kind of immature and childish of me, and I probably should be doing what's best for the situation instead of trying to gratify myself and make myself feel better by lashing back.
Yes, it's immature of me to stick around and take part in the conversation. It's definitely better for me to ignore them. (Heads up: I apologize for breaking our "agreement," but I think this is a little okay). But as you can see, Mickey and I just figured out a way so we wouldn't have to deal with each other.
Jocelyn wrote: "My point is that "some people like fluff" doesn't suddenly make padding good writing. "Well my point is people have different preferences. That that good writing is subjective. A person's "good writing" can be somebody else's "bad writing".
You may only like THAT type of writing you're describing, but not everyone does. I think the term Mickey mentioned fits nicely "literary anorexia".
You mention in twilight Bella was droning on and on about Edward, while you were thinking it was annoying and unnecessary some other people were thinking "ah to be young and in love" or "that takes me back" or anything else really.
80% is way too much for you?
Even twilight doesn't have enough fluff for some readers, which is the reason why fluff as a genre is popular.
Say if publishers were to ban fluff, a lot of people would be left unsatisfied by the books. Good writing should cater to all people not just some.
What is the purpose of reading? For pleasure! To enjoy! To learn something! To feel!
Personal reasons.
If that books fulfills those reasons, then that could be good writing.
Books don't really need to tell the story in the most efficient way possible. They just need to tell the story.
Diane wrote: "80% is way too much for you?
Even twilight doesn't have enough fluff for some readers, which is the reason why fluff as a genre is popular."
It's way too much by even some of the lowest standards. If fluff is the MAJORITY of the story, then the story has no real purpose or point. There's no central storyline at which all those different side things progress towards. The central conflict and the stuff relevant to it should make up the majority of it. Rambling left and right onto pointless tangents.
What I'm saying is that if there is THAT much fluff, as in 80% fluff, then what's the point? There's nothing to string everything together. It's just a bunch of scattered plot points that have little to nothing to do with each other.
Then there's the other problem I brought up. Pacing. Pacing pacing pacing. 80% fluff is going to weigh it down pretty hard. The story's flow could slow down dramatically, or grind to a complete halt altogether. The overall rhythm of the novel is messed up by all these massive amounts of crap.
Diane wrote: "Say if publishers were to ban fluff, a lot of people would be left unsatisfied by the books."
I think it's possible to satisfy people without bogging down the story with SO MUCH fluff.
Plus, don't you like it when the author leaves a few loose ends? The tiny bit of "incompletion" makes you crave more and more, in a good way. It's a bit more thought-provoking, and leaves things to your imagination, instead of painfully spelling out every single itty bitty aspect of the characters' lives. That's a good thing, to leave things to your reader's imaginations.
What is the purpose of reading? For pleasure! To enjoy! To learn something! To feel!
Personal reasons.
If that books fulfills those reasons, then that could be good writing.
That's the thing. If it were just a matter of personal preference and "it's all subjective," then there would be no such thing as debate over the quality of writing.
Books don't really need to tell the story in the most efficient way possible. They just need to tell the story.
Echoing Alex a little, it's not about just managing to do it, it's about doing it well. If they "just need to tell the story" I consider it to be an average book, not a "good" or "great" book. Perhaps it doesn't need to be "efficient" as you put it...but it definitely shouldn't be told "sloppily." Or even just "averagely." Getting the job done is fine...getting the job done WELL is what makes the difference between an average book and a great book.
Even twilight doesn't have enough fluff for some readers, which is the reason why fluff as a genre is popular."
It's way too much by even some of the lowest standards. If fluff is the MAJORITY of the story, then the story has no real purpose or point. There's no central storyline at which all those different side things progress towards. The central conflict and the stuff relevant to it should make up the majority of it. Rambling left and right onto pointless tangents.
What I'm saying is that if there is THAT much fluff, as in 80% fluff, then what's the point? There's nothing to string everything together. It's just a bunch of scattered plot points that have little to nothing to do with each other.
Then there's the other problem I brought up. Pacing. Pacing pacing pacing. 80% fluff is going to weigh it down pretty hard. The story's flow could slow down dramatically, or grind to a complete halt altogether. The overall rhythm of the novel is messed up by all these massive amounts of crap.
Diane wrote: "Say if publishers were to ban fluff, a lot of people would be left unsatisfied by the books."
I think it's possible to satisfy people without bogging down the story with SO MUCH fluff.
Plus, don't you like it when the author leaves a few loose ends? The tiny bit of "incompletion" makes you crave more and more, in a good way. It's a bit more thought-provoking, and leaves things to your imagination, instead of painfully spelling out every single itty bitty aspect of the characters' lives. That's a good thing, to leave things to your reader's imaginations.
What is the purpose of reading? For pleasure! To enjoy! To learn something! To feel!
Personal reasons.
If that books fulfills those reasons, then that could be good writing.
That's the thing. If it were just a matter of personal preference and "it's all subjective," then there would be no such thing as debate over the quality of writing.
Books don't really need to tell the story in the most efficient way possible. They just need to tell the story.
Echoing Alex a little, it's not about just managing to do it, it's about doing it well. If they "just need to tell the story" I consider it to be an average book, not a "good" or "great" book. Perhaps it doesn't need to be "efficient" as you put it...but it definitely shouldn't be told "sloppily." Or even just "averagely." Getting the job done is fine...getting the job done WELL is what makes the difference between an average book and a great book.
Jocelyn wrote: "If fluff is the MAJORITY of the story, then the story has no real purpose or point. "It's pleasant to some people, that is the point. It fulfills a need or a want.
I think it's possible to satisfy people without bogging down the story with SO MUCH fluff.
Tell that to the people who love fluff.
Okay, I'm gonna get a fluff-lover to comment on this.
Hyeni: (view spoiler)
Plus, don't you like it when the author leaves a few loose ends? The tiny bit of "incompletion" makes you crave more and more, in a good way.
Yes, for some books.
Not all.
That's the thing. If it were just a matter of personal preference and "it's all subjective," then there would be no such thing as debate over the quality of writing.
You can debate over the quality of writing. You're just gonna need to be respectful of people's standards and preferences.
It's not about just managing to do it, it's about doing it well.
I agree, which is why my standards is communication and connection.
But how WELL the story is communicated not only depends on the author it depends on the reader as well. Shannon Hale says “I’ve always believed that as an author, I do 50% of the work of storytelling, and the reader does the other 50%. There’s no way I can control the story you tell yourself from my book. Your own experiences, preferences, prejudices, mood at the moment, current events in your life, needs and wants influence how you read my every word.”
Not all authors should write with "how can I best write this that will be pleasing to most people?" on their mind, that's just pleasing the majority.
Before I headed for work, I saw a couple of points that I want to address now:1.) LOTR is very descriptive. Why? Tolkien needs to describe Middle-Earth to the reader so s/he can understand his setting. Seeing as how most of us will never get to visit the actual Middle-Earth, Tolkien needs to "build" that world in the readers' minds. It's not for everyone, but it gets the job done quite nicely... hence, the need for a lot of "fluff," to use Jocelyn's (?) term.
Twilight's fluff didn't build anything for me. It's not like I can't visit Oregon.
2.) Yes, 2-300 pages were cut from the initial publication of The Stand. This wasn't because those pages served no purpose... it was because the cover price would be higher at 1000+ pages, and the publisher had no confidence that a more expensive novel from a new-ish author (it was only King's 4th novel) would sell enough copies to justify the original unabridged length. If you actually bother to read both versions (I have, several times for each version), you realize that what was removed actually served the same purpose as Tolkien's "fluff:" serious world-building, character development (the chapter with Trashcan Man and The Kid was especially enlightening), and texture.
Personally, though, I think Mickey used it as an attack because King hasn't been kind to Her Plot-Holiness...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/...
...and its not as if she'd actually read one of King's novels (I do believe I suggested reading 'Salem's Lot and was summarily blown off).
Finally, 3.) Yes, I will question your intelligence if you continue to blindly defend this tripe. "Popular = good" is always a shitty argument, "it's all subjective" fails when real arguments about technical ability (which is far from subjective, and eminently quantifiable) are brought up, and "I like it/it speaks to me/ you just don't understand it" are the equivalent of "nyah-nyah-nyah" (which is what my kids used to do when they couldn't actually win an argument). I will continue to call blind fanatics of this abortion of "literature" "Twitards" because I stopped being nice to them a LONG time ago, and because I have yet to see even ONE show a glimmer of intelligence or original thought. If you don't like it, change the game and come up with a real debating point, or go to your echo chamber (where all you'll ever hear are other Twitards pat you on the back, give you a cookie, and tell you how beautiful Meyers' "writing" is) and let the smart people talk.
Diane wrote: It's pleasant to some people, that is the point. It fulfills a need or a want.
That doesnt mean it's impossible for it to tie in somehow to the story.
You can debate over the quality of writing. You're just gonna need to be respectful of people's standards and preferences.
That's true, you should be respectful. But sometimes, if you just use "oh, I liked it anyway" without backing it up with a little somewhat logical explanation, it's missing the entire point. The differences in personal preferences and opinions is why we debate over things. Yes, it's subjective. That's why we're here in this "discussion."
But how WELL the story is communicated not only depends on the author it depends on the reader as well.
Yes, it does. But it's still possible for writing NOT to speak to a reader, yet still be well written. Using my Narnia example again...I don't like Lewis's writing, but I can still tell that it's done well. Conversely, I still enjoy crappy writing...I can tell it's crappy, but I'm entertained by it anyway. It's not just that "I don't get it" or anything, or that it doesn't speak to me that I think Meyer's writing is bad.
That doesnt mean it's impossible for it to tie in somehow to the story.
You can debate over the quality of writing. You're just gonna need to be respectful of people's standards and preferences.
That's true, you should be respectful. But sometimes, if you just use "oh, I liked it anyway" without backing it up with a little somewhat logical explanation, it's missing the entire point. The differences in personal preferences and opinions is why we debate over things. Yes, it's subjective. That's why we're here in this "discussion."
But how WELL the story is communicated not only depends on the author it depends on the reader as well.
Yes, it does. But it's still possible for writing NOT to speak to a reader, yet still be well written. Using my Narnia example again...I don't like Lewis's writing, but I can still tell that it's done well. Conversely, I still enjoy crappy writing...I can tell it's crappy, but I'm entertained by it anyway. It's not just that "I don't get it" or anything, or that it doesn't speak to me that I think Meyer's writing is bad.
Bill wrote: "hence, the need for a lot of "fluff," to use Jocelyn's (?) term"
Yep, I agree on the LotR point... I'd just like to point out, though, that if it serves some kind of purpose, then it is not fluff. Purpose nearly instantly de-fluff-ifies (formerly) pointless filler.
It's not like I can't visit Oregon.
I have no idea why I feel the need to nitpick, but whatever: it's Washington, not Oregon.
Yep, I agree on the LotR point... I'd just like to point out, though, that if it serves some kind of purpose, then it is not fluff. Purpose nearly instantly de-fluff-ifies (formerly) pointless filler.
It's not like I can't visit Oregon.
I have no idea why I feel the need to nitpick, but whatever: it's Washington, not Oregon.
Jocelyn wrote: "Bill wrote: "hence, the need for a lot of "fluff," to use Jocelyn's (?) term"Yep. I'd just like to point out, though, that if it serves some kind of purpose, then it is not fluff. Purpose nearly ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluff_%2...
I first heard this term kicked around on GameSpot's Dawn of War forums when discussing WH40K lore. In that context, "fluff" was the events that occurred outside of the video game itself.
In other words, it's the right term, and it does mean what you thought it does, given the context in which you used it. :)
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...
Going by your book list, there's not a whole lot of so-called quality literature that one would expect from someone calling out others for "not caring about quality".
Many people find fault with Stephen King's writing. He's certainly not perfect, so that must mean you don't care about quality either.
Probably no one has attained this perfect state of "caring about quality" as books are written by imperfect humans. If this is so, a legitimate question to ask is: why make distinctions between fans of one author and fans of another? We're all in the same sorry state of liking things that aren't perfect.