Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Jocelyn wrote: "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."."
You mention that Bella droning on and on about Edward was annoying, repetitive and unnecessary to you. I replied that it enhances some people's experience (to some it adds to the feeling of first love, or of teenage obsession, etc).
I see why you don't like fluff and overly verbose writing, but I don't see why everyone should have that preference.
Usually to an anti, logical is literary terms and such. I'm hoping you don't require that to have a discussion?
Hmm, if you want me to offer parts of the writing I liked, here's two (this is from BD, though my least favorite in the series, it'll do because i don't have a copy of the first three books):
(view spoiler)
Both passages are vivid. This engages my mind's eye (and nose and mouth); a feast of the senses (first sight then smell and taste). And the best part, they sound like they could've come from my train of thought, almost as if I was the one experiencing what Bella is experiencing.
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.
I didn't say it wasn't possible.
I quite enjoyed a lot of books which I consider crappily written. And I have read some books which had lovely prose but a dreadfully dry story.
Bill wrote: "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."I fail to see how the fact that it was done primarily for financial concerns has relevance to my point. The fact that it was possible to cut 400 pages (I just reread the preface to the unabridged version) from a book (which is itself a longish book) would point to someone who doesn't naturally have a restrained and pared down style.
Personally, I've never had a problem with filler. I don't read abridged versions and can't relate to people who make the criticism that a book they liked would've been better if there were less of it. The purpose of books is to enjoy them, not to be done with them as quickly as possible.
I find your acceptance of filler from some authors to be a problem with your argument here. It seems to hinge on the fact that Meyer's work does nothing for you which is a subjective thing. If it's perfectly acceptable for King to have mountains of filler, to criticize another author for the same thing is a bit hypocritical.
Bill wrote: "Personally, though, I think Mickey used it as an attack because King hasn't been kind to Her Plot-Holiness...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)."
You have only to look through my book list to see I've read many Stephen King novels. I'm not attacking King, but I'm using him to make a point to Zoran. Zoran has been contending that Twilight fans "don't care about quality" because they like Twilight. When I see a bunch of Stephen King's books on his book list, I decided to apply the standards he's been using to something he likes. Can you like a book or an author if they have flaws? If you can, does this mean you don't care about quality? People like King because of his strengths as a writer. That he has weaknesses and that he breaks some of "the rules" that are in vogue now is undeniable. Actually, Meyer and King are the same type of writer. They are both exceptional storytellers with enormous amounts of talents in keeping people transfixed and wanting more. They will probably both be more popular than critically acclaimed.
Why are you still harping on the fact that I didn't want to read your book recommendations? I don't have an obligation to read what you suggest.
Bill wrote: "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."
It seems to really burn you up that people like a book that you don't like and apparently you view your posts and disapproval as our just punishment. You don't have the skill to persuade people of your view so you engage in such "intelligent" debate as calling others stupid and repeating such points like "Twilight vampires are fairies!". How is that intelligent?
@Diane
No, I wasn't demanding that you use "literary terminology." if you were offended by that, I didn't mean to....what I'm saying is that "it's all subjective" is missing the point. I know it's subjective. That's why we're here, right? You're probably not going to see any discussion boards like "does two plus two really equal four?" or anything like that, because it's not subjective.
I've been trying to say that using "it's a matter if personal preference" and examining writing from a literary persoective interchangeably doesn't work well. Because of course some people like the fluff, of course some people feel it's necessarry, etc etc. That's personal. It's not a matter of what you like or prefer that makes good writing, IMO.because like I said, I've enjoyed crappy writing, I've been bored by good writing. We're talking about quality, not whether we enjoyed or whether we were entertained by Meyer's writing. That's why I don't think speaking about them interchangeably works very well. (I'm not dissing your opinion, btw, so please do not take it as such. :)
I like your passage. Like I said before, though, it's mostly the first book of the series that I consider badly written; as the series progresses, Meyer becomes better and better. Were there any passages in the first book that you liked as well? (I hope I don't seem like I'm challenging you or anything; I'm just curious.)
I didn't say it wasn't possible.
My point is that "every reader is different" or "there's always going to be people who dislike it" isn't enough to explain the flaws in someone's writing.
No, I wasn't demanding that you use "literary terminology." if you were offended by that, I didn't mean to....what I'm saying is that "it's all subjective" is missing the point. I know it's subjective. That's why we're here, right? You're probably not going to see any discussion boards like "does two plus two really equal four?" or anything like that, because it's not subjective.
I've been trying to say that using "it's a matter if personal preference" and examining writing from a literary persoective interchangeably doesn't work well. Because of course some people like the fluff, of course some people feel it's necessarry, etc etc. That's personal. It's not a matter of what you like or prefer that makes good writing, IMO.because like I said, I've enjoyed crappy writing, I've been bored by good writing. We're talking about quality, not whether we enjoyed or whether we were entertained by Meyer's writing. That's why I don't think speaking about them interchangeably works very well. (I'm not dissing your opinion, btw, so please do not take it as such. :)
I like your passage. Like I said before, though, it's mostly the first book of the series that I consider badly written; as the series progresses, Meyer becomes better and better. Were there any passages in the first book that you liked as well? (I hope I don't seem like I'm challenging you or anything; I'm just curious.)
I didn't say it wasn't possible.
My point is that "every reader is different" or "there's always going to be people who dislike it" isn't enough to explain the flaws in someone's writing.
Bill wrote: "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...."
Let's use the term "filler" or "padding" then to define extraneous details in ANY story.
Yep. I'd just like to point out, though, that if it serves some kind of purpose, then it is not fluff...."
Let's use the term "filler" or "padding" then to define extraneous details in ANY story.
I'm not going to quote that whole thing, or I'll have no room to respond... I'll just go back and rebut point-by-point:1.) That 3-400 pages wasn't entirely necessary, but it did add to the story. It was what fantasy writers and readers refer to as "world-building." It adds depth to characters and places that you know the reader will never visit. It's not just there to pad the length of the book, which is the specific accusation leveled at Meyers.
As far as style... rewind the thread a bit, and you'll see that I have no objection to calling King "not very good anymore." Most of that was his near-obsession with dropping every book of his somewhere in his Dark Tower mythology, so weird... things... that had no place in the narrative would just pop in.
Aside from that, I actually prefer books at that length, because at my usual reading pace, anything shorter turns to "blink-and-you-miss-it."
2.) I can at least admit that the authors I like have flaws. Murphy and Sapir (authors of "The Destroyer" series novels that I have been blowing through) are funny and acidly satirical, but they have a problem with weak endings. Skipp and Spector, the best splatterpunk writers of the late '80s, tried to get clever with Dead Lines and it failed horribly. Robert R. McCammon's early novels were weak (Baal, in particular, was an uncomfortable cross between The Omen and Frankenstein, with events that never led to anything in the book).
I can go on, but the point is I don't blindly brush off those flaws as if they weren't a problem. That's all I ever see Twihards/Twitards do ("It speaks to me"... "It's overly descriptive, bad writing"... "No it's not, it's popular"... ad nauseum).
3.) Recommendations: all I wanted to get across was that there is plenty of creativity in fictional vampire lore, which I have seen as a defense of Edward's sparkling. When you blow that off as "I won't enjoy those," it comes across as a close-minded, hands-over-ears "I don't wanna learn new things about leeches!!!" reaction.
Finally: if I wanted to punish people for liking a book, don't you think I'd be in more than 2 threads, calling people out for actually enjoying this crap? I could be a "master troll," going everywhere and spoiling every discussion involving Her Plot-holiness and her non-vampire... instead, I picked 2 places where the conversation intrigued me.
I don't pull punches; I don't play nice (I've already explained why); I speak my mind. If you notice, I even make other non-fans uncomfortable... oh, well. Dancing around the point, being diplomatic, is a waste of time, when I know that all a fanatic will see is that I don't like Meyers' stuff, and I'll be met with an attack.
On the other hand, the fact that most of the fanatics seem to ignore all of the flaws and be willing to band together to defend... this... should send up a huge red flag that it's no longer a fan-base, it's a CULT.
Happy Thankgiving, everyone! :)
Bill wrote: "On the other hand, the fact that most of the fanatics seem to ignore all of the flaws and be willing to band together to defend... this... should send up a huge red flag that it's no longer a fan-base, it's a CULT."LOL...that last statement just got rid of any shred of credibility you may have had. Dramatic much?
Bill wrote: "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 se..."
There are plenty of 'smart' people in this conversation, Bill. You just can't see past the fact that someone might see something differently than you long enough to realize that.
This is an excellent example of what this thread has turned into. Bill has essentially admitted that it doesn't matter why someone likes this book; no reason is going to be good enough. Whatever anyone has to offer as a reason, he's here to jump all over them.
It's sad that your view is so narrow.
Angie wrote: "It's sad that your view is so narrow."I agree. I think the problem is that there is no desire to do anything but insult people for liking a book.
Everyone here likes imperfect books (particularly if we are going by "the rules" set for good writing). But there is an effort here to pretend that disliking a book is a sign of superior intelligence, which is silly. Particularly when coupled with the fact that the flaws that some expect should be deal-breakers for Twilight are perfectly acceptable in other more approved books.
Mickey wrote: "Angie wrote: "It's sad that your view is so narrow."I agree. I think the problem is that there is no desire to do anything but insult people for liking a book.
Everyone here likes imperfect boo..."
I agree. The real threat here is that this book was immensely popular, and they can't figure out why because they didn't like it. It's impossible for them (I'm referring to a select few here, not everyone participating in this thread) to accept that something may be beyond their scope of reasoning.
You know, Angie, I'm not even sure that it's a lack of understanding, because it feels so willful. I think they like the position of being "literary guru" and looking down on others because they have "higher standards" (except when they are reading something they like, then they aren't so picky). I don't think there's anything wrong with having a personal preference as a reader, but I have a problem when people insult other readers as "not caring about quality" for offenses that their favorite authors are also guilty of. You want to come here and insult others about their reading? Remove the plank from your eye before looking at the splinter in your neighbor's eye.
Angie wrote: "I agree. The real threat here is that this book was immensely popular, and they can't figure out why because they didn't like it.."Dude, I'm interested in popular culture. I read Twilight because I'm interested in what's popular. I'm reading Stephen King because he's popular (as opposed ot being any good, which he isn't, particularly.) I take part in these conversations because popular culture interests me. I find your defence - or lack of any tangible defence - of these books profoundly interesting. I find your obsession with these books profoundly interesting. I find this little comment above incredibly interesting.
What I'm really not, is threatened by a poorly written popular novel. You're all so very cute.
Mickey wrote: "You know, Angie, I'm not even sure that it's a lack of understanding, because it feels so willful. I think they like the position of being "literary guru" and looking down on others because they ha..."Self-appointed 'literary gurus' now mind you.
I'd be able to take their opinions seriously if they weren't so immature in their presentation.
Take Bill, for example. Now, here's a man who claims he doesn't like Twilight but is so invested in this thread that he can't resist checking it during class. And instead of waiting to post, he has to post that he'll be back to post. Uh...thanks for the warning?
Although, I'm getting off track. That really belongs in the 'Are People Who Hate Twilight Obsessed with Twilight?' thread. This is a question that can only be answered on a case by case basis, and for Bill that answer is obviously yes.
Angie wrote: Self-appointed 'literary gurus' now mind you.
Okay I REALLY hope I'm not offending anyone by posting this. Just as a heads up. Any offense this post carries is completely unintended and accidental.
I think it's that sometimes, when antis offer a logical explanation, instead of it being rebutted or refuted, it's dismissed. This may seem a little hypocritical of me since I've done the same before, but I digress. I highly doubt that more than just a few antis see themselves in a position of literary....power, I guess? It's just extremely frustrating to present a detailed claim or argument, only to be met with "you just don't get it" or " it's not for everyone."
I'm not saying that fans are stupid or clueless, I'm just trying to explain the other side. Looking back, I can see that we do come off as a little pretentious and arrogant.
Okay I REALLY hope I'm not offending anyone by posting this. Just as a heads up. Any offense this post carries is completely unintended and accidental.
I think it's that sometimes, when antis offer a logical explanation, instead of it being rebutted or refuted, it's dismissed. This may seem a little hypocritical of me since I've done the same before, but I digress. I highly doubt that more than just a few antis see themselves in a position of literary....power, I guess? It's just extremely frustrating to present a detailed claim or argument, only to be met with "you just don't get it" or " it's not for everyone."
I'm not saying that fans are stupid or clueless, I'm just trying to explain the other side. Looking back, I can see that we do come off as a little pretentious and arrogant.
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: Self-appointed 'literary gurus' now mind you.Okay I REALLY hope I'm not offending anyone by posting this. Just as a heads up. Any offense this post carries is completely unintended a..."
FYI--if you know something is going to be offensive, then putting a 'disclaimer' at the beginning of your post doesn't negate it or make it 'accidental.' I suppose this is another example of you being afraid of hurting someone's feelings and not being able to 'own' your post.
Twilight fans have offered plenty of logical reasons why this book isn't written badly, but all those reasons have been discarded because they're 'not good enough.' Which is funny, really. Because good enough for who?
No one here is going to be swayed by anything a Twilight fan posts, because the 'haters' don't want to be open minded. Their main goal is to get someone to feel about the book the way they do. I'm done defending the book, because what it always turns into is my intelligence being insulted, and I end up having to defend that.
I've read your arguments, and I understand why you don't like the books. I just don't share your opinions. That's the main difference: I can like this book and understand why others don't. I don't think the haters can reciprocate.
And at this point, yes. Any one who is still here and is 'championing' this cause of hating Twilight is a hater in my opinion. Otherwise, you'd be seeking discussions about books you did like.
You know, I tried to get Bill and Zoran to see that their own likes are not completely flawless as a way to get them to understand how a fan can like a book despite its deviations from "the rules", but it almost feels like they're more interested in being insulting and making distinctions between themselves and fans. This is the problem with spending a lot of time as a hater. You develop a mindset that is very narrow and focuses on feeding your own arrogance and upholding the view of yourself as intellectually superior.
If I leveled the "cult" accusation at a Scientologist, or a Hare Krishna, or a Star Trek fanatic, I would expect a response exactly like this:Angie wrote: "LOL...that last statement just got rid of any shred of credibility you may have had."
Thank you for being so predictable. It pretty well proves my final point. :D
Bill wrote: "If I leveled the "cult" accusation at a Scientologist, or a Hare Krishna, or a Star Trek fanatic, I would expect a response exactly like this:Angie wrote: "LOL...that last statement just got rid ..."
As would anyone who isn't part of a cult, Bill.
It seems your insight into human behavior is as lacking as your literary prowess.
Thank you for that demonstration! ;)
Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: Self-appointed 'literary gurus' now mind you.
Okay I REALLY hope I'm not offending anyone by posting this. Just as a heads up. Any offense this post carries is complet..."
Look, Angie...I don't know if it's offensive or not. I thought the majority of anti posts were civil enough (emphasis on majority, I do understand that some of us, including me, were a bit obnoxious), but you were obviously offended by a lot more of them than I'd thought, so I'm unsure of how much it takes for anyone to get offended. I do not think it mitigates any offense on my part, I'm just saying that if there IS offense, it's unintended. Because I actually think my post was not offensive, but not very sure of what others would think. That was the purpose of the disclaimer.
Also, sometimes yes, I am afraid to own my opinion. Because when I "own" it, I'm considered rude and uncivil and mean and offensive and a self-appointed literary guru. And someone attacking people for liking a book. And because whenever I say that personal preferences and literary examination don't sit well together, I'm indignantly called out for trying to make the world conform to my opinions.
Just as a reminder,I don't remember ever saying that fans never offered a logical explanation, I just said SOMETIMES they don't. Which also applies to antis as well. Sometimes antis don't either.
As for seeking out discussions about books I do like, I actually have. This thread is only one out of maybe ten threads I've participated in. I participate in this thread because it's interesting, not because I'm trying to convert fans into antis.
Okay I REALLY hope I'm not offending anyone by posting this. Just as a heads up. Any offense this post carries is complet..."
Look, Angie...I don't know if it's offensive or not. I thought the majority of anti posts were civil enough (emphasis on majority, I do understand that some of us, including me, were a bit obnoxious), but you were obviously offended by a lot more of them than I'd thought, so I'm unsure of how much it takes for anyone to get offended. I do not think it mitigates any offense on my part, I'm just saying that if there IS offense, it's unintended. Because I actually think my post was not offensive, but not very sure of what others would think. That was the purpose of the disclaimer.
Also, sometimes yes, I am afraid to own my opinion. Because when I "own" it, I'm considered rude and uncivil and mean and offensive and a self-appointed literary guru. And someone attacking people for liking a book. And because whenever I say that personal preferences and literary examination don't sit well together, I'm indignantly called out for trying to make the world conform to my opinions.
Just as a reminder,I don't remember ever saying that fans never offered a logical explanation, I just said SOMETIMES they don't. Which also applies to antis as well. Sometimes antis don't either.
As for seeking out discussions about books I do like, I actually have. This thread is only one out of maybe ten threads I've participated in. I participate in this thread because it's interesting, not because I'm trying to convert fans into antis.
Angie wrote: "As would anyone who isn't part of a cult, Bill."Nope. Only people who are in the cult deny that it's a cult. Anyone on the outside looking at the cult absolutely KNOWS it's a cult.
When you attack anyone who doesn't agree with you... when you resort to physical assault to prove that you are right (as the news stories earlier in the thread documented)... when you absolutely refuse to admit that there's a flaw in your view, despite being REPEATEDLY told how and why it's flawed... then you, ma'am, are a cultist. Don't forget to sacrifice your goat this week.
I dunno about everyone else but I'm *definitely* a self-appointed literary-guru. I've read War and Peace, so I must be one I reckon.
Why does everyone always have to fight about this? I mean, we all have our opinions, I think Meyer is an amazing writer, but at the same time, I don't have any problem with people who don't like her style. I do have a problem with people who insult fans or something like that. But this discussion shouldn't be about making fans of the book feel bad about their likings and non-fans feel bad because they did not like it. Mikey and Zoran really need to build a bridge and GET OVER IT!
Peace wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Why does everyone always have to fight about this? I mean, we all have our opinions, I think Meyer is an amazing writer, but at the same time, I don't have any problem with people wh..."thanks im just tired of hate and fighting... ugh
I enjoyed the books and I think she is a great author. I am a fan of the books but I hate how weak of a female character Bella is starting out in the books. But she does get better. So this is just my opinion so everybody has different views.
I don't think she was weak, I just think she was one of those girls who didn't really liked where they were in their life at the moment. She was just not used to Forks, she hated it and when she found Edward, she finally found that she belonged with him, not with the normals. And everyone who has been saying they are flat characters, I disagree. Bella's personality changes throughout the series. At first she hates attention and doesn't want anyone to know that she really exists, (though that didn't work out very well). Than she changed into this person where she was confident and she knew who she was supposed to be.
Edward is not described as "perfect" just that he looks perfect. He put his true love into many life/death situations, and IMO, that is not perfect.
The only reason I said that is because one of the only things I remembered about the books was when she sat around months feeling depressed and waiting for him. I like bella as a character and she did become strong but that was my opinion about her in the beginning
Emma wrote: "The only reason I said that is because one of the only things I remembered about the books was when she sat around months feeling depressed and waiting for him. I like bella as a character and she ..."oh. no i wasn't talking about you with the whole flat character thing! sorry I should have mentioned that!
shes not a bad writer....she a good writer that how her book became a movie. no offense or anything to those fan who are a....i wouldnt say a freak but.....like.. obsessed with it.. but i hate the movie so bad i cant even watch it. i love the book but hate the movie and those fan who think knows everything about it well you dont just remember " NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS MOVIE."
I love the movies! Especially 2-4 (or i guess 5 cuz bd was split). I love the first one too, but what bothers me about that one, is that it totally skips some favorite parts of mine and changed it up alot. That bothers me, but yah definently never judge a book by the movie.
Melina wrote: "No writer is perfect. She's not bad, but not the best. I personally think she's not bad of an author and I enjoy her style"i agree. to those "hater" out there just remember that at least her book was published, and was even made into a movie, even though i hate the movie. but o'well we have our own opinion and judgement, because were human thats what we do. ;D
Hey, have you all noticed the sudden influx of comments from people who rated Twilight 4 and 5 stars? Gee, I wonder how that happened...
Jocelyn wrote: "No, I wasn't demanding that you use "literary terminology." if you were offended by that, I didn't mean to....what I'm saying is that "it's all subjective" is missing the point. I know it's subjective. That's why we're here, right? You're probably not going to see any discussion boards like "does two plus two really equal four?" or anything like that, because it's not subjective. "
Aww, don't worry, I wasn't offended.
Just because it's subjective doesn't mean we can't discuss it. That's what we've been doing, you're sharing your standards and preferences and I'm discussing mine (or just opposing views).
If you wanted to discuss writing only from the widely accepted literary perspective then we may have to discontinue this conversation. Not that I woudn't find it interesting, I'm just too much of a "language hippie" to discuss through that lens. (Maybe someone else can. I'd suggest Mickey but you two don't really get along well.)
I approach writing the same way I approach language in general. There is a proper form but no correct form. And although proper is usually what people think is better, that's an opinion.
While there are rules on how to "write" correctly (like show don't tell), I see them as widespread preferences. The narrow ideal of literature shouldn't be the only written language considered "good writing" since language naturally so diverse.
Ah, I don't have the first book. I really liked the preface (it was something about dying, James was mentioned). It was a hint of action & danger, and it made me like Bella even before a got to know her.
EDIT:
Happy Thanksgiving!
We don't have that here but there's a lot to be thankful for. :)
I would definitely consider Meyer to be a horrible writer. There is zero character development for a start. The themes present in the book are atrocious (although this does not make a terrible writer). Not to mention her writing was incredibly amateurish and awkward. Her characters also had no depth. I mean what do we know about Bella? She is pale, hates rain, loves seemingly abusive boyfriend, has no favorite colour? Not much to go on. The main characters are flat as well. A main character is supposed to be dynamic, changing throughout the course of the story. The description she goes into about Bella obsessing over Edward is ridiculous. I remember very clearly where, despite all of this description, half way through the book Edward has a crooked smile. I don't believe the grammar was at fault, but her plot, character development and wording need serious work. Please note that I am not saying all Twilight lovers have horrible taste in books, I know a few who have recommended very well written books. However,just given the writing (not even going to Start on the themes etc. present) I have trouble understanding how people can read this book and not feel a twinge for the poor trees upon whose corpses we printed such rubbish.
Bill wrote: "Hey, have you all noticed the sudden influx of comments from people who rated Twilight 4 and 5 stars? Gee, I wonder how that happened..."It's a conspiracy.
She's not horrible she just has an odd mindset. She probably thought she was Bella the whole time she was writing it and Bella was kind of wierd Edward basically told her he wanted to kill her and she's like "It's okay, I still love you." I sit there with a major double what the fuck face. It's not the grammar it's the writing itself that doesn't make sense don't take me wrong though I love twilight (even though it told me it wanted to kill me).
Diane wrote: "Just because it's subjective doesn't mean we can't discuss it. That's what we've been doing, you're sharing your standards and preferences and I'm discussing mine (or just opposing views)."
That's exactly my point. What I'm saying is that it's because it's subjective that we're discussing. Constantly bringing up the subjectiveness of it misses the point (unless, of course, I keep acting like a certain opinion is a far, e.g. "the fact is, Meyer's writing is shit.")
If you wanted to discuss writing only from the widely accepted literary perspective then we may have to discontinue this conversation.
Oh, that's not what I mean! I'm not trying to say "WE MUST DISCUSS IT IN THIS WAY AND THIS WAY ALONE." I'm saying that it's a discussion of writing quality, not writing preferences, and talking about quality and personal preferences interchangeably doesn't usually work that well. i.e., using personal preferences to explain why writing is good sometimes isn't enough.
While there are rules on how to "write" correctly (like show don't tell), I see them as widespread preferences.
I think they're also preferences for a reason, though. There's a logical reason why normally, it's better for authors to show instead of tell (though, like you and Alex pointed out in my HG thread, sometimes authors tell instead of show for the sake of brevity, but I digress).
That's true, language is diverse, and there are an infinite number of ways to tell a story. The question is whether the author is able to pull it off well. If he/she had a purpose behind doing whatever s/he did, but it brings up a score of other problems (e.g. pacing, contrived plot points, etc.), then s/he failed to achieve his/her purpose. There might be a reason for the author to do certain things (like make Bella savor the sight of her boyfriend, or to indulge in "fluff") but if it ruins some other aspects of the story as a result, then I think it's bad writing.
Once again: happy Thanksgiving everyone, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not! xD
That's exactly my point. What I'm saying is that it's because it's subjective that we're discussing. Constantly bringing up the subjectiveness of it misses the point (unless, of course, I keep acting like a certain opinion is a far, e.g. "the fact is, Meyer's writing is shit.")
If you wanted to discuss writing only from the widely accepted literary perspective then we may have to discontinue this conversation.
Oh, that's not what I mean! I'm not trying to say "WE MUST DISCUSS IT IN THIS WAY AND THIS WAY ALONE." I'm saying that it's a discussion of writing quality, not writing preferences, and talking about quality and personal preferences interchangeably doesn't usually work that well. i.e., using personal preferences to explain why writing is good sometimes isn't enough.
While there are rules on how to "write" correctly (like show don't tell), I see them as widespread preferences.
I think they're also preferences for a reason, though. There's a logical reason why normally, it's better for authors to show instead of tell (though, like you and Alex pointed out in my HG thread, sometimes authors tell instead of show for the sake of brevity, but I digress).
That's true, language is diverse, and there are an infinite number of ways to tell a story. The question is whether the author is able to pull it off well. If he/she had a purpose behind doing whatever s/he did, but it brings up a score of other problems (e.g. pacing, contrived plot points, etc.), then s/he failed to achieve his/her purpose. There might be a reason for the author to do certain things (like make Bella savor the sight of her boyfriend, or to indulge in "fluff") but if it ruins some other aspects of the story as a result, then I think it's bad writing.
Once again: happy Thanksgiving everyone, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not! xD
Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "Just because it's subjective doesn't mean we can't discuss it. That's what we've been doing, you're sharing your standards and preferences and I'm discussing mine (or just opposing vi..."Well, I think the disconnect here is that you tend to see quality as objective and I do not. To me, writing preference greatly influences what you see as "good writing". Language largely differs for each individual, culture or group. There will be a consensus of what is "good" but it will be just that, a consensus, I don't see any objectivity in that.
I mean, to you if the author spends as much time on the plot points as possible and gets rid of the fluff then it would be good pacing.
I see no objective reason why this is so. If it's logical to you for the story to be told with little or no extras then I see this as a preference. As Mickey mentioned "The purpose of books is to enjoy them, not to be done with them as quickly as possible."
Bill wrote: "Hey, have you all noticed the sudden influx of comments from people who rated Twilight 4 and 5 stars? Gee, I wonder how that happened..."what is your problem?
Jordan wrote: "what is your problem?""Once is happenstance; twice, coincidence; third time is enemy action."
I find it... interesting... that so many people have suddenly just happened to weigh in on this thread, and they just happen to have given this atrocity undeserved 4 and 5 star ratings.
I also know that the dear, sweet High Priestess of Meyerism has issued a call to arms to defend her Sacred Cow.
I wonder how everyone suddenly just happened to come to this thread and decided (in some cases, unintelligibly... probably learned to write from Meyers Herself, eh?) to voice their support for Her. Amazing coincidence, neh?
Bill wrote: "Jordan wrote: "what is your problem?""Once is happenstance; twice, coincidence; third time is enemy action."
I find it... interesting... that so many people have suddenly just happened to weigh ..."
Well this discussion is an open discussion, so you can probably back off.
Diane wrote: "Well, I think the disconnect here is that you tend to see quality as objective and I do not."
That is true, this is where we differ.
Language largely differs for each individual, culture or group. There will be a consensus of what is "good" but it will be just that, a consensus, I don't see any objectivity in that.
No, I don't think it's a consensus. If it were then there would be no such thing as debate over writing, I think.
I mean, to you if the author spends as much time on the plot points as possible and gets rid of the fluff then it would be good pacing.
I said that fluff could possibly affect the pacing. Sometimes it doesn't. There are a million other things that factor into pacing.
I see no objective reason why this is so. If it's logical to you for the story to be told with little or no extras then I see this as a preference. As Mickey mentioned "The purpose of books is to enjoy them, not to be done with them as quickly as possible."
It's fine if the books are long, in which you can "enjoy them" even longer. It just has to serve a purpose. Cutting unnecessary filler isn't trying to get it over with, or just rushing through the process, it's filtering out all the irrelevance so the story won't be cluttered up like a garbage dump.
If filler enhances the story, like the "fluff" in the Lord of the Rings, then I don't see it as filler. It has to serve some kind of purpose to the story and integrate with the main conflict sometime in the book. If it serves a purpose (besides, of course, indulging, in which case you could just do it on fanfiction.net and 'indulge' instead of a professionally written book) then it isn't filler.
If you don't like this conversation, you can discontinue it :) I'm fine either way. xD
That is true, this is where we differ.
Language largely differs for each individual, culture or group. There will be a consensus of what is "good" but it will be just that, a consensus, I don't see any objectivity in that.
No, I don't think it's a consensus. If it were then there would be no such thing as debate over writing, I think.
I mean, to you if the author spends as much time on the plot points as possible and gets rid of the fluff then it would be good pacing.
I said that fluff could possibly affect the pacing. Sometimes it doesn't. There are a million other things that factor into pacing.
I see no objective reason why this is so. If it's logical to you for the story to be told with little or no extras then I see this as a preference. As Mickey mentioned "The purpose of books is to enjoy them, not to be done with them as quickly as possible."
It's fine if the books are long, in which you can "enjoy them" even longer. It just has to serve a purpose. Cutting unnecessary filler isn't trying to get it over with, or just rushing through the process, it's filtering out all the irrelevance so the story won't be cluttered up like a garbage dump.
If filler enhances the story, like the "fluff" in the Lord of the Rings, then I don't see it as filler. It has to serve some kind of purpose to the story and integrate with the main conflict sometime in the book. If it serves a purpose (besides, of course, indulging, in which case you could just do it on fanfiction.net and 'indulge' instead of a professionally written book) then it isn't filler.
If you don't like this conversation, you can discontinue it :) I'm fine either way. xD
Diane wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "Just because it's subjective doesn't mean we can't discuss it. That's what we've been doing, you're sharing your standards and preferences and I'm discussing mine (or ..."I agree. For me, if the 'fluff' paints an even more vivid picture of what is going on in the book then it's not useless.
Totally off topic...I remember when I was in high school, one of my friends and I were discussing the books we were reading. She had been talking to one of our teachers, and my friend mentioned how she saw the book as a movie in her head while she was reading. The teacher told her that not everyone is like that. I remember being floored, because I, too, see a book playing out in my head as if it's a movie and just assumed everyone else did, too. I don't think I'd be so drawn to reading otherwise.
I think the main disconnect seems to come down to values. I won't argue that Twilight was well written because I didn't think that it was. However, I lean more toward viewing fictional writing as a form of artistic expression rather than solely as an academic excersize. This is why I didn't mind that she deviated away from the more traditional vampire lore and created her own. I also think there is a difference between a literary element not being present in a story and a person just not liking the way that the author handled that element. For example, some people say that there was zero character development. Someone even summed up what they knew about Bella earlier in this thread and I am wondering what book that person read because I know way more about Bella than what they listed. There was character development in Twilight....not liking Bella's or Edward's character doesn't mean that it wasn't present.
Even though I didn't think it was well written (and when I say that, I am referring primarily to prose), I still enjoyed it. I couldn't put the books down. Some people can't enjoy a book that they think was poorly written. Some people can. Is she a bad writer? This all depends on what you value in a writer. I need an engaging story more than anything else and she did that well, imo. Whether or not she is a bad writer, I will still give her credit because she is an amatuer writer that managed to write a bestseller that millions have enjoyed.
Perhaps what is really happening is that the literary world is changing and along with that, so is the criteria for what is considered "good writing". Maybe that is what we need to be discussing. I recently read an article that claimed that Amazon Kindle publishing is revolutionizing the publishing industry because authors don't necessarily have to go through the traditional routes to get their work published. They upload their books and the people decide what they like as opposed to a publisher deciding what is worthy of being published. Some have lamented that because of this, the market is flooded with poorly written/edited books. While I do think this is definitely true, I still like the idea that people have the ability to put their work out there and allow people to read and judge for themselves. I'm not a big Harry Potter fan but I do find it amazing that a franchise that successful was originally rejected so many times by publishers. Maybe this proves that the industry needed some shaking up because they were out of touch.
yes. i cant STAND her style. ok. the plot MIGHT have been interesting MAYBE except the way she writes makes me want to BARF!
Mocha Spresso wrote: "For example, some people say that there was zero character development. Someone even summed up what they knew about Bella earlier in this thread and I am wondering what book that person read because I know way more about Bella than what they listed. There was character development in Twilight....not liking Bella's or Edward's character doesn't mean that it wasn't present."I'm curious. Do explain this, please. I don't remember what happened in Eclipse and I never got to reading Breaking Dawn. But Bella seemed to have stayed the same during the time in Twilight and New Moon. I just want your insight on this point.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "However, I lean more toward viewing fictional writing as a form of artistic expression rather than solely as an academic excersize."Here's the problem, right here. if you start an argument based on false assumptions, you're never going to get anywhere. Interestingly similar misconceptions to Diane.
This is why I didn't mind that she deviated away from the more traditional vampire lore and created her own.
No-one would care about this if what she did was interesting. The problem is not the deviation, it's the fact that her deviation is rubbish.
Dorima wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "For example, some people say that there was zero character development. Someone even summed up what they knew about Bella earlier in this thread and I am wondering what book t..."You shouldn't judge a series if you never finished it. Because once you finish any series, the other books fall into place.
Dorima wrote: "I don't remember what happened in Eclipse and I never got to reading Breaking Dawn. But Bella seemed to have stayed the same during the time in Twilight and New Moon."The most thorough way to do this would be to read the books yourself instead of asking people to explain it to you.
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...
Anyone: "Hey, Stephenie... are you a bad writer?"
Meyers: "I can't hear you over how rich I am!!!"
Yeah, that would work well.