Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 651-700 of 2,281

[Lina]

Not at all! She is amazing and extraordinary. I love her writing. Its so deep and emotional! her writing finds the deepest part inside of me

[Mickey]

Uh-oh. Three people who rated Twilight either four or five stars posted in a row. Bill considers this "enemy action"!

[Jordan]

Mickey wrote: "Uh-oh. Three people who rated Twilight either four or five stars posted in a row. Bill considers this "enemy action"!"

lol! apparently...

[Deliriate]

Jordan wrote: "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 wonder..."

Why should I even bother if the first few were bad? I can still base my judgement on what I already know.

"Mickey wrote: The most thorough way to do this would be to read the books yourself instead of asking people to explain it to you."

I'm not going to subject myself to that type of torture, thanks. Besides, I was asking specifically for the first two books, which I HAVE read. I never asked for character development from Eclipse or Breaking Dawn.

[Jordan]

Dorima wrote: "Jordan wrote: "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 ..."

Well it's just that some of the things (in any series) are explained in the rest of the series. Since you didn't like it, I'm not saying that you will like the others, but you said Bella stayed the same in the first two books, it doesn't stay like that.

[Mochaspresso]

Dorima wrote: 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 .."

Twilight: In the beginning, she is introverted and shy and we get the impression that she has never had a boyfriend and has very few friends, even back home in Arizona. By the end of the first book, she is a bit more outgoing and now has several sets of friends. She has school friends, the Cullens and Jacob. Her attitude and feelings toward Charlie changes as well as her feelings toward Forks. She hated it there at first, but because of the relationships that she develops (yes, Edward is the main one, but there are also others. Alice, Jacob, Charlie etc...), she begins to think of Forks as her home. She doesn't feel like as much as an outsider to that community anymore.

In New Moon...yes, she does become extremely depressed after Edward leaves. I hated that part of the book, btw. But she does start to snap out of it. She becomes even more outgoing. She hangs more with Jacob and his friends. She goes cliffdiving (for stupid reasons...but she overcomes her fear of it and does it.) She helps Jacob rebuild the bikes and takes up riding. (again, for stupid reasons....but this is an actual legitimate hobby that many people participate in.) People say that she is one dimensional and has no interests....but she likes to read, cook, cliff dive and ride motorcycles. Regardless of whether I like her reasons for doing these things, I wouldn't characterize that as a "boring one dimensional" person.

Throughout the novels, Bella also becomes more rebellious and starts to assert her wull and independence more. She disobeys Charlie quite a bit and rarely does want Edward wants her to do. People call her the classic damsel in distress...but she actually is the one that helps to save people several times. She saves Edward from the Volturi in New Moon. She saves Edward in Eclipse by cutting herself to distract Victoria. She uses her vampire powers to save everyone from the Volturi in Breaking Dawn. People say that she only wants to be a vampire because of Edward. I think that's how it started, but as the story progresses, I think she makes the choice that feels right to her. That is where she feels she fits in and belongs.

Bella doesn't stay exactly the same throughout the series. She does actually change quite a bit and most of it has nothing to do with her becoming a vampire.

[Vasco]

I just got to say that even though stephanie meyer is not a very good writer she's an engaging storyteller. i got to read twilight when stuck at a spanish airport for 8h and nothing but danielle steel and the twilight books in english, so the choice was easier, and i have to say that i read the whole first book and half of the second that night.
There are two kinds of literature in my humble opinion, the one which makes you forget, and the one to make you remember. Stephenie meyer is in the first category.
i believe she appeals to something very human and very tempting, the idea that there's always something that will rescue you from your miserable life, doesn't matter how farfetched that solution might be. it's the same that makes religion so tempting, and i got to say that even I was in love with the vampire boy (can't really remember his name) by the end of the 1st book. so, she is a decent writer of that first kind. but when compared with the other kind of literature, one which tends to change your life in some way or at least it aims to do so, she's of inferior quality: she lacks originality, she lacks experience, she lacks style. her writing is immature and the plot is predictable (in a manner that pleases a lot of people, even me, I understand that; agatha christie, enid blyton, danielle steel, paulo coelho and a lot of other writers manage that in all spectrum of lit) and cheesy. -

so here you go, she is a pretty good storyteller but not exactly a good writer.

[Mickey]

Dorima wrote: "Why should I even bother if the first few were bad? I can still base my judgement on what I already know."

This is like judging character growth after only reading the first Harry Potter book.

If you're curious, read the rest of the books. If you're not that curious, don't ask others to spend their time doing the work for you.

[Mochaspresso]

Alex wrote: 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. .."

In your opinion. I happen to disagree and think she did an excellent job of creating her own unique vampire lore. I think the Twilight vampires are very interesting. Isn't this where subjective personal preferences come into play? The difference between me and some antis is that I don't think either one of us is right or wrong on this particular issue, because it is entirely subjective. On the other hand, some seem to want to go to the lows of belittling people for having a different view.

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "In your opinion. I happen to disagree and think she did an excellent job of creating her own unique vampire lore. I think the Twilight vampires are very interesting. Isn't this where subjective personal preferences come into play? The difference between me and some antis is that I don't think either one of us is right or wrong on this particular issue, because it is entirely subjective. On the other hand, some seem to want to go to the lows of belittling people for having a different view. "

Yes, in my opinion it was rubbish. and I think this because of reasons I stated earlier. Obviously these are the points that we are debating here. What I was contesting here was your somewhat bizarre distinction between "artistic expression" and "Academic exercise"

[Mochaspresso]

Alex wrote: Yes, in my opinion it was rubbish. and I think this because of reasons I stated earlier. Obviously these are the points that we are debating here. What I was contesting here was your somewhat bizarre distinction between "artistic expression" and "Academic exercise".

Where does artistic expression and artistic license fit in when determining a book's literary merit? Can a book that is somehow lacking in traditional literary merit still be considered a good book on other grounds...such as it's artistic or creative merit? I think that it can.

For example, there is a book that I enjoyed called "Monster" by Walter Dean Meyers. It has won some awards but it has also been heavily criticized because of it's format. It's told from the POV of the main character and some of it is written in the form of a movie screenplay and some in the form of journal entries. The main character writes in his journal like this because he feels that what is happening in his life at that moment (he is on trial for murder) is surreal and is playing out like a movie. I think that the author choosing to tell the main character's story in that manner is a form of artistic expression....something that I don't want to fault him for. I can say whether or not I like it...but I won't say that he is a bad writer because of it. Who is right when determining this anyway? The people who thought enough of it to give it awards or the critics of it who don't think it is worthy of them?

I've said several times that I thought that Twilight was rather poorly written however.. I do realize that it is told as a first person narrative of a teenaged girl. The writing technically should seem juvenile since a juvenile is the one telling the story. The question is was this intentional on Stephanie Meyer's part or is that just the way she writes in general. I tried to read "The Host". ...I didn't like it at all, but I do notice that her prose seems to be different in that novel, so I don't necessarily think that she is a bad writer. Amatuerish...yes, bad...no.

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Where does artistic expression and artistic license fit in when determining a book's literary merit? Can a book that is somehow lacking in traditional literary merit still be considered a good book on other grounds...such as it's artistic or creative merit? I think that it can. "

You seem to think/assume that there's some massive gulf between either Academics or critics do when they consider the worth of a book and the way that people like you think about books which you label as "artistic merit". You've still not outlined how or why you make this distinction, you've just restated that you do by giving me an example of a book that some critics didn't like but some other people did, so they gave it an award.

You seem to be under the illusion that Academics, or people like myself who "revere Academic and Literary merit" have some big checklist which we tick off to determine if a book is "worthy" and that by going through this process we miss any sense of artistry or connection with a piece of literature. I honestly don't really understand where you get this notion from, except that most Academics/critics have slated Twilight but you like it, so you invent a framework to explain the dichotomy. That's completely the opposite of how Academics think about books ... their approach to literature is very much vibrant, dynamic, alive and inclusive. Harold Bloom is very old news.

For you there's a big distinction between the critics who rate books and "the people" who read books and you're determined to cling on to your right to have that "voice" in the face of ... who? no-one who really cares. Critics give out awards, Academies teach literary classics and everyone reads fucking Harry Potter and enjoys it as well anyway. Your distinction is meaningless because nobody else is actually making it, you just think that they are. I know Academics who love Harry Potter and all kinds of trashy "traditionally shit" fiction. Some like it enough to teach it. Because we've all cottoned on to the fact that sometimes something "just speaks to you" and we think that this stuff is good. (that's your "artistic merit")

It's fine that you like Twilight. Stop jumping at shadows and thinking that "the man" is telling you that you can't. But the question was "Is Stephanie Meyer a Bad Writer?" and the answer is still "yes - she's a terrible writer" because she writes appallingly drawn characters in an appallingly heavy handed way, with stupid motivations with a diabolical adjective-laden prose style and has absolutely no sense of narrative pacing. Did you enjoy reading Twilight - yes? That's fine and I'm certainly not trying to take that enjoyment away from you ... I'm simply asking people to back up their opinions in the face of my negative ones. Is that too much to ask on an internet forum?

There's no issue of "literary merit" vs "artistic merit"

[Deliriate]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Dorima wrote: 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 T..."

I would like to thank you for remaining civil unlike some of the other fans found on this particular thread. And by taking your time and explaining to me what I wasn't able to see the first time I had read it.

[Mickey]

Dorima wrote: "I would like to thank you for remaining civil unlike some of the other fans found on this particular thread."

Take your own advice.

[Mochaspresso]

Alex wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Where does artistic expression and artistic license fit in when determining a book's literary merit? Can a book that is somehow lacking in traditional literary merit still be ..."

I think people have been backing up their opinions, myself included. You chose not to accept them as valid...which is fine. Your choice, after all.

Interesting....I don't presume to know who is an academic and who isn't in these Twilight threads. I am responding to things that you have written and most of it seemed to pertain to how you much you hated the writing. You are the one who referred to yourself as an academic (or as someone who reveres them) and you also indicated that you felt that an academic's opinion of what constitutes good writing holds more validity because of their scholarship. I am not against academics at all. I am against snobbery and elitism, though.

Some of your comments regarding her writing were valid. I wasn't fond of some of the writing either....but to me, a good book goes beyond that. That is why I don't go so far as to call her a bad writer. Authors who I thought were good writers have written books that I still hated (Bronte, Fitzgerald) and bad writers have written books that I loved (EL James). I attempted to explain why. But according to you, the fact that I found the story to be engaging isn't good enough. How the books made me feel as I was reading them isn't good enough. I didn't just enjoy reading Twilight, though. The fact that I disagree with your analysis of her characters and found them to be dynamic and well devloped isn't good enough. The fact that I found that I could empathize with some of the situations that the characters found themselves in....situations that you and others criticized...wasn't good enough. I thought her narrative pacing was fine but that's not good enough. The fact that I thought that the author was very creative in deviating away from traditional vampire lore isn't good enough. There are tons of things that I thought were great about these books and tons of things that I thought the author did well. Perhaps I'll get it right one day and something I say will actually be good enough.

[Bill]

Jordan wrote: "Well this discussion is an open discussion, so you can probably back off. "

Oooo... we've got a real badass here... what are you going to do if I don't... take away my internet? :0

Oh... and...

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Yeah... like I don't see a lot of the same names there that miraculously found this thread here, to come and defend Meyers. It's not like I'm going to ignore a big fucking invitation like that ("No, Br'er Fox... don't throw me in the briar patch!!!").

Mocha Spresso wrote: " I won't argue that Twilight was well written because I didn't think that it was."

...and yet, you handed it 5 stars anyway. Good going.

[[deleted user]]

Bill wrote: ...and yet, you handed it 5 stars anyway. Good going.

TBH didn't Mocha say that she looks for a lot more than prose in a good book?

Ah, whatever. Look at me, repeating my mistakes. i've found that it's bad to intrude, yet I'm still doing it. :D

[Deliriate]

Mickey wrote: "Dorima wrote: "I would like to thank you for remaining civil unlike some of the other fans found on this particular thread."

Take your own advice."

I was civil with my request. Senora, are a troll for Twilight?

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Interesting....I don't presume to know who is an academic and who isn't in these Twilight threads. I am responding to things that you have written and most of it seemed to pertain to how you much you hated the writing. You are the one who referred to yourself as an academic (or as someone who reveres them) and you also indicated that you felt that an academic's opinion of what constitutes good writing holds more validity because of their scholarship. I am not against academics at all. I am against snobbery and elitism, though"

What I've suggested is that literary academics know more about writing because they've devoted their entire lives to reading and studying it, rather than just having read Twilight and the odd Paranormal Romance when they can fit it in.

I'm staggered that you and others can't see the difference or why you wouldn't think "Oh, maybe they have an informed opinion on this stuff?" I'm not putting myself in that category since I haven't - I know Academics who know so much more than I do and I'm very happy to acknowledge that and listen to them ... they've worked really, really hard to gain knowledge in a subject that they're really passionate about.

I think that it's incredibly arrogant to say "my opinion counts for just as much"

That aside, this is a forum for shooting shit about books, not for having the best opinions in the world ever, so I'm totally onside - and interested - with you expressing how you feel about Twilight and why you enjoy it.

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Some of your comments regarding her writing were valid. I wasn't fond of some of the writing either....but to me, a good book goes beyond that. That is why I don't go so far as to call her a bad writer. Authors who I thought were good writers have written books that I still hated (Bronte, Fitzgerald) and bad writers have written books that I loved (EL James). I attempted to explain why. But according to you, the fact that I found the story to be engaging isn't good enough. How the books made me feel as I was reading them isn't good enough. I didn't just enjoy reading Twilight, though. The fact that I disagree with your analysis of her characters and found them to be dynamic and well devloped isn't good enough. The fact that I found that I could empathize with some of the situations that the characters found themselves in....situations that you and others criticized...wasn't good enough. I thought her narrative pacing was fine but that's not good enough. The fact that I thought that the author was very creative in deviating away from traditional vampire lore isn't good enough. There are tons of things that I thought were great about these books and tons of things that I thought the author did well. Perhaps I'll get it right one day and something I say will actually be good enough."

Yes, I know that you have opinions and that you believe Twilight to be a good book etc. You need to express them without the threat-o-meter rising to fever pitch within two posts. If both you and Diane have things to say, you so frequently get sidetracked by attacking Academia, being offended by haters, building up straw -men arguments or ignoring chunks of argument to focus on one line you think that you can rebut by saying something like "but it's so subjective". None of this is really argument.

For instance, you say that you like the Vampire Lore in Twilight. I , and a couple of others posted at some length as to why we thought Meyer's concept of Vampire Lore was inept or wrong-headed. I don't recall getting any direct response to those posts but now you say "well, I like it, that's a reason". You haven't yet given any reasons as to why Meyer's Vampire Lore might be interesting, how it might fit into the concept of vampires as a whole, how it contains interesting ideas, how they expand ion the world of the novels and so on. My natural conclusion is that you're not interested in discussing those things, you're more interested in being threatened that other people think differently.

I think that the most interesting post I read from a Pro-Twi in this thread was Diane's posting of an extract that she liked and starting to expand on reasons why she liked the extract. I didn't respond because at that point I'd become frustrated with trying to communicate with Diane and I also thought the extract was pretty terrible and she'd only have thought my response was inflammatory, and I wanted to see if that line of argument would go anywhere (it didn't, particularly).

[Mochaspresso]

Dorima wrote: I would like to thank you for remaining civil unlike some of the other fans found on this particular thread. And by taking your time and explaining to me what I wasn't able to see the first time I had read it..."


You're welcome, no probs...no worries.

[Mochaspresso]

Alex wrote: What I've suggested is that literary academics know more about writing because they've devoted their entire lives to reading and studying it, rather than just having read Twilight and the odd Paranormal Romance when they can fit it in.

I'm staggered that you and others can't see the difference or why you wouldn't think "Oh, maybe they have an informed opinion on this stuff?" I'm not putting myself in that category since I haven't - I know Academics who know so much more than I do and I'm very happy to acknowledge that and listen to them ... they've worked really, really hard to gain knowledge in a subject that they're really passionate about.

I think that it's incredibly arrogant to say "my opinion counts for just as much"

That aside, this is a forum for shooting shit about books, not for having the best opinions in the world ever, so I'm totally onside - and interested - with you expressing how you feel about Twilight and why you enjoy it. ."

I realize that academics have worked and studied hard. I'm not trying to discount their accomplishments, but do you think it is also possible for them (as humans) to occasionally get things wrong?

There were assertions made about Twilight that were not accurate in these discussion threads. I think it is equally as arrogant for someone to think that they are more likely to be right simply because they are an academic or revere one.

Doctors undertake years of study for their profession. I don't presume to know better than a doctor.....but I most certainly always do get 2nd and 3rd opinions. Why? Because they are humans and occasionally can be wrong.

[Mickey]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Interesting....I don't presume to know who is an academic and who isn't in these Twilight threads. I am responding to things that you have written and most of it seemed to pertain to how you much you hated the writing. You are the one who referred to yourself as an academic (or as someone who reveres them) and you also indicated that you felt that an academic's opinion of what constitutes good writing holds more validity because of their scholarship. I am not against academics at all. I am against snobbery and elitism, though."

I think that the idea that anyone would categorize the criticism on this thread as "academic" is odd. The majority of criticism has to do with the type of analysis in writing that isn't quite so lofty or highbrow. It's rooted in a few rules about what good writing is on the level of a How To Write book or a style book. Don't use many adjectives. No filler or extras. Don't repeat information. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but if you read, you know that there are plenty of writers who don't follow this advice. Some of them are considered "gourmet" (to use Zoran's analogy).

When talking about whether an author is a good writer or not, if you stick to the template of whether they follow "the rules" of good writing, you won't get a very wide or detailed picture, in my opinion, because there's this whole dimension that you miss.

I think a lot of people come here with the idea that to discuss these rules of good writing shows them to be more intelligent or more literary than others. I don't agree. It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence or literary skill to see if an author uses a lot of adjectives. It doesn't require intelligence to rail about it and be insulting. These aren't signs of intelligence and they certainly don't show a deep knowledge or understanding of literature.

I won't go into the amount of "quality" writing that our quality experts on this thread actually consume, although it is pretty ironic and instructive to hear them castigate fans of Twilight for the same offenses they themselves commit. (How dare you give this book 4 or 5 stars. Look at all the filler! Filler is bad! Anyone who "cares about quality" wouldn't be able to stand such atrocious infractions of "the rules". Don't look at my own book list and notice I gave 5 stars to something that has ten times the excess words Twilight has. That's "world-building".)

Whether she's a good writer or not is an opinion that is going to vary from individual to individual, because how one responds to any piece of writing is subjective. This holds true for any book.

[Inday]

For me, Her writing was actually okey, it was the movie adaptation that ruined it (my apologies, to all Twilight movie fans).

[Mickey]

Bill wrote: "Yeah... like I don't see a lot of the same names there that miraculously found this thread here, to come and defend Meyers. It's not like I'm going to ignore a big fucking invitation like that ("No, Br'er Fox... don't throw me in the briar patch!!!")."

What big invitation was extended to you?

And I hate to burst your conspiracy bubble, but people often are on more than one thread at a time. It's not unusual, so it's hardly "proof" of dark and shadowy plots being hatched.

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Doctors undertake years of study for their profession. I don't presume to know better than a doctor.....but I most certainly always do get 2nd and 3rd opinions. Why? Because they are humans and occasionally can be wrong.

If you wanted a second opinion on medical matters would you ask another qualified Doctor perhaps?

Yes, I know that people are sometimes wrong, but that doesn't have a great deal of bearing on you or I knowing much about something.

[Mochaspresso]

Alex wrote: Yes, I know that you have opinions and that you believe Twilight to be a good book etc. You need to express them without the threat-o-meter rising to fever pitch within two posts. If both you and Diane have things to say, you so frequently get sidetracked by attacking Academia, being offended by haters, building up straw -men arguments or ignoring chunks of argument to focus on one line you think that you can rebut by saying something like "but it's so subjective". None of this is really argument.."

I'm not attacking Academia. I am responding to something that you said in these threads regarding it. There is a huge huge difference, imo.

For instance, you say that you like the Vampire Lore in Twilight. I , and a couple of others posted at some length as to why we thought Meyer's concept of Vampire Lore was inept or wrong-headed. I don't recall getting any direct response to those posts but now you say "well, I like it, that's a reason". You haven't yet given any reasons as to why Meyer's Vampire Lore might be interesting, how it might fit into the concept of vampires as a whole, how it contains interesting ideas, how they expand ion the world of the novels and so on. My natural conclusion is that you're not interested in discussing those things, you're more interested in being threatened that other people think differently.."

I thought that me saying that I don't think there is anything wrong with an author deciding to deviate from traditional lore was addressing it. I didn't go into it any further than that because she's not the first author to do this and I was also concerned that the conversation would drift toward debating which vampire lore is "better". That is something I wasn't interested in doing. Discussions like that are highly subjective. My favorite vampire movie is the Lost Boys with From Dusk Till Dawn coming in a close second and it will probably be impossible to convince me that the original Dracula with Bella Lugosi was the "better" movie or that the Buffy the Vampire series was better than Dark Shadows. I've already had that particular type of conversation many many times. I didn't see the need to rehash it again.

But since you asked, I think that her handling of them was age appropriate. I also like the idea that the Twilight Vampires are not all monsters. Some can choose to live a different way and not be threatening to humans. I like the idea of a monster choosing not be one.

Some think that it was silly for them to sparkle in the sun. However, I thought that aspect fit perfectly into the context of why Bella might use words like brilliant and dazzling and beautiful to describe him. It's not such a crazy notion with regards to beauty. People have been purchasing lotions and sunscreens with glitter and shimmer added to them way way way before Twilight or Stephanie Meyer came to be. Perhaps that is why I didn't find it so absurd? I confess that I love and use Hawaiian Tropics Shimmer Effects sunscreen all the time. From what I can tell from my visits to the beach, a lot of women have always liked to glitter and shimmer in the sun. A glittering boy being thought of as beautiful is not a completely crazy notion. In that context, I get it. I'm not saying that other people should find this interesting. I am just explaining why I think I feel the way that I do about it.

Overall, I just think that it is far more creative to invent your own lore than it is to research existing ones and conforming your writing to that. I really do think creating your own lore requires much more imagination.

[Jordan]

Bill wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Well this discussion is an open discussion, so you can probably back off. "

Oooo... we've got a real badass here... what are you going to do if I don't... take away my internet? :0
..."

ok you have an attitude. No I'm not going to "take your internet away" I'm just telling you it is an open discussion so Meyer fans are allowed here. I have been following this conversation from the beginning. I wasn't saying alot at the beginning, but if you don't believe me, look on page three. It's not an invitation for you to come crashing on Meyer fans. And please, it's a book discussion, no need to use language like that, you have no clue how old the people here are. I'm 14 and I don't enjoy that.

[Gerd]

Bill wrote: "...and yet, you handed it 5 stars anyway. Good going."

The fact that to you something doesn't qualify for 5-Star material, doesn't mean that others have to see it the same.
Just saying. ;)

[Jordan]

Gerd wrote: "Bill wrote: "...and yet, you handed it 5 stars anyway. Good going."

The fact that to you something doesn't qualify for 5-Star material, doesn't mean that others have to see it the same.
Just sayi..."

exactly

[Jordan]

Bill wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Well this discussion is an open discussion, so you can probably back off. "

Oooo... we've got a real badass here... what are you going to do if I don't... take away my internet? :0
..."

I don't go on every single thread. I have a life you know

[Alex]

Jordan wrote: "I don't go on every single thread. I have a life you know



An obvious lie - if any of us had a life, we wouldn't be here.

[Jordan]

Alex wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I don't go on every single thread. I have a life you know



An obvious lie - if any of us had a life, we wouldn't be here."

It's morning. Nobody has anything to do.

[Mary]

The book isnt THAT bad, the problem is in the movies and the bad acting.

[[deleted user]]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "Overall, I just think that it is far more creative to invent your own lore than it is to research existing ones and conforming your writing to that."

I think research can add to that creativity, though. You can research so you have even more to draw upon, and spin it. It boosts your imagination, IMO. Tolkien never would have been able to build such a vast and expansive world in the Lord of the Rings without research. (not to say that anyone who doesn't follow Tolkien's example is bad, necessarily--just that if you apply research well, you can be just as creative as without, if not more.)

I really do think creating your own lore requires much more imagination.

I think not always. Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination to put a spin on what you research. I think you must be tired of me using this example over and over again (:D) but look at Tolkien. It doesn't take any small amount of imagination to recreate and spin what he took from Norse mythology and the Prose Eddas.

I'm not trying to discount their accomplishments, but do you think it is also possible for them (as humans) to occasionally get things wrong?

This is just my 2 cents...but no, they couldn't "occasionally get things wrong" because there is no right or wrong in literature. IMO, there is only "stronger" and "weaker," as well as "good" and "bad." (Yes, I know it's subjective.) Thus the beauty of literature. You can't be "right" in an opinion, or "wrong." The kind of "mistakes" in literature we humans make are usually being unable to pick up on something another might have, or vice versa, etc. It's not like a careless mistake you can make in math or science or anything like that. There is no way in existence that any opinion can be "wrong," or for "human beings" to "accidentally slip up."

[Mochaspresso]

Jocelyn wrote: I think research can add to that creativity, though. You can research so you have even more to draw upon, and spin it. It boosts your imagination, IMO. Tolkien never would have been able to build such a vast and expansive world in the Lord of the Rings without research. (not to say that anyone who doesn't follow Tolkien's example is bad, necessarily--just that if you apply research well, you can be just as creative as without, if not more.)."

I think not always. Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination to put a spin on what you research. I think you must be tired of me using this example over and over again (:D) but look at Tolkien. It doesn't take any small amount of imagination to recreate and spin what he took from Norse mythology and the Prose Eddas.


I'm not the biggest Tolkien fan but I do see your point. He is a good example of how research can enhance creativity. I still don't think it is a bad thing if an author decides to disregard all of the more traditional lore and do something completely different, though.

Out of curiosity, if you were writing Twilight, what exactly would you have done differently with it's vampire lore?


This is just my 2 cents...but no, they couldn't "occasionally get things wrong" because there is no right or wrong in literature. IMO, there is only "stronger" and "weaker," as well as "good" and "bad." (Yes, I know it's subjective.) Thus the beauty of literature. You can't be "right" in an opinion, or "wrong." The kind of "mistakes" in literature we humans make are usually being unable to pick up on something another might have, or vice versa, etc. It's not like a careless mistake you can make in math or science or anything like that. There is no way in existence that any opinion can be "wrong," or for "human beings" to "accidentally slip up."

This is usually true...but I also think it is very important to note that an exception to this would be when an opinion is formed based on inaccuracies, misinformation or upon a misunderstanding of something.

[[deleted user]]

IMO anyone who has made 50 million on her books is sure doing something right. I have personally enjoyed her books more than any other books I have read. But then there are many classics that I loathe. I am certainly not a book snob. I get really tired of them here on goodreads too. I read for pleasure and The Twilight saga had given me lots of it.

Let the fans speak by what they buy. If readers buy millions of books then the writer must be doing something right!

[[deleted user]]

Haley wrote: "I hear a lot of people criticizing Stephenie's writing style (I don't know if they are talking about her grammar, her technique, her editing, or if Twilight is just a stupid book) and I just want t..."

Some of them are just hard down JEALOUS! the green eyed monster has got them.

[[deleted user]]

★ Mist ☆ Cassidy ★ wrote: "I don't think she's a bad writer but I don't think she's without her flaws either. There were some things I really didn't care for with Twilight (Bella's attitude and personality for example), but ..."

Well, I LOVE Bella's attitude and personality. My husband says part of Stephenie's success is having so many likable characters. For instance think of City of Bones. I cannot stand that character. yet she is loved by many which is a mystery to me. She is nasty and slaps people, has no manners at all.

[[deleted user]]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "I'm not the biggest Tolkien fan but I do see your point. He is a good example of how research can enhance creativity. I still don't think it is a bad thing if an author decides to disregard all of the more traditional lore and do something completely different, though."

No, it's not a bad thing. I suppose it varies for each author; the question for me has always been not what kind of research the author does, but how the author chooses to apply it to his/her work. (Or chooses to apply his/her own imagination alone, without any research.)

Out of curiosity, if you were writing Twilight, what exactly would you have done differently with it's vampire lore?

I'm not a huge vampire fan, nor do I know much about vampires, but since you asked...well, it's hard to say. Much of the vampire traits have some role in the plot (e.g. Alice's fortune-telling making Edward think Bella died), so I'll just disregard the plot stuff. I wouldn't have made them sparkle, I would have done the native-homeland thing when they're vulnerable to sunlight outside their native homeland, and they're immune to it within. As for the actual vulnerability, I think I might have made the sun sap their energy and strength. I do very much like the idea of a special superpower for each vampire, but I definitely do not like the way Meyer applies it to her stories--it seems to plot-device-y and Macguffin-ish for my taste.

What I don't like about Meyer's vampires is that they're hardly recognizable as vampires. It's great to be creative, but sometimes I wonder: if Meyer's "vampires" have so little in common with traditional ones, then why call them vampires? Why not call them something else, invent a whole new species?

That's all I have at the moment.

"This is usually true...but I also think it is very important to note that an exception to this would be when an opinion is formed based on inaccuracies, misinformation or upon a misunderstanding of something."

That is a good point, and I do see what you're saying. But if that is the case, it's not like there's one sole literary critic on the planet, right? There's also many others who would point their misunderstanding out, as well as people who do form an opinion based on accurate information in the same subject. The number of people who do form an "authentic" opinion vastly (usually) outweigh the people who form opinions based on inaccuracies.

/end addressing Mocha

I've been wondering for a bit after all this debate over academia and critics and artistic value and the rather bizarre assumption that since critics are so "strict" that immediately makes them unappreciative of artistic value. I'd like to say...if Academia's opinions can be "disregarded" like it has in this discussion ("oh, of course my opinion is equal to theirs, how dare anyone think those literary snobs have more respectable opinions than mine!"), can't the same be said of the professional people who have positive opinions of certain books? (I think there has been just as much praise from Academia/book critics as criticism directed at Twilight. Aren't their opinions unappreciative of artistic value too?) Is a positive opinion somehow automatically better than a negative opinion or something?

[Jordan]

~☆ Alice☆~ wrote: "★ Mist ☆ Cassidy ★ wrote: "I don't think she's a bad writer but I don't think she's without her flaws either. There were some things I really didn't care for with Twilight (Bella's attitude and per..."

The Mortal Instruments is my favorite series! Remember, she hit Jace because he could have killed her. I think that's a good reason to slap someone. But I do think you're right about Twilight. Bella is totally likable. People don't like her because they think she's one-dimensional but she's not.

[Leah]

Sí

[Gerd]

Jocelyn wrote: "I've been wondering for a bit after all this debate over academia and critics and artistic value and the rather bizarre assumption that since critics are so "strict" that immediately makes them unappreciative of artistic value. I'd like to say...if Academia's opinions can be "disregarded" like it has in this discussion ("oh, of course my opinion is equal to theirs, how dare anyone think those literary snobs have more respectable opinions than mine!"), can't the same be said of the professional people who have positive opinions of certain books? (I think there has been just as much praise from Academia/book critics as criticism directed at Twilight. Aren't their opinions unappreciative of artistic value too?) Is a positive opinion somehow automatically better than a negative opinion or something?"

The problem with academia is partly this:

Asimov once wrote about attending a class where the professor analyzed one of his stories.
Afterwards, he told the professor that the story was not meant to convey the meaning he had told the class about.
So the prof. asked him what he thought he knew about it.
"Well, I wrote it." And got the response "So why does that make you think you know anything about it?"

:D


And the question naturally arises, how _do_ you judge artistic "value", how can you, other than from a strictly subjective point of view, weight it?

Sure, with past works we can look at the probable influence they had on people and society as a whole - but with "twilight", who's to say today what will be left of it in a decade or two, much less in a hundred years?
Who's to say if it has any influence, and if, if it is ultimately a positive or negative one, or if it affects anything about us at all?
All academia is hindsight, that's why we don't trust them when they try to dissect contemporary works.

[Alex]

Peace wrote: "The problem with academia is partly this:



An amusing anecdote but we need to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from it. Barthes wrote the Death of the Author in 1967 and since then few Academic critics have really argued for authorial interpretation of a text over any other. I think that anecdote highlights that Asimov was probably a little out of touch with Academic literary thinking.(His novels are bloody great, mind)

[Mochaspresso]

Jocelyn wrote: I'm not a huge vampire fan, nor do I know much about vampires, but since you asked...well, it's hard to say. Much of the vampire traits have some role in the plot (e.g. Alice's fortune-telling making Edward think Bella died), so I'll just disregard the plot stuff. I wouldn't have made them sparkle, I would have done the native-homeland thing when they're vulnerable to sunlight outside their native homeland, and they're immune to it within. As for the actual vulnerability, I think I might have made the sun sap their energy and strength. I do very much like the idea of a special superpower for each vampire, but I definitely do not like the way Meyer applies it to her stories--it seems to plot-device-y and Macguffin-ish for my taste.

What I don't like about Meyer's vampires is that they're hardly recognizable as vampires. It's great to be creative, but sometimes I wonder: if Meyer's "vampires" have so little in common with traditional ones, then why call them vampires? Why not call them something else, invent a whole new species?

I think they were recognizable enough to most. The author told you what they were and she did keep some aspects of the more traditional lore. (drinking human blood, enemies with werewolf/shapeshifters) Btw, in Breaking Dawn, the deviation is acknowledged and becomes part of the story. If I remember correctly, the wolves are reminded that the Cullens are not like the vampires that were part of their legends and the Volturi vampires were reminded that the Quilluete wolves were not like the werewolves they were used to encountering back in Europe.

Would Twilight have worked had the vampires and wolves been newly invented fantasy creatures? I don't know. I'm inclined to say no because I think Stephanie Meyer's first priority in the story was writing the romance. Twilight is a paranormal romance novel. Creating entirely new species leans more toward fantasy. I'm not saying that it can't be done or that it hasn't been done. I just think this author wanted to devote most of her story time telling Bella and Edward's love story, not setting up a fantasy world with lengthy descriptions and explanations of what Edward actually was.

That is a good point, and I do see what you're saying. But if that is the case, it's not like there's one sole literary critic on the planet, right? There's also many others who would point their misunderstanding out, as well as people who do form an opinion based on accurate information in the same subject. The number of people who do form an "authentic" opinion vastly (usually) outweigh the people who form opinions based on inaccuracies.

Really? I wouldn't say "usually". In fact, it can often be the opposite. How many people claim to be for or against stem cell research and truly have no clue what it is? How many clearly biased reviews have you come across in your lifetime? How many people read reviews and base their decisions on whether or not to read a book or see a movie on them? I've encountered tons of people who bash things without having ever read/seen it. They based their opinion entirely on what others have said. I've seen Twilight reviews and critiques on the internet and in Goodreads threads that have grossly inaccurate analysis of everything from actual plot and storyline to character traits to character motivations. How many times have people still clung to those inaccuracies when others have pointed them out?

I can't understand why this seems to happen more with Twilight? It was a fairly simple series to read and understand, imo. For example....how does someone read the Twilight series and think that all of the women are pretty much housewives with no interests outside of their men? How did they miss that Esme was an architect and restores old houses and furniture? How did they miss that Rosalie was also a musician and had degrees in engineering and medicine and loved to fix cars? How did they miss that Alice loves fashion design and party planning? (The books also hint that she dabbles a bit in finance and the stock market as well. She advises the Cullens on what to invest in based on the visions that she has.) The only explanation for this that I can see is that they didn't read the entire series. If one hasn't read the entire series, should they really be attempting to give such in dept analysis of it? Why even presume that you are qualified to do this? Here is where my issue started....some seemed to indicate that their background and reverance for academia not only qualified them, but made them even more qualified that someone who has read the entire series.... and this was done in a rude and condescending manner, imo. That is what I had a problem with.

I think that is another HUGE part of the Twilight fan vs. hater disconnect. People who have only read some of the books (in some cases, only one or two) trying to discuss its flaws with people who have read the entire series as well as all of the side projects and novellas.


I've been wondering for a bit after all this debate over academia and critics and artistic value and the rather bizarre assumption that since critics are so "strict" that immediately makes them unappreciative of artistic value. I'd like to say...if Academia's opinions can be "disregarded" like it has in this discussion ("oh, of course my opinion is equal to theirs, how dare anyone think those literary snobs have more respectable opinions than mine!"), can't the same be said of the professional people who have positive opinions of certain books? (I think there has been just as much praise from Academia/book critics as criticism directed at Twilight. Aren't their opinions unappreciative of artistic value too?) Is a positive opinion somehow automatically better than a negative opinion or something? "

I don't think this a fair account of what happened in this particular thread. I will only speak for me. I am not against negative opinions. In fact, I have some of my own toward Twilight and have expressed them often. I only speak against opinions that I felt were faulty because it was based on an inaccurate analysis of the books. I'm also not against academia at all. I didn't like how it was being used and referred to in the discussion that Alex and Diane were having about it, though.

[Gerd]

Alex wrote: "I think that anecdote highlights that Asimov was probably a little out of touch with Academic literary thinking.(His novels are bloody great, mind)."

Oh, you probably find all kinds of people in academia, and not all of them are nutcases - but the latter always seem to get more spotlight than the sane ones. :)

[Alex]

Gerd wrote: "Alex wrote: "Oh, you probably find all kinds of people in academia, and not all of them are nutcases - but the latter always seem to get more spotlight than the sane ones. :)

Oh, most of the best Academics are also complete nutcases .. throughout history and now. It kinda comes with the territory -you've got to have a little bit of an obsessive personality I should think!

[Jordan]

Alex wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Alex wrote: "Oh, you probably find all kinds of people in academia, and not all of them are nutcases - but the latter always seem to get more spotlight than the sane ones. :)

Oh, mos..."

LOL, it's true though. I couldn't read all of that above you, Alex, because Mocha Spresso wrote a lot, but I read what you said and yes, a lot of academics are nutcases.

[[deleted user]]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "I think they were recognizable enough to most. The author told you what they were and she did keep some aspects of the more traditional lore. (drinking human blood, enemies with werewolf/shapeshifters) Btw, in Breaking Dawn, the deviation is acknowledged and becomes part of the story. If I remember correctly, the wolves are reminded that the Cullens are not like the vampires that were part of their legends and the Volturi vampires were reminded that the Quilluete wolves were not like the werewolves they were used to encountering back in Europe."

I just felt that the vampires had little in common with traditional vampires, besides drinking blood. Honestly though, I can't say I minded it all that much, because I've never been a vampire fan. But you have a good point with Twilight being paranormal romance. I do think Twilight is considered fantasy, but it's definitely not a big epic like Narnia or the Lord of the Rings.

Really? I wouldn't say "usually". In fact, it can often be the opposite. How many people claim to be for or against stem cell research and truly have no clue what it is? How many clearly biased reviews have you come across in your lifetime? How many people read reviews and base their decisions on whether or not to read a book or see a movie on them? I've encountered tons of people who bash things without having ever read/seen it. They based their opinion entirely on what others have said. I've seen Twilight reviews and critiques on the internet and in Goodreads threads that have grossly inaccurate analysis of everything from actual plot and storyline to character traits to character motivations. How many times have people still clung to those inaccuracies when others have pointed them out?

Goodreads is a casual review site, not one where people write professional reviews. I was talking about professional people, people who actually DO have the knowledge and experience, not the kinds of people that you listed. Academia. Professional critics. THEY are a lot less likely to make mistakes, instead of people who base their opinions on what others have said, or write biased reviews based on inaccuracies, etc.

I don't think this a fair account of what happened in this particular thread. I will only speak for me. I am not against negative opinions. In fact, I have some of my own toward Twilight and have expressed them often. I only speak against opinions that I felt were faulty because it was based on an inaccurate analysis of the books. I'm also not against academia at all.

It didn't happen all that much in this thread, but it did happen. (it wasn't directed at you, btw, just as a reminder.) My main point, though, is that if it's subjective (which is the main argument countering arguments made through literary lens and criticizing academia), it can be considered bad just as much as it can be considered good. If any writing can be considered good, then it can also be considered bad, and I was just confused as to why people ignored this. Why are people so worked up against academia's negative opinions, but not their positive opinions?

I mean, look at it this way. You know how Stephen King said "Meyer can't write worth a darn," right? Then a lot of the Twilight fandom got really mad at him for saying so, posting comments on the Internet like: "Who does King think he is? What right does he have to say whether a novel is good or bad?" If King had said "Meyer's writing is one of the best I've ever seen," do you think it would have generated the same reaction? "King said this novel was good, how dare he think he has the right to decide the worth of a novel!"

I guess it just didn't make sense to me. *shrug*

[Gerd]

Jocelyn wrote: "Professional critics. THEY are a lot less likely to make mistakes, instead of people who base their opinions on what others have said, or write biased reviews based on inaccuracies, etc."

Wouldn't bet on that. So called professional critics are only workers, too. They do get paid for doing a job, and can be just as biased (or sometimes seemingly even more because they get paid) as the next person.
And some of them do make mistakes, some of them seem to do nothing more than repeat a prepared press text, not bothering to check if that press realese is even accurate.