Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Alex wrote: "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.Having spent a lot of close time with someone who *was* of Academic standard I can pretty much verify that to get to this level you have to be *reallyfuckinggood* in a way that people here aren't really contemplating. When you're at that point it stops being about *making mistakes* in this way, and more about understanding things on a much finer level of argument and detail. The kind of stuff that we're arguing here would not be a blip on her radar beyond a fairly enjoyable pub conversation ... I mean, she could literally pick up a book like Twilight, read a couple of chapters and tell you everything you need to know about it backwards from the nuances of its prose style to the writers ideology, the themes of the book, the point of the characters/scenarios etc.* Not every Academic is as good as her, but that's generally the type of literary intuition these guys have. They can tell you that Twilight is no good because they live and breathe literature and understand it on a subconsciousl level in a similar way that the rest of us read and write. I guess you couldn't understand this about an Academic if you hadn't spent significant time with one - but Mocha's criticisms are just way off base. They don't make the kinds of "mistakes" that she's suggesting. They *do* have differing opinions and approaches to literature ... I'm sure that you will find a contingent that champions Meyer at some point for whatever reason.
*and before mocha jumps in with her obviosu criticism, I said "could" not "generally did". She would most certainly not have considered reading 2 chapters to amount to knowing anything about a text.
Now that I finally have some free time...I love how some people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand an obvious Uncle Remus reference, or how their actions have impacted this very conversation, and I can't call them out on it directly without being labelled a troll, or delusional.
Time to draw back the curtains on your naivete, kids.
Out here in non-cyberspace, I'm a programmer, and a damned good one. I'm also pursuing a B. S. in computer science. Stupid people suck at these things... I know, because I've tried to tutor stupid people to do these things.
Stupid people think that, by asking fans to get more involved in the conversations on Goodreads, they won't stumble in to places where actually intelligent conversation is happening and spout the same tired bullshit that got the stupid person laughed at, over and over and over...
So when this thread pops up:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
...it's like an engraved invitation to those of us who aren't fans (and never will be, because we have... you know... actual taste that doesn't revolve around fitting in with the herd) to look in and see what we can expect from the next round of "debate" (read: "The fanatics tell us why we're wrong... the smart people tell them why they're wrong and get ignored/ridiculed").
Stupid people don't terminate loops properly, or construct if...else if.. else tests to actually test the data they pass in, then wonder why their computer freezes, or their programs don't do what the specs say they should.
In a similar fashion, stupid (or naive) people ask fans to go forth and defend their Sacred Cow, and get shocked when smart people call them on it when it actually happens.
But, you know... I was actually amused by it, until:
Jordan said: "Bill on another thread keeps saying that i intruded a thread."
...yeah, that never happened. I merely commented on the influx. It was this idiot that got snooty about it.
I could let that go, but then:
Her Holiness Priestess Mickey chimes in: "This is simply a paranoid delusion of his. It has nothing to do with who you are or how you behave on a thread. "
Funny how simple observation and an amused response to same are "paranoid" and a "delusion." Also:
"...he's operating under the impression that the fans are somehow being organized with this thread..."
Yeah, that's actually happening... but if you're too stupid (or naive) to see it happening, I guess everyone else is at fault but you, right?
I should cover my bases, though: these two may be too naive to realize that this is the way fanaticism works: one person "suggests" that the cult-- I mean, fanbase ... get more involved, and their sheeple... sorry, fellow fans... go forth and just start taking swipes at those who disagree. I mean, it's not like they have any historical precedents (such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, or Bloody Mary of England) to use as examples, right?
Besides, it's not as if the new contributors are using the same stupid arguments ("It's popular, therefore it's good"... "It's all subjective"... "It speaks to me, so she's not a shitty writer") all over again, and just rewording them...
...oh, yeah, they kind of are, aren't they?
So, no, Jordan: I won't won't back off. And no, Mickey: I'm actually paying attention, not "delusional." And no, to the rest of you rehashing tired fallacies and pretending they're actually "debating points:" you're still wrong, Meyers is a fucking hack.
Bill wrote: "Now that I finally have some free time...I love how some people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand an obvious Uncle Remus reference, or how their actions have impacted this very con..."
Bill, Bill, Bill. You can stop your pursuit of B.S. right now. It's obvious that you are in possession of a great deal of it.
Jocelyn wrote: 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.Yes, thank you for supplying the word that I trying to think of when I posted. You are right. Twilight is fantasy, but it wasn't intended to be an epic fantasy novel.
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.
When I was in college and in graduate school, I took several African-American and latino literature courses and came across plenty of papers that were published in professional journals where the person(s) completely misunderstood the cultural context of the story that they were writing about. I've also seen this type of thing happen when some are analyzing hip-hop lyrics or hip-hop music/culture in general. Professionals should be less likely to get it wrong, but some do...and in some areas, they actually do it quite often. For example, The Color Purple was criticized heavily for portraying black men (and so-called "black family dynamics") in a negative light. There was a lot of focus on the negatives but hardly any on the positives (such as the theme of personal growth...a person being able realize their misdeeds and redeem themselves and others being able to forgive them for those misdeeds and move on.) Eventually, the tone of the criticism changed and the book won awards and was made into a movie etc. Perhaps, this may happen with Twilight? Maybe as time passes and people analyze it through a more objective lens, the tone of the criticism may change.
Granted, I have not attempted to see what "legit" academia has written about Twilight. I may take a browse through google scholar or questia to have a looksee at some point becuase I am curious about it now. But you are right in that the vast majority of Twilight criticism that I have come across has been in "mass media" (Is that the right term?) and not in professional literary journals.
I don't know if Twilight has the potential to become a classic. If it does, I think it will be primarily because it could be seen as a coming of age novel.
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*
Personally, I think that if Stephen King had said that he liked Twlight, people probably would have just wrote it off as him being the crazy old oddly quirky weirdo nutjob that he often appears to be.
I agree with what you are saying about how subjectiveness can apply to criticism just as easily as it applies to praise. But for me, this is only true when the criticism or praise is fair and objective, unbiased and based on an accurate analysis of the book's basic elements.
Agree with them or not, how can you not love Bill's spirited posts?
Angie wrote: "Bill wrote: "Now that I finally have some free time...I love how some people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand an obvious Uncle Remus reference, or how their actions have impacted ..."
Aw... so you won't be joining my fan club, then? Shame...
Alex wrote: I guess you couldn't understand this about an Academic if you hadn't spent significant time with one - but Mocha's criticisms are just way off base. They don't make the kinds of "mistakes" that she's suggesting. ...How do you feel about some of the criticism that Robert Hayden recieved during parts of his career? (from fellow black writers, no less) They were professionals. They were published. They were a part of "academia". Were they right or wrong about his work?
I'm really not against academia....but to claim that bias doesn't exist in academia or that "these types of mistakes just don't happen" is not accurate in my opinion. I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on it.
Something else that I've been dying to address:~☆ Alice☆~ wrote: "IMO anyone who has made 50 million on her books is sure doing something right"
Consider McDonald's. They sell hundreds of hamburgers per store every day. They sell regular burgers, cheeseburgers, Big Macs, Quarter Pounders... the number of cows that must die to supply a day's worth of McD's customers on a global scale has to be staggering.
However... can you, or anyone else, consider McDonald's burgers "good?" No.
The best that can be said for a McD's burger is it's cheap and fast. Otherwise, it's a tasteless mass of "meat" that at best fills your stomach.
If you go to, say, Five Guys, and order a similar burger, it's tasty, juicy, and they will put anything your black heart desires on it. It costs a bit more, and it takes a little longer to cook, but it is definitely worth it.
Even if you make your own burger at home... it's likely to taste quantum leaps and bounds better than a Big Mac.
As Morgan Spurlock proved in Supersize Me, it's not even good for you. Hell, I know some of my son's friends who work at McD's locally, and they say they'd never eat there again after they cooked here. It's like inviting obesity and disease to kill you, and paying for the privilege.
Popular does not equal good. Just because 50 million sheep bought a book doesn't mean those sheep automatically make that book good.
I consider her okay, of course she's not the best I've read, but I'm just an odinary reader who's native laguage is not english.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "but to claim that bias doesn't exist in academia"Where did I claim this?
"these types of mistakes just don't happen"
Mistakes as in "awww shucks, I was just completely wrong, as opposed to on-going debate. I didn't think I'd need to spell that out, sorry.
How do you feel about some of the criticism that Robert Hayden recieved during parts of his career? (from fellow black writers, no less) They were professionals. They were published. They were a part of "academia". Were they right or wrong about his work?
I haven't the foggiest idea about any of this. I imagine it has to do with the shifting sands of Academic discourse.
Bill wrote: "Consider McDonald's. They sell hundreds of hamburgers per store every day. They sell regular burgers, cheeseburgers, Big Macs, Quarter Pounders... the number of cows that must die to supply a day's worth of McD's customers on a global scale has to be staggering.However... can you, or anyone else, consider McDonald's burgers "good?" No."
The problem with this argument is that tastes are subjective. Obviously, many people think that McDonald's burgers taste good. Some may even prefer them to Five Guys' burgers. Your tastes are yours alone and are not necessarily everyone's, and it's striking to me that you haven't considered this point. It's less striking to me that you're so insecure that you have to put a value judgement on what other people like for restaurant burgers as well as books.
As for your childish rant, it's not worth remarking on, although I will say that you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes intelligent conversation. I don't think calling others stupid twenty times in a post is a sign of intelligence, nor is hysteria or paranoia. I consider the conversation on the fan thread to be much more thoughtful, intelligent, and interesting than anything you've contributed. (Also, trust me, that thread was not created to strategize. You're overestimating your importance there.)
Bill wrote: "Now that I finally have some free time...I love how some people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand an obvious Uncle Remus reference, or how their actions have impacted this very con..."
Don't call me an idiot. And don't you dare come back with a smart alec response acting like your better than anyone else.
Bill wrote: "Now that I finally have some free time...I love how some people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand an obvious Uncle Remus reference, or how their actions have impacted this very con..."
Oh and by the way, if you think you are so innocent in all of this, than why are you going on threads that are specifically meant for the fans? Just to trash us more right? Must be fun spending your free time messing with every single person that's not like you right?
Bill wrote: "Something else that I've been dying to address:~☆ Alice☆~ wrote: "IMO anyone who has made 50 million on her books is sure doing something right"
Consider McDonald's. They sell hundreds of hambu..."
That's your opinion. Some people love it, not because it's popular.
Oh, Mickey and Jordan... There is NO SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON for the quality of a fast-food burger and any other type. Period. The quality of the ingredients will always... ALWAYS!!!... make the fast-food burger inferior. It's 100% objective, and always will be.Arguing otherwise just shows a level of desperation from you because you know you don't have (and never have had) as real argument or retort to "quantity does not equal quality." No one ever has had an effective counter-argument to the simple fact that "quantity does not equal quality."
Write that 1000 times, and keep denying that you're colluding against the "antis"... even while you're damned near copy/pasting your responses to me. It's cute. ;)
Bill wrote: "Oh, Mickey and Jordan... There is NO SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON for the quality of a fast-food burger and any other type. Period. The quality of the ingredients will always... ALWAYS!!!... make the fast-food burger inferior. It's 100% objective, and always will be."This is hardly a convincing argument. Aren't you just stating a position?
Try making an argument, if you can.
Bill wrote:"...keep denying that you're colluding against the "antis"... even while you're damned near copy/pasting your responses to me."
You're very paranoid. But think for a minute: isn't the fact that tastes are subjective a really obvious problem with your analogy? Yeah, it is. But, by all means, keep on getting hysterical about how people are colluding to get you.
Mickey wrote: "Bill wrote: "Oh, Mickey and Jordan... There is NO SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON for the quality of a fast-food burger and any other type. Period. The quality of the ingredients will always... ALWAYS!!!... ..."It's only unconvincing to you, and you alone. Every intelligent person on planet Earth has accepted that "quantity does not equal quality." It's objective fact. The only reason you want to make it otherwise is because it's the only actual argument any Meyers fan seems to have, and its no argument at all.
Bill wrote: "It's only unconvincing to you, and you alone."This is your argument? Where's all this fabled intelligence of yours? Seriously, show me how favorite restaurants are not subjective. I'm waiting...
I honestly don't think she's a bad write. I join reading the stuff she writes.
Mickey wrote: "Bill wrote: "It's only unconvincing to you, and you alone."This is your argument? Where's all this fabled intelligence of yours? Seriously, show me how favorite restaurants are not subjective. I'..."
You're not listening. If you were, you would realize that you aren't responding to the argument I made,but pulling one out of your ass.
My argument: quantity cannot equal quality.
Your argument: people can like shit.
There is a clear disconnect between the two.
Peace wrote: "Abby wrote: "I honestly don't think she's a bad write. I join reading the stuff she writes."
yea i agree with that."
I just think the way she writes is just so easy to understand. I like that she doesn't use a lot of big words.
yea i agree with that."
I just think the way she writes is just so easy to understand. I like that she doesn't use a lot of big words.
Peace wrote: "SM is really good writer,i been reading some or her book that she write."
Has she written anything else besides Twilight, The Host, and Midnight Sun?
Has she written anything else besides Twilight, The Host, and Midnight Sun?
Bill wrote: "You're not listening. If you were, you would realize that you aren't responding to the argument I made..."You haven't made an argument. You've made statements. Make an argument. You've stated that Five Guy's burger's are objectively better than McDonald's. I'd like to know how that can be objectively proven. Prove it to me that it is not in the realm of subjectivity and not a matter of personal taste.
As far as the disconnect, the problem is that you've never developed the social skills to understand that people have differing opinions and differing likes and dislikes. Things that are not pleasing to you do not necessarily have no value or no quality. The quality of something depends on the more than just your subjective opinion. And trust me, Bill, it's completely subjective.
It boggles my mind that people are still trying to reason with Bill. He doesn't even know how to present an argument; he simply tries to tear other's to shreds without anything to back it up.All this time I've been thinking that Bill is like a joke with no punchline...and then he just said that he thinks he speaks for all intelligent people. I get it now!
Thanks for the laugh, Bill. I needed that.
Jordan wrote: "Oh and by the way, if you think you are so innocent in all of this, than why are you going on threads that are specifically meant for the fans? Just to trash us more right?"
Well, if I may say so myself, "for fans only" is like a huge beacon to any anti. I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans, if anything it's exactly the opposite...but it's inevitable that it's going to happen, and you probably shouldn't be surprised when it does.
Well, if I may say so myself, "for fans only" is like a huge beacon to any anti. I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans, if anything it's exactly the opposite...but it's inevitable that it's going to happen, and you probably shouldn't be surprised when it does.
Jocelyn wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Oh and by the way, if you think you are so innocent in all of this, than why are you going on threads that are specifically meant for the fans? Just to trash us more right?"
Well, i..."
I really hate it n people trash the fans. Maybe we should all start trashing something they like.
Well, i..."
I really hate it n people trash the fans. Maybe we should all start trashing something they like.
Mickey wrote: "You've made statements. Make an argument."I've made the argument. You haven't read it.
Here's another angle on the same argument. I'll try not to overcomplicate it, so even you can't twist it into something it isn't:
In the early '80s, Chrysler pumped out a shitload of K-cars. These were affordable cars, cheaply made, and sold like crazy.
The thing is, they weren't a quality product. They were simply designed to get from point A to point B for a limited amount of time, then they would die.
On top of the cheap engine, which was prone to head gasket failures, the body had a tendency to rust, and God forbid you were in a minor fender bender, or the damned thing was junk on the spot.
Look on the roads these days, and count the number of Aries Ks and Reliant Ks on the road. I haven't seen one since 1999, when a relative's Aries died (he's a mechanic, so I'm not surprised that it lasted as long as it did).
I have seen other cars from that time period. They've aged much better than the K cars have.
Once upon a time, those K cars were flooding the roads (quantity). People snapped them up because they were affordable transportation (popularity). Now, they've gone the way of $1/gallon gasoline (lack of quality).
Quantity does not equal quality. Popularity doesn't equal quality.
I don't care if Twilight sold millions of dollars in merchandise, copies of the novel, movies and DVDs. It does not equal a QUALITY product. The two concepts are a disjoint set. One can exist without the other.
A McD's hamburger has cheap ingredients. It tastes slightly more flavorful than soggy cardboard. It does not have the quality of a Five Guys' hamburger, but it is cheaper, making it more popular.
Your "argument" (and the argument I responded to) is that "It's good because it's popular."
My reply: People can like shitty things. I happen to love a game called Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, which is broken on so many levels that I stopped counting an hour into my first session with it: it's poorly balanced, tricky to get the units moving where you want them to go, and frustratingly difficult in all the wrong ways. Objectively, in every measure game critics use to measure the quality of the game, it sucks:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/tot...
Consider that a game needs to have a 9/10 or equivalent score for hard-core gamers to take it seriously, and Metacritic says it's a flop.
I still like it, though. I still play it. I find it fun.
I won't, however, pretend that it's a great game for anyone else. You won't see me stalking TA:K boards telling everyone that hates the game that they're fucking stupid or delusional because I don't share their lack of enthusiasm for the game.
Also, people will flock to anything marketed as "cool" like lemmings to the cliffs. If you aren't following the sheep, you're outside the "cool kids," and therefore don't belong... and people so desperately want to belong.
Hell, the music "industry" figured that out a LONG time ago, and they have the formula for a popular song down to a science. They all sound the same, they all blend one right into another, and the only thing distinguishing an older pop song from a newer on is how loud it is (I'm not kidding you... go look it up, it's well documented).
You can have a quality product become popular. Someone will inevitably try to use this as a rebuttal. Occasionally, the herd does seem to recognize that something of quality can work for them, and they buy it up in droves. It does not actually, in and of itself, reveal quality: it just means a lot of people like it.
"It's popular, therefore it's good" is a poor argument for quality. Always has been. Always will be. Even the non-English speaking person got it before I posted this latest round of examples... but you, Mickey, aren't getting it. I know you're thinking of a way right now to say "...but you still haven't proven anything!" when I have, in fact, not only proven it, I've laid a four-lane highway straight to the point:
Just because YOU like it, and the 15,000,000 other people around you like it, does not, never has, and never will, make it a QUALITY product, because POPULARITY DOES NOT... DOES NOT... EQUAL QUALITY.
They are not synonyms in the thesaurus. They're not listed as definitions of each other in the dictionary. They are a disjoint set. They are exclusive of each other. One does not naturally follow the other.
Got it yet?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Yes, thank you for supplying the word that I trying to think of when I posted. You are right. Twilight is fantasy, but it wasn't intended to be an epic fantasy novel."
You're welcome. :)
When I was in college and in graduate school, I took several African-American and latino literature courses and came across plenty of papers that were published in professional journals where the person(s) completely misunderstood the cultural context of the story that they were writing about. I've also seen this type of thing happen when some are analyzing hip-hop lyrics or hip-hop music/culture in general. Professionals should be less likely to get it wrong, but some do...and in some areas, they actually do it quite often. For example, The Color Purple was criticized heavily for portraying black men (and so-called "black family dynamics") in a negative light. There was a lot of focus on the negatives but hardly any on the positives (such as the theme of personal growth...a person being able realize their misdeeds and redeem themselves and others being able to forgive them for those misdeeds and move on.) Eventually, the tone of the criticism changed and the book won awards and was made into a movie etc.
I'll admit that I have no idea on earth about anything when it comes to music and the criticism directed at it. Sorry! Perhaps you're right in that area, because I don't know.
As for literature, I'm pretty sure that those people wouldn't fit into the category of academia. I'm talking about people who have studied literature for years, who have devoted their entire lives to studying it...not people who "claim" to be professionals. People who actually ARE professionals, people with good reputations or study under such people.
Perhaps, this may happen with Twilight? Maybe as time passes and people analyze it through a more objective lens, the tone of the criticism may change.
That's a good point. Perhaps it will happen. I think it happened (forgive me for using this reference for the thousandth time) when Tolkien's The Silmarillion was received pretty negatively the first time it came out, but gradually the reception changed to positive.
I've always thought Twilight was more of a controversial series, though. There's nearly an equal number of people defending it as the people criticizing it. It's not "officially" literary garbage.
Personally, I think that if Stephen King had said that he liked Twlight, people probably would have just wrote it off as him being the crazy old oddly quirky weirdo nutjob that he often appears to be.
Perhaps so. But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have generated such vehement reactions by Twilight fans.
I agree with what you are saying about how subjectiveness can apply to criticism just as easily as it applies to praise. But for me, this is only true when the criticism or praise is fair and objective, unbiased and based on an accurate analysis of the book's basic elements.
I'm not sure how someone's credibility ties into subjectiveness, or makes anything less subjective. Will you elaborate?
You're welcome. :)
When I was in college and in graduate school, I took several African-American and latino literature courses and came across plenty of papers that were published in professional journals where the person(s) completely misunderstood the cultural context of the story that they were writing about. I've also seen this type of thing happen when some are analyzing hip-hop lyrics or hip-hop music/culture in general. Professionals should be less likely to get it wrong, but some do...and in some areas, they actually do it quite often. For example, The Color Purple was criticized heavily for portraying black men (and so-called "black family dynamics") in a negative light. There was a lot of focus on the negatives but hardly any on the positives (such as the theme of personal growth...a person being able realize their misdeeds and redeem themselves and others being able to forgive them for those misdeeds and move on.) Eventually, the tone of the criticism changed and the book won awards and was made into a movie etc.
I'll admit that I have no idea on earth about anything when it comes to music and the criticism directed at it. Sorry! Perhaps you're right in that area, because I don't know.
As for literature, I'm pretty sure that those people wouldn't fit into the category of academia. I'm talking about people who have studied literature for years, who have devoted their entire lives to studying it...not people who "claim" to be professionals. People who actually ARE professionals, people with good reputations or study under such people.
Perhaps, this may happen with Twilight? Maybe as time passes and people analyze it through a more objective lens, the tone of the criticism may change.
That's a good point. Perhaps it will happen. I think it happened (forgive me for using this reference for the thousandth time) when Tolkien's The Silmarillion was received pretty negatively the first time it came out, but gradually the reception changed to positive.
I've always thought Twilight was more of a controversial series, though. There's nearly an equal number of people defending it as the people criticizing it. It's not "officially" literary garbage.
Personally, I think that if Stephen King had said that he liked Twlight, people probably would have just wrote it off as him being the crazy old oddly quirky weirdo nutjob that he often appears to be.
Perhaps so. But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have generated such vehement reactions by Twilight fans.
I agree with what you are saying about how subjectiveness can apply to criticism just as easily as it applies to praise. But for me, this is only true when the criticism or praise is fair and objective, unbiased and based on an accurate analysis of the book's basic elements.
I'm not sure how someone's credibility ties into subjectiveness, or makes anything less subjective. Will you elaborate?
Jocelyn wrote: "I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans..."...which isn't what I did. If you click on that thread, you'll see that I never even posted there. Not once, not ever.
I did read it. I believe firmly in Sun Tzu's principle of "know your enemy" (and believe me: they have essentially declared me to be an enemy... probably just jealous of my good looks and charming personality, or intimidated by my obvious passion for a good fight). I reconned that thread... nothing more.
In fact, it was Jordan who decided to get nasty with me... not the other way around. I didn't say a word to her, and she immediately told me to "back off."
(They sure are adorable when you piss them off, aren't they? Endless amusement.)
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans..."
...which isn't what I did. If you click on that thread, you'll see that I ne..."
Just to clarify, I didn't accuse you of going on the thread to trash fans. It was just a general statement.
...which isn't what I did. If you click on that thread, you'll see that I ne..."
Just to clarify, I didn't accuse you of going on the thread to trash fans. It was just a general statement.
Jocelyn wrote: "Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans..."...which isn't what I did. If you click on that thread, you'll ..."
It's all good. Jordan made it look like I did, though, so I figured a little bit of truth needed to leak in to the web of sheer insanity the Cult of Meyers seem to be weaving.
Bill wrote: "As for literature, I'm pretty sure that those people wouldn't fit into the category of academia. I'm talking about people who have studied literature for years, who have devoted their entire lives to studying it...not people who "claim" to be professionals. People who actually ARE professionals, people with good reputations or study under such people."It's impossible to tell what Mocha has read or when she read it, but she has something of an obsession with the canon and how, in the past, it has been seen to leave out African-American writers. Not a misplaced obsession, mind, since this happened, it's true and it's a very important area around which debate has sprung up, but it's an obsession that's blinkering her view of modern Academia a little bit.
She seems to feel that because it's come to light that some authors are considered worthy of study now that weren't, then the same thing is possibly going to happen with Meyer and that because she has outrage regarding African-American writers she has as valid an opinion on every other area of literary Academia.
Of course, I didn't say that Academic discourses have never been limited or lacking in the past, what I'm arguing is that Academic discourses are a lot more clued-up to the ideas that revolve around texts than we are. ironically, it's Academic debate that introduced ideas of opening up the canon to women and racial minorities - not amateurs ranting on an internet forum - and it's Academia that introduces ideas like feminism or racial sensitivity into society generally 10-20 years before they catch on in the public at large (queer theory emerged, like, 30 yrs ago and only in the last couple of years have I seen the average Joe debating parts of it). To talk about literary discourses as "right or wrong" or "making mistakes" is really to continually miss the point. As I said before, we're debating the quality of Meyer as a writer through a set of aesthetic standards that we've culturally agreed upon ... and that's the kind of conversation that no Academic I know of would even be remotely interested in. Mocha is simply years and years behind, thinking that Academia is all about ticking boxes, creating standards and listing what is quality and what is not. It's not at all, it's about learning about our culture through the literature we read.
Bill, your car analogy doesn't work because you are discussing a flaw in function. There is not a similar flaw in function in Twilight, we aren't discsussing the failure of the book to do any of the purposes that books do, we are talking about subjective responses to a book. Your analysis of McDonald's hamburgers are not objective. Again, to you, they don't taste good. To others, they do. To state they do not objectively taste good isn't possible. It's a personal preference.
I can't break it down any further for you. If you can't understand it, then you're too caught up in creating enemies out of people who simply have different tastes than you. This is a personal problem. I'm sure that this is a very small example of a bigger problem of needing to categorize people as inferior to you.
You don't know the first thing about fans and your analysis of them seems to be just another area where you can't see past your own opinions. Grow up, Bill.
BTW, I'd like to point out this statement you made: "Your "argument" (and the argument I responded to) is that "It's good because it's popular." I'll tell you what my argument is, because you're obviously not capable of seeing past your paranoid fantasies of a second Inquisition involving a book thread.
When you discuss the quality of a book, that's going to vary widely from individual to individual. That's any book, because you are discussing something that is based on personal responses, much like TV programs or restaurant chains. Some people will like it and some people won't. This doesn't have anything to do with quality.
However, if something is hugely popular and you're not a fan yourself, I think it's telling the sorts of things you do with that. For example, I never understood the popularity of the TV show Seinfeld. I've watched a few episodes and I didn't think they were funny or interesting. That's a personal preference and I understand that. I do not feel the need to "confront" fans with my "objective proof" that Seinfeld is terrible. I don't spin a fantasy where the fans are out to get me because they want to have conversations that aren't about my objections. In short, I can see past myself and my own preferences. Do a lot of people like Seinfeld? If they have a different opinion than I do of the series, does this mean that they are all stupid, mindless, brainwashed followers? I would say no. I can't feel the appeal myself, but that doesn't mean that it has no real or legitimate appeal for others. It doesn't make me a better or smarter person to dislike a book or a TV show that others do.
ETA: I hope you get this time that I'm not looking for your personal views, because you have a habit of not looking at the argument and deciding to give your personal opinion on the subject (like you did with Stephen King). My point isn't that Seinfeld is good or not. You stating your personal opinion isn't really of interest to me and misses the point.
Jocelyn wrote: As for literature, I'm pretty sure that those people wouldn't fit into the category of academia. I'm talking about people who have studied literature for years, who have devoted their entire lives to studying it...not people who "claim" to be professionals. People who actually ARE professionals, people with good reputations or study under such people.."....I'm not certain how you are going about making the distinction between those who claim to be and those who actually are....but it doesn't really matter at this point.
First of all, I have to say that I wasn't limiting my definition of "academia" to only those who have a background in literature. I fully realize that this is a discussion about literature....but academics with literature backgrounds are not the only ones who write literary criticism. For example, academics with backgrounds in political science have written about "Animal Farm". Academics with backgrounnds in Women's Studies have written about Pygmalion. Academics with backgrounds in theology have written about The DaVinci Code.
If we are going to be that narrow in our thinking and limit this iscussion to only to those academics with backgrounds in literature, I don't think there is really any point in continuing. It seems to me like you are inadvertantly trying imply that criticism of Twilight can be interdisciplinary or cross-curricular (ie...asserting that Twilight is anit-feminist) but any defense of it cannot be. When someone defends it, you demand that the defense ONLY come from an academic literary standpoint....and you get to be the one who decides whether that academic literary standpoint is "professional and valid". I don't think that way. If I were analyzing the Da Vinci code, I would consider the views of the English professor and the theologian and any other academic from any other discipline that wants to chime in. I would consider them all....not just focus on any one discipline.
I think I may have to chalk this particular disconnect up to my personal affinity for the liberal arts. I don't read or analyze literature from only one framework. (I know that academics or any here in goodreads either don't either, btw.) I said several times that I thought Twilight was poorly written....so I might be inclined to agree with criticism that an academic with a background in literature may make about it pertaining to things like prose. However, that is not the only criteria that I used to judge the book. It seems to me like you are trying to dictate which criterias for judging a book are valid and which are not valid. Even within the framework of "academia".
If that isn't where you were going with this, my apologies in advance. That is the impression that I am getting though.
Angie wrote: "Bill wrote: "Now that I finally have some free time...I love how some people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand an obvious Uncle Remus reference, or how their actions have impacted ..."
LOL
I think she just got better as the series went on. I read them when I was just turning 20. I liked the books then even if I wasn't as fond of Bella's character. I think the last book was amazing and felt she should really explore the world she has created for us. with the different covens and abilities. And renesme herself. I read the host and loved it as well. I've read a lot of books and many i have liked more but I will say it sure didn't take me long to finish all 4 and I actually bought them instead of checking them out, which was a rare thing for me at the time. People are always going to put others down, but i think the popularity of her series says it all.
Mickey wrote: "Bill, your car analogy doesn't work because you are discussing a flaw in function."I nailed it. You missed the point completely. I don't even need to read any further to know that you didn't actually read a thing I wrote, you skimmed it.
The car analogy had absolutely nothing to do with the function of the car, but the quality of the car. Specifically, it lacked the quality that even the rest of Chrysler's line-up had in those years.
They were popular because they were cheap. That's all. Nothing deeper than that.
"Meyers is popular. She sells a lot of books. Therefore she is a good author."
"Chrysler K-cars are popular. They sell a lot of models of K-cars. Therefore, K-cars are good."
Both of these statements are parallel, yet the K-car one is false, for reasons I just painstakingly laid out for you. You don't want to be convinced of the truth, so you simply skimmed
You tried to get clever with the point. You are trying to twist this point, just like all of the rest of the things I have written, because they don't fit your carefully constructed view of Meyers as an author.
Notice that no one else has chimed in and said, "Gee, Bill, you're wrong." You are the only one at this point that doesn't get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmxSk0...
From now on, every time you type an "argument," I'll be thinking of this vastly improved version of Twilight. Go slap another fish.
Bill wrote: "Oh, Mickey and Jordan... There is NO SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON for the quality of a fast-food burger and any other type. Period. The quality of the ingredients will always... ALWAYS!!!... make the fast..."okay, actually tbh, the fast food thing is true with it not being healthy, but people still like it.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans..."...which isn't what I did. If you click on that thread, you'll see that I ne..."
i told you to back off, not because you starting something with me, but because you were with other people, and you shouldn't get nasty to ANYONE especially on what is supposed to be a civilized book conversation.
apparently someone thinks we're adorable Mickey! Oh how sweet. (sarcasm)
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I'm not saying that it's okay for antis to go on the thread simply for the purpose of trashing fans..."...which isn't what I did. If you click on that..."
Well, I am sorry. You never trashed fans... on that thread so sorry for making it seem that way.
~☆ Alice☆~ wrote: "IMO anyone who has made 50 million on her books is sure doing something right."I guess the movies are also great, because they made a lot of money, right?
Jordan wrote: "Bill wrote: "Oh, Mickey and Jordan... There is NO SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON for the quality of a fast-food burger and any other type. Period. The quality of the ingredients will always... ALWAYS!!!... ..."If you're arguing whether or not McDonalds is healthy for you, that's not subjective. It's proven that it's not good for you. But if you're arguing about what tastes better, it's absolutely subjective. No one can decide that for you.
It's the same with the books. If you're arguing that it contains grammar mistakes that's not subjective. It does have grammar mistakes. But no one can tell you whether or not the book is 'good.' Only the reader can decide that.
Bill wants to argue that Five Guys Burgers is better, but he's basing this on popular opinion. When it comes to the book, however, he is adamant that popular opinion doesn't apply. Therefore this argument is null and void. Unless, of course, Bill has decided that Twilight is 'good' because it's popular. I'm sure he'll weigh in.
Jordan wrote: "the fast food thing is true with it not being healthy, but people still like it. "The Twilight thing is true with it being badly written, but people still like it.
Jordan wrote: "apparently someone thinks we're adorable Mickey! Oh how sweet. (sarcasm) "
Well, I wouldn't go that far to say adorable, but you seem to be likeable. I've allmost sent you a friendship invite.
Bill wrote:"They were popular because they were cheap. That's all. Nothing deeper than that."So your car analogy doesn't work because Twilight is not less expensive than other books. This is not a huge factor in its popularity.
Really, try to find something that makes at least a little sense, Bill.
And I believe people are chiming in and saying, "You're wrong, Bill." This whole tactic of trying to pretend your ideas are so universal that no one would disagree with you hasn't worked, has it?
You still can't accept the fact that your opinions are subjective, because you don't like the idea that someone could discount them like you are so ready to discount others' opinions.
I understand what all of you are arguing about.
Angie wrote: "Bill wants to argue that Five Guys Burgers is better, but he's basing this on popular opinion. When it comes to the book, however, he is adamant that popular opinion doesn't matter. Therefore this argument is null and void. Unless, of course, Bill has decided that Twilight is 'good' because it's popular. I'm sure he'll weigh in."I love it! I have to caution you, though, Angie, if you call Bill out on his contradictions, he'll call you stupid about sixty times and decide that you are a high-ranking member of the cult that's out to get him.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "First of all, I have to say that I wasn't limiting my definition of "academia" to only those who have a background in literature.
So this is where we differ.
I fully realize that this is a discussion about literature....but academics with literature backgrounds are not the only ones who write literary criticism.
I don't think anyone ever said otherwise. My main claim was that Academics are more likely than others to have an accurate analysis of books. Not that they were the only ones who could write literary criticism.
If we are going to be that narrow in our thinking and limit this iscussion to only to those academics with backgrounds in literature, I don't think there is really any point in continuing.
It seems to me like you are inadvertantly trying imply that criticism of Twilight can be interdisciplinary or cross-curricular (ie...asserting that Twilight is anit-feminist) but any defense of it cannot be. When someone defends it, you demand that the defense ONLY come from an academic literary standpoint....and you get to be the one who decides whether that academic literary standpoint is "professional and valid".
I don't think that way. If I were analyzing the Da Vinci code, I would consider the views of the English professor and the theologian and any other academic from any other discipline that wants to chime in. I would consider them all....not just focus on any one discipline.
I think I may have to chalk this particular disconnect up to my personal affinity for the liberal arts. I don't read or analyze literature from only one framework. (I know that academics or any here in goodreads either don't either, btw.) I said several times that I thought Twilight was poorly written....so I might be inclined to agree with criticism that an academic with a background in literature may make about it pertaining to things like prose. However, that is not the only criteria that I used to judge the book. It seems to me like you are trying to dictate which criterias for judging a book are valid and which are not valid. Even within the framework of "academia".
No, I'm just saying that Academics are far more reliable and knowledgeable than people here seem to be thinking. I'm not saying that it's YOU specifically that acted like academia is some evil force trying to crush the opinions of the "regular" and "common" people," because you didn't at all....but I really do think that academics' opinions are more respectable than a reader "who just wants to curl up with a good book after a long day."
But if you want, we could just agree to disagree and discontinue it like you suggested.
So this is where we differ.
I fully realize that this is a discussion about literature....but academics with literature backgrounds are not the only ones who write literary criticism.
I don't think anyone ever said otherwise. My main claim was that Academics are more likely than others to have an accurate analysis of books. Not that they were the only ones who could write literary criticism.
If we are going to be that narrow in our thinking and limit this iscussion to only to those academics with backgrounds in literature, I don't think there is really any point in continuing.
It seems to me like you are inadvertantly trying imply that criticism of Twilight can be interdisciplinary or cross-curricular (ie...asserting that Twilight is anit-feminist) but any defense of it cannot be. When someone defends it, you demand that the defense ONLY come from an academic literary standpoint....and you get to be the one who decides whether that academic literary standpoint is "professional and valid".
I don't think that way. If I were analyzing the Da Vinci code, I would consider the views of the English professor and the theologian and any other academic from any other discipline that wants to chime in. I would consider them all....not just focus on any one discipline.
I think I may have to chalk this particular disconnect up to my personal affinity for the liberal arts. I don't read or analyze literature from only one framework. (I know that academics or any here in goodreads either don't either, btw.) I said several times that I thought Twilight was poorly written....so I might be inclined to agree with criticism that an academic with a background in literature may make about it pertaining to things like prose. However, that is not the only criteria that I used to judge the book. It seems to me like you are trying to dictate which criterias for judging a book are valid and which are not valid. Even within the framework of "academia".
No, I'm just saying that Academics are far more reliable and knowledgeable than people here seem to be thinking. I'm not saying that it's YOU specifically that acted like academia is some evil force trying to crush the opinions of the "regular" and "common" people," because you didn't at all....but I really do think that academics' opinions are more respectable than a reader "who just wants to curl up with a good book after a long day."
But if you want, we could just agree to disagree and discontinue it like you suggested.
There are soo many people saying bad things about this series and saying things about Stephanie Meyer as a writer. Personally the Twilight Saga is the saga that got me into reading in the first place. I LOVE the series still. I love the movies (Even though I haven't seen Breaking Dawn Part 2 yet). But I still love the series and I know that people have their own opinions, but these are mine. She is a really good writer. And I am a writer, and I'm working on my own novel right now. I mentioned that so that I ca say that I know how hard it is to write a book, and how long it can take. So I love writing, and I love the whole Twilight Saga. It's such a huge phenomenon still and Stephanie Meyer is a really good writer. (I've also read The Host by her which I loved as well). So I personally love the series and her writing/ writing style.
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...
Critics, who write quick reviews for newspapers and such are, hmm I dunno, Ok, but by their very nature quite opinionated and looking to raise of few heckles to make people interested in what they're saying. I think that some of them are pretty good/know their stuff but I'd be very cautious about putting them in the samer bracket as Academics ... in fact, I just wouldn't.