Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "I don't mind love triangles, but I don't need them in every single book I read."Well, I wouldn't have minded them all that much if they weren't so common. I'm stuck with YA because..."
The Hunger Games was an epic fail overall in my opinion. I thought I liked it, but after reading some other dystopian novels, I realized how mediocre the book was. And the movie was like another nail in the coffin.
Again, just my opinion. I know others who read the series and enjoyed it. It just wasn't for me.
Jordan wrote: "She didn't screw it up, she made it her own. Not every vampire book needs to have the same trend. I like to read books where the author's change it to their liking. "No... she basically took everything about vampires and utterly fornicated it to pieces. The only time she read anything about vampires is looking the word up in the dictionary, and it shows.
There are a lot of excellent vampire novels that take every imaginable approach to the lore: traditional, modified, spiritual, demonic... hell, Whitley Strieber even has a scientific explanation for his vampires that makes perfectly logical sense.
Meyers has a vampire that isn't a vampire, who flits about the forest saving damsels in distress and feasts on small, defenseless animals. He glitters in direct sunlight. There's no downside to his condition; draining blood from the living is supposed to be a curse, not a blip on your dating profile (and certainly not a trait that attracts potential mates).
He's a faerie, not a vampire. If you want real, "humanized" leeches, find some Anne Rice (anything before Tale of the Body Thief), then come back and tell me Meyers didn't shit all over the lore.
Before people leap all over me (again)for taking Meyers to task for brutalizing the vampire myths, ask yourself this question, and be honest with yourself:With just the first book to go on, what functional reason is there for Eddie-boy being a vampire?
He could be a faerie, either of the Seelie or Unseelie Court (who glitters in the sun because the glamour hiding his true form reacts in sunlight), and it would have been much more believable.
Don't use reasons from the next three books, either. Without the success of the first, it's virtually guaranteed that there wouldn't be a saga (since any reasonable publisher would have cut their losses on an unpopular book).
SO... why a vampire? "Why not?" is a cheap answer that doesn't actually answer the question, by the way.
Well obviously if she were, there wouldn't be such a rave about her books, would there? I think her books are for a certain audience and in that arena she excels
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "I don't mind love triangles, but I don't need them in every single book I read."Well, I wouldn't have minded them all that much if they weren't so common. I'm stuck with YA because..."
Even though I love love triangles, I do agree that there is way too ,any of them. I think that people need to be more creative. I think SM kind of started this (not originally, but you know) so I think she did fine with the triangle and it did extremely well for merchandise. But I really do not want EVERY SINGEL book I read to have love triangles!!!
Bill wrote: "Before people leap all over me (again)for taking Meyers to task for brutalizing the vampire myths, ask yourself this question, and be honest with yourself:With just the first book to go on, what ..."
Because she's the author and she wanted it to be. I know that you are going to say that's a cheesy answer (and I'm fine with that) but there are going to be people asking that question about every book, and people need to realize that if the book is not in your interest, than it wasn't written for you. SM wrote a book that millions of people like, you are not one of them, and that's fine. But some books that I don't like (I'm going to say Mockingjay) other people love and again that's fine.
I hope you see that I'm not trying to attack you, but just trying to state what I think is correct.
Jordan wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "I don't mind love triangles, but I don't need them in every single book I read."
Well, I wouldn't have minded them all that much if they weren't so common. I'm stuck..."
Agreed! It's like authors are thinking, " hmmm, I'm running out of ideas for my story....oh, a love triangle! Tadaaaaaaa!" or "my story doesn't have a plot...I'll hide that fact with a love triangle!" I think I'd like love triangles if it weren't such a common trope, and more than that, a common trope used badly.
Well, I wouldn't have minded them all that much if they weren't so common. I'm stuck..."
Agreed! It's like authors are thinking, " hmmm, I'm running out of ideas for my story....oh, a love triangle! Tadaaaaaaa!" or "my story doesn't have a plot...I'll hide that fact with a love triangle!" I think I'd like love triangles if it weren't such a common trope, and more than that, a common trope used badly.
Lisa wrote: "Well obviously if she were, there wouldn't be such a rave about her books, would there?"Popular equals good?
Jocelyn wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "I don't mind love triangles, but I don't need them in every single book I read."Well, I wouldn't have minded them all that much if they weren't so co..."
I know! Some books pull it off well, but some is just random! I hate those ones!
While Stephanie's writing has many flaws I think the sheer number of people her work has appealed to is a testament to her being a good storyteller although not necessarily a good writer. The Twilight Saga is far from gold but I feel like she gets a lot of unnecessary flack simply because of how popular it became.
Didn't read this this whole thread but just wanted to drop in my two cents.Yes, Stephenie Meyer is a horrid writer.
It was funny, my degree in is English Literature and Creative Writing, and in every single class I took(This was back in the height of the books coming out) there was always a mini discussion about Twilight and how horrible it was. I would have professors pointing out the problems with Twilight.
It was almost as if Stephenie Meyer didn't have an editor. She also used ridiculous words, her story was disjointed at times, the timeline not matching up. Oh, did I mention that she created two ridiculously pathetic characters? Sure, Edwards hot and all swoonworthy and whatnot, but come on! He is a crazy, emo, stalker, sparkly Vampire. What is there to love there? This story is NOT about love but more about obsession.
And it teaches teenage girls horrible things. Like, if your boyfriend leaves you, go into a deep depression for months. Or, it's okay if your boyfriend stalks you. It's okay if he emotionally abuses you because, guess what, he's hot and swoony. Basically it's teaching girls to center their lives around their 'one true love'. Now I'm not saying there aren't other books that do that too, but wouldn't it be awesome if Bella was independent? If she was not so freaking whiny? What about if, after Edward left her in NM she realized that her life doesn't revolve around a guy!
Anyways, got a little off topic there, but in short, Stephenie Meyer is NOT a good author. Do you want a good writer? Read Harry Potter. Seriously! Read some of the Bronte sisters. Jane Eyre, anyone? What about George Orwell or even Lorrie Moore. If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!
Megan wrote: "Didn't read this this whole thread but just wanted to drop in my two cents.Yes, Stephenie Meyer is a horrid writer.
It was funny, my degree in is English Literature and Creative Writing, and in ..."
I love Twilight, but I had to reply just to say OMG YOU LOVE CASSIE CLARE TOO!!!!???? my bookshelf is dedicated to her books!!!
Well, there's a difference between being a bad writer and a bad story teller. Technically speaking, she's a bad writer. But she spun a story that captured the attention of people.
haha! yeah! cassandra clare is awesome. seriously. i love how well developed her characters! and how strong and independent. also, let's be honest, her guys are good looking :)
Megan wrote: "If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!"I have to be honest--I'm not big on authors who 'get their big break' capitalizing on characters that were already created for them.
Megan wrote: "haha! yeah! cassandra clare is awesome. seriously. i love how well developed her characters! and how strong and independent. also, let's be honest, her guys are good looking :)"OMG, Jace and Will! Eek! I am like the biggest fan-girl when it comes to them LOL!!
Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!"I have to be honest--I'm not big on authors who 'get their big break'..."
I really don't get into the whole fan fiction controversy. To me, The Mortal Instruments is clearly original, as is The Infernal Devices. The characters are strong, the writing is good and the plot is completley original. I read these books before I heard anything about her life as a fan fiction author. After reading those books and hearing about that part of her literary life I thought about it for about a nano second and decided that I really didn't care.
Her writing fan fiction for Harry Potter did, in no way, hurt JK Rowling. It was a way for her to keep her love for the HP world alive. So yeah, whatever. If you refuse to read an author because she was a ff author then that's obviously your choice :) But I have a really hard time seeing how that effects any of her original works.
Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!"I have to be honest--I'm not big on authors who 'get their big break'..."
Also, I just realized that you are reading the Fifty Shades of Grey series. You do know that series is a Twilight Fanfiction story called Masters of the Universe, right? Basically, E.L. James wrote a stupid long story about her very own Edward and Bella. She decided she wanted to publish and so she almost just did a copy and replace of all the names, changing them to new names, and printed her long story into three seperate books. Thus, Fifty Shades was born.
Speaking of capitalizing on someone else's characters and fanbase, E.L. James did just that. And more.
That being said, I don't really care. I think any creativity is good creativity.
Megan wrote: "Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!"I have to be honest--I'm not big on authors who 'get th..."
Yes, I am reading one of the Fifty Shades books right now. At least, I'm trying to. Did you also notice that I've been reading it for a month?
I do know the book started a FF. And I was very curious as the the hype surrounding it.
Aside from the fact that her dialogue is laughable, there is absolutely no character development in the book. Why? Because she didn't need to develop the characters in her story. Stephenie Meyer already did that for her.
Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!"I have to be honest--I'm not big on autho..."
Haha, yeah, I won't ever read those books. I've heard their pretty horrible. Good luck with trying to finish them!! I have such a hard time finishing books that I hate, but I force myself to do it anyways. I don't know why. Maybe to just be able to say I read them? I don't know.
Megan wrote: "Also, I just realized that you are reading the Fifty Shades of Grey series. You do know that series is a Twilight Fanfiction story called Masters of the Universe, right? Basically, E.L. James wrote a stupid long story about her very own Edward and Bella. She decided she wanted to publish and so she almost just did a copy and replace of all the names, changing them to new names, and printed her long story into three seperate books. Thus, Fifty Shades was born.Speaking of capitalizing on someone else's characters and fanbase, E.L. James did just that. And more."
I very much agree with you. Terry Brooks did a similar thing with The Sword of Shannara. The first book in the series is pretty much the Lord of the Rings Trilogy melted down into one book with some little twists. Brooks' response was something along the lines of it being ok because most fantasy books follow the LotR's model of fantasy. I read that he started his book, got discouraged, read LotR and then was suddenly able to finish the book.
My point is that there were a lot less differences in that story than there are in Clare's novels. I never once put it together that they were in any way similar when I read them. That is what creativity is. People get idea's from other people's art and go from there. I wouldn't call it plagiarism in Clare's case, just inspiration.
Megan wrote: "Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "Angie wrote: "Megan wrote: "If you're looking for YA romance/supernatural read Cassandra Clare. Her heroines freaking rock your socks off!!"I have to be honest--I'm no..."
I started reading them because a friend asked me to. She wanted to be able to discuss them with me. She had just read 'The Hunger Games' at my request, so I thought I should reciprocate. I think she's sorry she asked me to now, but she opened a can of worms.
The only reason I'm still reading (sort-of...since I have to force myself to pick the book up) is because every time I think the book can't possible get any worse...IT. DOES. It's sort of amazing to see.
Angie wrote: "The only reason I'm still reading (sort-of...since I have to force myself to pick the book up) is because every time I think the book can't possible get any worse...IT. DOES. It's sort of amazing to see."
LOL! I hope you hang on in there, Angie. Perhaps you'll survive the ordeal.
Or the miracle might happen: it will get better.
I, for one, only survived twenty pages. :(
LOL! I hope you hang on in there, Angie. Perhaps you'll survive the ordeal.
Or the miracle might happen: it will get better.
I, for one, only survived twenty pages. :(
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "The only reason I'm still reading (sort-of...since I have to force myself to pick the book up) is because every time I think the book can't possible get any worse...IT. DOES. It's sor..."Oh, Lord. I just checked and I started it on October 29th.
I will finish it. I'm over halfway through it now. I feel compelled to finish so I can post a fully informed review.
Angie wrote: "I will finish it. I'm over halfway through it now. I feel compelled to finish so I can post a fully informed review."
Haha, well, good luck. xD
Haha, well, good luck. xD
You guys are talking about the Mortal Instruments right? OMG I love them! Can't get enough!!!
Megan wrote: "Speaking of capitalizing on someone else's characters and fanbase, E.L. James did just that. And more.That being said, I don't really care. I think any creativity is good creativity."
I think this conversation illustrates an important point in the discussion of "what makes a good writer". People who don't care for a book often go on these "standards" pedestals with other readers. "Oh, that book is terrible because of this and that. If you like it then you don't care about quality!" until you get into the books they like, which often have the same problems or just as egregious problems.
As readers, why spend time knocking other readers? Why say, "Because you like this book, you are not as good of a reader as I am."?
I think people who use books as standards in which to judge others are missing the boat on reading in general. Reading is subjective. We all have things that don't speak to us, and my personal opinion is that having standards such as are often shown get in the way of being a good reader. They certainly do not make you a good reader. To go on a tirade about filler or incorrect grammar has more to do with a personal need to feel better than others than some lofty, high-minded impulse natural in "good" readers, particularly when the standard is so flexible you only apply it when you don't like something.
Reading’s subjective. I think it’s a mistake to treat disliking a book as a mark of distinction. I think it should be treated as more akin to a disability. For instance, I just can’t get into Hemingway. I know it has to do with his writing style, but I’ve read enough authors who love Hemingway and speak highly of him to know that there is something in his work that I don’t experience, not something wrong with his work. To say it makes me a better reader that I can’t enjoy him (because I have standards that others don’t) is laughable. The point of literature is to enjoy it. It’s not to provide us with a way to put our noses up in the air to others.
You could say that writers tend to be an iconoclastic group, but I can’t think of a standard that some talented writer has not broken. So I think people that tend to hold fast to their standards tend to be people who haven’t read enough to come across the variety that literature offers.
Alex wrote: "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."
Agreed.
To add to that, I think the reason why people in this thread are constantly questioning the value of literary criticism because they're afraid that their opinions, like you said when addressing Diane, don't count in an area they don't know much about, and they see themselves as speaking for people who "just want to curl up with a good book after a long day."
They think writing is 100% a matter of personal preference, and because of that they start using their personal preferences and discussions about quality interchangeably. The thing is, the quality of writing isn't just about whether it speaks to one person or not. When someone dislikes a book, they can still acknowledge that the book has quality writing. I don't dislike Twilight because it doesn't speak to me, I dislike it because it actually contains a lot of problems.
I think subjection, like I said a couple of pages ago, applies to criticism just as it applies to praise. And I think fans also agree on this. The difference is that in general, they praise it for personal reasons--like Bella is relatable, Edward is fascinating, the vampires seem creative and original--while the people criticizing it use "literary standards" to criticize it. I think that bothers some people, because apparently literary standards shouldn't exist because we miss the artistic value while we supposedly check off the boxes in our big checklist of "what makes a good book."
Since writing is subjective, using literary standards seems to be akin to checking the answers to something exact and precise like a math problem. Hence the common responses like "just because it doesn't speak to you doesn't mean it's bad," "you just don't get it," etc.
So they start questioning: why? Why does this make a good book or a bad book? Why is filler bad, why is overuse of adjectives and adverbs bad? Because they feel that these literary standards limit the amount of potential creativity a book can have, which is why they don't think those standards are legitimate.
Well, anyway, enough of that. In my own opinion, standards should be held by writers, but they CAN break it--IF they have a legitimate reason for breaking it. That is the difference between Twilight and other books where authors apparently committed the same literary "crimes."
I think standards are in place for a reason. Which is why authors, in turn, must have a reason for breaking them.
Tolkien himself broke quite a lot of rules. He broke the sensible rule that characters shouldn't have similar names. His reason was because he was trying to create a story as vast and deep as the Prose Edda, and having similar character names made the book feel more authentic, to emphasize all those family trees and lineages he created.
He broke the rule that books shouldn't be overly long. Again, he had a reason. He was trying to create a world and story as vast and deep as the Prose Edda, and he had a huge wealth of knowledge to draw upon for his stories. Which is why there are so many long and dull passages that are seemingly unnecessary in the Lord of the Rings, so many songs and poems that, if chopped off the novel, would not miss a single thing of importance. Because he was trying to imitate and recreate what Snorri had done.
Then there's the second question. If the author is breaking a rule for a reason, that's good. Did s/he accomplish his/her purpose? Sometimes, authors do, and sometimes they don't.
So, if I may use the Tolkien-Meyer analogy again: Tolkien broke rules because he felt it was necessary to tell the story, and in the end, it did pay off. Meyer didn't have a legitimate reason to break those rules. That, IMO, is the difference, and why it's "okay" for books to "have the same problems" while not being criticized for it the same way Twilight is. And why having those standards does not limit creativity.
Agreed.
To add to that, I think the reason why people in this thread are constantly questioning the value of literary criticism because they're afraid that their opinions, like you said when addressing Diane, don't count in an area they don't know much about, and they see themselves as speaking for people who "just want to curl up with a good book after a long day."
They think writing is 100% a matter of personal preference, and because of that they start using their personal preferences and discussions about quality interchangeably. The thing is, the quality of writing isn't just about whether it speaks to one person or not. When someone dislikes a book, they can still acknowledge that the book has quality writing. I don't dislike Twilight because it doesn't speak to me, I dislike it because it actually contains a lot of problems.
I think subjection, like I said a couple of pages ago, applies to criticism just as it applies to praise. And I think fans also agree on this. The difference is that in general, they praise it for personal reasons--like Bella is relatable, Edward is fascinating, the vampires seem creative and original--while the people criticizing it use "literary standards" to criticize it. I think that bothers some people, because apparently literary standards shouldn't exist because we miss the artistic value while we supposedly check off the boxes in our big checklist of "what makes a good book."
Since writing is subjective, using literary standards seems to be akin to checking the answers to something exact and precise like a math problem. Hence the common responses like "just because it doesn't speak to you doesn't mean it's bad," "you just don't get it," etc.
So they start questioning: why? Why does this make a good book or a bad book? Why is filler bad, why is overuse of adjectives and adverbs bad? Because they feel that these literary standards limit the amount of potential creativity a book can have, which is why they don't think those standards are legitimate.
Well, anyway, enough of that. In my own opinion, standards should be held by writers, but they CAN break it--IF they have a legitimate reason for breaking it. That is the difference between Twilight and other books where authors apparently committed the same literary "crimes."
I think standards are in place for a reason. Which is why authors, in turn, must have a reason for breaking them.
Tolkien himself broke quite a lot of rules. He broke the sensible rule that characters shouldn't have similar names. His reason was because he was trying to create a story as vast and deep as the Prose Edda, and having similar character names made the book feel more authentic, to emphasize all those family trees and lineages he created.
He broke the rule that books shouldn't be overly long. Again, he had a reason. He was trying to create a world and story as vast and deep as the Prose Edda, and he had a huge wealth of knowledge to draw upon for his stories. Which is why there are so many long and dull passages that are seemingly unnecessary in the Lord of the Rings, so many songs and poems that, if chopped off the novel, would not miss a single thing of importance. Because he was trying to imitate and recreate what Snorri had done.
Then there's the second question. If the author is breaking a rule for a reason, that's good. Did s/he accomplish his/her purpose? Sometimes, authors do, and sometimes they don't.
So, if I may use the Tolkien-Meyer analogy again: Tolkien broke rules because he felt it was necessary to tell the story, and in the end, it did pay off. Meyer didn't have a legitimate reason to break those rules. That, IMO, is the difference, and why it's "okay" for books to "have the same problems" while not being criticized for it the same way Twilight is. And why having those standards does not limit creativity.
I think her writing style is simplistic. You can definitely find much better writers out there. However, she does have great character development, and she does build a good plot.
Jocelyn wrote: "Since writing is subjective, using literary standards seems to be akin to checking the answers to something exact and precise like a math problem. Hence the common responses like "just because it doesn't speak to you doesn't mean it's bad," "you just don't get it," etc.So they start questioning: why? Why does this make a good book or a bad book? Why is filler bad, why is overuse of adjectives and adverbs bad? Because they feel that these literary standards limit the amount of potential creativity a book can have, which is why they don't think those standards are legitimate."
Judging twilight by academic standards does seem rather arbitrary. And 'rules' like "filler is bad" especially so. If an engineer puts an extra wheel that doesn't do nothing in a machine, that's bad engineering, but putting a scene that doesn't do nothing in a story... well, that is just storytelling - it doesn't objectively make it better or worse.
One wouldn't try and evaluate row houses on their architectural merit - and why, because that isn't what they are build for.
So trying to argument why twilight is never going to be the next, say, Ulysses feels futile to me.
Judging twilight by academic standards does seem rather arbitrary. And 'rules' like "filler is bad" especially so. If an engineer puts an extra wheel that doesn't do nothing in a machine, that's bad engineering, but putting a scene that doesn't do nothing in a story... well, that is just storytelling - it doesn't objectively make it better or worse.
I don't think judging it by academic standards is somehow required to determine the quality of a book or something. I'm just saying that by using academic standards, it doesn't mean we're missing out on creativity like so many people on this thread keep insisting.
As for the "filler is bad" thing...I don't want to be rude, but if I were being honest, I haven't seen any real rebuttal for it besides "it's subjective" and "some people like it!" and "the purpose of books is to enjoy them, not get them over with!" Just saying...because that kind of thing is just pointing out that filler can be entertaining, not stating WHY filler is a QUALITY thing.
One wouldn't try and evaluate row houses on their architectural merit - and why, because that isn't what they are build for.
So are you saying that Twilight shouldn't be evaluated by academic standards because it's not written for it? (I'm just asking for clarification.)
Okay, let's get off the filler to something else Meyer is commonly criticized for. Say, the lack of plot. I'd say that criticizing Meyer for lack of plot is like criticizing an architect for designing a house that didn't have walls. It's subjective, right? But I don't think anyone can deny that a house without walls is a house that has QUALITY.
I'm not saying that no one can deny that filler, lack of plot, or any other broken "literary standard" is bad...just that the "it's supposed to be creative" and "it's not meant to be analyzed that way" can only be taken so far before it doesn't really explain the problems in something. And pointing out flaws in a work of art does not mean that we're missing out on creativity.
I don't think judging it by academic standards is somehow required to determine the quality of a book or something. I'm just saying that by using academic standards, it doesn't mean we're missing out on creativity like so many people on this thread keep insisting.
As for the "filler is bad" thing...I don't want to be rude, but if I were being honest, I haven't seen any real rebuttal for it besides "it's subjective" and "some people like it!" and "the purpose of books is to enjoy them, not get them over with!" Just saying...because that kind of thing is just pointing out that filler can be entertaining, not stating WHY filler is a QUALITY thing.
One wouldn't try and evaluate row houses on their architectural merit - and why, because that isn't what they are build for.
So are you saying that Twilight shouldn't be evaluated by academic standards because it's not written for it? (I'm just asking for clarification.)
Okay, let's get off the filler to something else Meyer is commonly criticized for. Say, the lack of plot. I'd say that criticizing Meyer for lack of plot is like criticizing an architect for designing a house that didn't have walls. It's subjective, right? But I don't think anyone can deny that a house without walls is a house that has QUALITY.
I'm not saying that no one can deny that filler, lack of plot, or any other broken "literary standard" is bad...just that the "it's supposed to be creative" and "it's not meant to be analyzed that way" can only be taken so far before it doesn't really explain the problems in something. And pointing out flaws in a work of art does not mean that we're missing out on creativity.
Gerd wrote: "Judging twilight by academic standards does seem rather arbitrary. And 'rules' like "filler is bad" especially so. If an engineer puts an extra wheel that doesn't do nothing in a machine, that's bad engineering, but putting a scene that doesn't do nothing in a story... well, that is just storytelling - it doesn't objectively make it better or worse."Exactly! This rule of "no filler" is simply a trend. It can't even be called a rule of good writing, there are so many great authors who ignore it completely. Stephen King gives a pretty good defense of "filler" in his introduction to the unedited version of The Stand.
Jocelyn wrote: "So are you saying that Twilight shouldn't be evaluated by academic standards because it's not written for it? (I'm just asking for clarification.)"In a way, yes.
One wouldn't go and say the VW Rabbit is bad car because it didn't advance car engineering.
The same way faulting twilight for not advancing literature, is a bit silly.
It never set out to do so.
Jocelyn wrote: "As for the "filler is bad" thing...I don't want to be rude, but if I were being honest, I haven't seen any real rebuttal for it besides "it's subjective" and "some people like it!" and "the purpose of books is to enjoy them, not get them over with!" Just saying...because that kind of thing is just pointing out that filler can be entertaining, not stating WHY filler is a QUALITY thing."
And yet, there hasn't been any good argument why filler is necessarily a bad thing. Good written filler is still entertaining, and entertainment is twilight's main.
If Stephenie had tried to put forth some kind of message, and that message had gotten lost or dilluded by using overly much filler - then yes, it would be a bad thing.
Gerd wrote: In a way, yes.
One wouldn't go and say the VW Rabbit is bad car because it didn't advance car engineering.
The same way faulting twilight for not advancing literature, is a bit silly.
It never set out to do so.
I don't remember anyone on this thread (except maybe Bill, but I don't happen to be Bill) "faulting Twilight for not advancing literature." Judging a book by academic standards isn't necessarily the same as criticizing it for "advancing literature."
One wouldn't go and say the VW Rabbit is bad car because it didn't advance car engineering.
The same way faulting twilight for not advancing literature, is a bit silly.
It never set out to do so.
I don't remember anyone on this thread (except maybe Bill, but I don't happen to be Bill) "faulting Twilight for not advancing literature." Judging a book by academic standards isn't necessarily the same as criticizing it for "advancing literature."
Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "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 "wo..."If standards are in place for a reason as you assert, then everyone should be held to the same standard.
I may be reading your post wrong, but it appears to me as if you are judging SM by 'academia's' standards and Tolkien by his own. How is this an accurate comparison?
Also, you say SM had no 'legitimate' reason for breaking the rules. Is this, again, not subjective?
Gerd wrote: "And yet, there hasn't been any good argument why filler is necessarily a bad thing. Good written filler is still entertaining, and entertainment is twilight's main.
If Stephenie had tried to put forth some kind of message, and that message had gotten lost or dilluded by using overly much filler - then yes, it would be a bad thing."
Also if it slowed down the pacing for no real reason, if it cluttered up the core story, if it repeated the same thing over and over and over and over and over fifty thousand times throughout the course of the book, it would also be a bd thing.
Entertainment may be Twilight's main aim...but that doesn't suddenly make it a quality book. I'm talking about quality, not whether it's entertaining or not.
Whether or not it's meant to be analyzed that way is irrelevant...because it's still possible to analyze it in such a way, and doing so, IMO, does not make you miss out on the artistic value.
Also, remember I said that a little filler is fine....80% filler is not fine. Meyer should sacrifice some elements for the sake of having a more streamlined story, something that has appropriate structure and something to support what she writes. The story should have a central purpose to lay a groundwork for everything in the story.
It's possible to "indulge" while having some relevance to the main conflict, and it's possible to entertain while not having so much filler that it clutters up the story with pointless tangents.
The main reason why filler is bad, in my opinion, is that it doesn't serve any legitimate purpose. It's useless and pointless and doesn't do anything to enhance the story as a whole.
If Stephenie had tried to put forth some kind of message, and that message had gotten lost or dilluded by using overly much filler - then yes, it would be a bad thing."
Also if it slowed down the pacing for no real reason, if it cluttered up the core story, if it repeated the same thing over and over and over and over and over fifty thousand times throughout the course of the book, it would also be a bd thing.
Entertainment may be Twilight's main aim...but that doesn't suddenly make it a quality book. I'm talking about quality, not whether it's entertaining or not.
Whether or not it's meant to be analyzed that way is irrelevant...because it's still possible to analyze it in such a way, and doing so, IMO, does not make you miss out on the artistic value.
Also, remember I said that a little filler is fine....80% filler is not fine. Meyer should sacrifice some elements for the sake of having a more streamlined story, something that has appropriate structure and something to support what she writes. The story should have a central purpose to lay a groundwork for everything in the story.
It's possible to "indulge" while having some relevance to the main conflict, and it's possible to entertain while not having so much filler that it clutters up the story with pointless tangents.
The main reason why filler is bad, in my opinion, is that it doesn't serve any legitimate purpose. It's useless and pointless and doesn't do anything to enhance the story as a whole.
Angie wrote: "I may be reading your post wrong, but it appears to me as if you are judging SM by 'academia's' standards and Tolkien by his own. How is this an accurate comparison?"
I think I judged them by the same standards. I simply explained why I thought it was acceptable for Tolkien to break those rules, and why it wasn't for SM. Yes, it involved some of Tolkien's own reasons...but if SM had done something similar--if I thought she had a real reason for breaking those rules--then I'd be saying the same things about her as I did about Tolkien. I just didn't think that SM HAD any of "her own standards" with which she could use to justify all the filler.
Also, I don't think that Tolkien's "own standards" are mutually exclusive of academia's standards.
Also, you say SM had no 'legitimate' reason for breaking the rules. Is this, again, not subjective?
Did I say it was a fact? If I did, I'm sorry...but I don't remember denying that it's subjective.
I think I judged them by the same standards. I simply explained why I thought it was acceptable for Tolkien to break those rules, and why it wasn't for SM. Yes, it involved some of Tolkien's own reasons...but if SM had done something similar--if I thought she had a real reason for breaking those rules--then I'd be saying the same things about her as I did about Tolkien. I just didn't think that SM HAD any of "her own standards" with which she could use to justify all the filler.
Also, I don't think that Tolkien's "own standards" are mutually exclusive of academia's standards.
Also, you say SM had no 'legitimate' reason for breaking the rules. Is this, again, not subjective?
Did I say it was a fact? If I did, I'm sorry...but I don't remember denying that it's subjective.
Jocelyn wrote: "I don't remember anyone on this thread (except maybe Bill, but I don't happen to be Bill) "faulting Twilight for not advancing literature.""No... all I said was that Meyers set vampire lore back several hundred years.
As an aside:
Still waiting on a real answer to my question, by the way: given the events of just Twilight, what functional reason is there for Edward to be a vampire, instead of any of thousands of mythological and extraterrestrial beings? I have heard no legitimate answers to this.
Gerd wrote: "And yet, there hasn't been any good argument why filler is necessarily a bad thing."Yeah, so filler is bad like trash is worthless. The meaning of the word "filler" is that it's pointless material that doesn't need to be there.
Bill wrote: "Still waiting on a real answer to my question, by the way: given the events of just Twilight, what functional reason is there for Edward to be a vampire, instead of any of thousands of mythological and extraterrestrial beings? I have heard no legitimate answers to this."Maybe you should start a thread on it, Bill. Perhaps people who are interested could post. As for waiting for an actual logical argument, I'm still waiting for one from Zoran from the first page or so and it actually ties in to the topic of this thread.
As part of the question, I think most people don't hold vampires as some sort of apex of supernatural creature, so your outrage over her daring to put the name "vampire" on a creature you don't approve of isn't really all that interesting to others.
Popular doesn't always equal mediocre. When I first read one of her books, I believe I was in 8th(?) grade. Then, I didn't care how she wrote I just wanted more. Even know, Twilight is one of those books that's just become a part of me.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I don't remember anyone on this thread (except maybe Bill, but I don't happen to be Bill) "faulting Twilight for not advancing literature.""No... all I said was that Meyers set va..."
It was the scent of her blood that he was drawn to. If I remember right, he originally went into her bedroom that first night to kill her because he couldn't resist the smell of her blood.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I don't remember anyone on this thread (except maybe Bill, but I don't happen to be Bill) "faulting Twilight for not advancing literature.""No... all I said was that Meyers set va..."
I think I did talk about this in another thread with Jocelyn. I don't remember which one, though. Much of the plot was written around the fact that he was a vampire. Whatever creature she chose would have to be something dangerous in order for the story to still work. In that regard, a fairy wouldn't have made sense...unless of course, she tweaked traditional fairy lore and made them extremely dangerous and threatening to humans and an enemy of werewolves. (...and we'd still be having the same conversation anyway.)
I don't think any other creature would have worked because Twilight was a romance novel. I think the author wanted to dedicate her story to telling Bella and Edwards love story. Making up another creature would have meant longer explanations of what he actually was and where he came from.
btw, I do think it is very interesting that critics care more about her portrayal of vampires than her portrayal of Native Americans.
Gerd wrote: "The same way faulting twilight for not advancing literature, is a bit silly.It never set out to do so."
I think you aren't understanding what people mean when they say "academic standards" here. They don't actually mean standards that academics actually engage in. Your example is actually much closer to what "academic standards" really mean. The way it's being used here is more of the sort of rules you get in high school, middle school, or 'how to write' books.
I'm sure most of us who have read plenty of works by academics know that they don't engage in the type of analysis about whether something has "filler" or not and whether it is acceptable. What's being touted as "academic standards" here doesn't resemble the sort of analysis anyone with any knowledge of academia would engage in.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I don't remember anyone on this thread (except maybe Bill, but I don't happen to be Bill) "faulting Twilight for not advancing literature.""
No... all I said was that Meyers set va..."
Remember, I said MAYBE you...I wasn't exactly accusing you of it, and I just wanted to get it over with before anyone brought it up, that's all.
No... all I said was that Meyers set va..."
Remember, I said MAYBE you...I wasn't exactly accusing you of it, and I just wanted to get it over with before anyone brought it up, that's all.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "btw, I do think it is very interesting that critics care more about her portrayal of vampires than her portrayal of Native Americans."
Haha, that's true. Though I HAVE read quite a few articles criticizing Meyer for her portrayal of Native Americans. Still, the outrage at the sparkles is a lot more common.
Haha, that's true. Though I HAVE read quite a few articles criticizing Meyer for her portrayal of Native Americans. Still, the outrage at the sparkles is a lot more common.
Is it actually a generally agreed upon fact that Twilgiht had a lot of filler? I didn't think so. Everything that happened seemed to tie into the story in some way or layed the groundwork for something that happens in the future.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Is it actually a generally agreed upon fact that Twilgiht had a lot of filler? I didn't think so. Everything that happened seemed to tie into the story in some way or layed the groundwork for som..."
Personally for me, I consider anything with 0% relevance to the main conflict to be filler. About 80% of Twilight fit in that mold. The climax, arguably the most important element in the plot, had nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the story. It was not foreshadowed, it was not hinted at, nothing.
But I think in this thread, it's pretty much a consensus that Twilight had filler. Defenders of Twilight in this thread defend Twilight's filler for the most part, instead of denying it, in which case there wouldn't be a consensus. Some might disagree...but it looks to me that most fans agree that Twilight had filler.
Personally for me, I consider anything with 0% relevance to the main conflict to be filler. About 80% of Twilight fit in that mold. The climax, arguably the most important element in the plot, had nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the story. It was not foreshadowed, it was not hinted at, nothing.
But I think in this thread, it's pretty much a consensus that Twilight had filler. Defenders of Twilight in this thread defend Twilight's filler for the most part, instead of denying it, in which case there wouldn't be a consensus. Some might disagree...but it looks to me that most fans agree that Twilight had filler.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Is it actually a generally agreed upon fact that Twilgiht had a lot of filler? I didn't think so. Everything that happened seemed to tie into the story in some way or layed the groundwork for some way or layed the groundwork for something that happens in the future."That's another thing about criticism that supports the theory of subjectivity. The criticism of the writing is all over the place. "Her writing is too simplistic." "Her writing is too complicated." "Her writing is bland." "Her writing is too purple." "She overuses adjectives." "She doesn't describe enough."
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...
Well, I wouldn't have minded them all that much if they weren't so common. I'm stuck with YA because my school library has little other fiction besides YA, and it's my most accessible resource for books :( What I hate about them mostly is that it's become such a common trope, authors just shove love triangles in their stories when it's entirely unnecessary, when it does not enhance the story at all, and if anything takes away from the story. I feel like because of love triangles, I have to wade through more garbage to find a book with even a PLAUSIBLE romance, much less a GOOD romance, and even less a plausible love triangle. (Hunger Games anyone? That triangle was an epic fail.) Or an otherwise good book is ruined by melodramatic love triangle drama.
I have to wonder if the trend is taking off because many older women (not old, but older than the target audience for a YA novel) are reading YA novels now, and they find themselves in relationships that have become stagnant and anything to shake up a relationship seems exciting.
I think this contributes to the appeal/popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey as well.
Maybe. I hope it dies out just as fast, though. I really don't think that the literary world needs this kind of trashy romance drama cluttering it up. About 99% of the love triangles I've read are complete garbage.