Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Jocelyn wrote: "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 entire showdown with James was foreshadowed in the preface.
Mocha Spresso: "The entire showdown with James was foreshadowed in the preface."
But not in the next 80% of the novel. I still think the foreshadowing was pretty inadequate. In the rising action (as much as you can call it rising action) Meyer failed to show us why the stuff that happened in the preface was important, so there was nothing building up to the climax.
But not in the next 80% of the novel. I still think the foreshadowing was pretty inadequate. In the rising action (as much as you can call it rising action) Meyer failed to show us why the stuff that happened in the preface was important, so there was nothing building up to the climax.
Mickey wrote: 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." Exactly. Those are all generic criticisms that are subject to personal opinion. What I see as bland, someone else may find exciting or vice versa.
Angie wrote: "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. ""The smell of her blood" sounds more like a way to explain her choice to name her abominations "vampires, and could have been easily rewritten so he was attracted to some other aspect of her nature.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "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...
You apparently don't understand the sidhe, or you wouldn't have downplayed them so far. You're probably thinking of pixies or brownies, or some other more "playful" fae. The term "faerie" covers a lot of folk, and most of them are dangerous in some way.
However...
Mocha Spresso wrote: "...and an enemy of werewolves."
Again, no. The only places this particular rivalry occur are RPGs and Hollywood movies (as well as the "burns up in sunlight" misconception).
Plus... you're using knowledge of future novels. I excluded those because, without the (undeserved) success of the first book, the saga dies before it infects any further.
Seriously... it would have taken her about a day and a half of Google research to write a believable vampire. Barring that, she could have used any of thousands of creatures from fantasy and sci-fi. Instead, she basically tossed the label onto her desecration without a shred of research.
It's not her writing style that is bad, it's the story itself. I felt the story was too shallow, it had nothing to do with her skill in writing.
Bill wrote: You apparently don't understand the sidhe, or you wouldn't have downplayed them so far. You're probably thinking of pixies or brownies, or some other more "playful" fae. The term "faerie" covers a lot of folk, and most of them are dangerous in some way."Dangerous in some way" isn't really enough for the story to work, though. Her creature has to be one that preys on humans. Without the bloodlust, she would need to re-work several scenes in the book. For example, the biology class scene no longer works in the context that you are suggesting. (btw, I know you don't like it when I insert knowledge of other books but that scene reads much better from Edward's POV in Midnight Sun. I think Twilight would have been better if she had included both their POV's rather than just focusing on Bella's."
However...
Mocha Spresso wrote: "...and an enemy of werewolves."
Again, no. The only places this particular rivalry occur are RPGs and Hollywood movies (as well as the "burns up in sunlight" misconception).
Those myths about vampires are popular enough that they don't require a great deal of explanation and more time can be devoted to telling Bella and Edward's story. This is something that happens in romance novels (which Twilight is). In the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon or The Time Traveler's Wife, the "traditional" science fiction explanations of time travel take a backseat to the characters and their romance. Twilight is not an epic fantasy and was never intended to be. You can't fault an author for not accomplishing something that she never intended to do with her writing in the first place. I don't fault Shakespeare for not giving Romeo and Juliet a "happier ever after" ending. Their romance was a tradegy. It was supposed to end badly.
Plus... you're using knowledge of future novels. I excluded those because, without the (undeserved) success of the first book, the saga dies before it infects any further.
Seriously... it would have taken her about a day and a half of Google research to write a believable vampire. Barring that, she could have used any of thousands of creatures from fantasy and sci-fi. Instead, she basically tossed the label onto her desecration without a shred of research. .."
In most of the romantic series books that I have read, there are always aspects in the first book that don't always make sense until you've read the subsequent books.
Mickey wrote: "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."Then I prefer academic analysis anytime, about 80% percent of those "rules" are little else than a reflection fleeting, contemporary sentiments towards writing.
I don't actively mind what, I think, William Goldman once said about writing, to cut out everything that doesn't advance the story, but I feel that people take these "rules" far too serious.
Jocelyn wrote: "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."
Sure it's possible, but I don't see much of a point in it to measure a work by a standard it neither can nor has to fulfill. If we want to lead a usefull discussion we should get away from the academics, and step back from comparing twilight to works from completly different fields and look how it fares in its own field - i.e. youth literature and Romance
Jocelyn wrote: "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."
True that, but literature as a whole serves little real purpose. :D
Shes overall in average depending on what your judging her by. I personally hate Twilight. I don't like choice of dialogue and the conflicts are pathetic. Though that doesn't mean shes a bad author, just her creativity-i guess :)
Samira wrote: "Those myths about vampires are popular enough that they don't require a great deal of explanation and more time can be devoted to telling Bella and Edward's story. This is something that happens in romance novels (which Twilight is). In the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon or The Time Traveler's Wife, the "traditional" science fiction explanations of time travel take a backseat to the characters and their romance. Twilight is not an epic fantasy and was never intended to be. You can't fault an author for not accomplishing something that she never intended to do with her writing in the first place. I don't fault Shakespeare for not giving Romeo and Juliet a "happier ever after" ending. Their romance was a tradegy. It was supposed to end badly. The question that Bill asked - which I thought was a pretty good one - was "why does Ed Cullen need to be a vampire?" As you said, this is a romance story ... so what's it got to do with vampires?
Simple answer: Yes. Much in the same way E L James is. Notice a pattern?
Alex wrote: "Samira wrote: "Those myths about vampires are popular enough that they don't require a great deal of explanation and more time can be devoted to telling Bella and Edward's story. This is something ..."Edward was a vampire because SM wanted him to be one. If you were the author, then you could make him whatever you wanted him to be. But then there would be people like Bill and others who will ask "why did you make him this?" It's going to happen no matter what the story is, who wrote it and the genre.
Gerd wrote: "True that, but literature as a whole serves little real purpose. :D"
This site is called Goodreads. That is for people who read books and love books and want to discuss them...so um...yeah, say that again? (Sorry...I just don't understand.)
This site is called Goodreads. That is for people who read books and love books and want to discuss them...so um...yeah, say that again? (Sorry...I just don't understand.)
Okay, I don't think Stephenie Meyer is a bad writer at all. Actually I loved the twilight saga. I do think Bella needed a little more character development in the first three novels. Bella needed to be stronger and not SO dependent on Edward and Jacob. Twilight gets a bad rap in general, particularly with guys because sociaty has a seriously warped definitions and a lot guys feel they can't be masculine and still like or even check out, Twilight. Twilight is great, but like all books, I have my likes and dislikes.
Alex wrote: The question that Bill asked - which I thought was a pretty good one - was "why does Ed Cullen need to be a vampire?" As you said, this is a romance story ... so what's it got to do with vampires? ."This is like asking why is goofy a dog and donald a duck. Why is Winnie the Pooh a bear? Why is Bunnicula a rabbit? ....because that is what the author wanted.
Could Thr Little Mermaid have been done as The Little Pixie instead? It theoretically could have been...but that seemingly small change would have also made it a totally different story because so much of the plot revolved around Ariel being a mermaid. The same is true of Twilight. Edward could have been something else...but that would have changed the story signifigantly because the plot revolves around him being a vampire. Edward is a vampire because that is what Stephanie Meyer dreamed about that night.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Edward could have been something else...but that would have changed the story signifigantly because the plot revolves around him being a vampire."Twilight doesn't have a plot. Bella is bored. She meets Edward. He is the most beautiful boy in the whole world. He stalks her and watches her sleep. The end.
Any vampire trait that Edward exhibits is something that is "nothing to do with vampires" (moving quickly and sparkling in the sun) and so one is led to wonder why Meyer thought that vampirism needed to be introduced into her story. "Because she dreamed it" is a) a marketing ploy and b) thoroughly irrelevant to thinking about how novels are written or how they work thematically. One doesn't "dream" a novel, one has to plan it out and write it in one's waking hours. "I dreamed about vampires last night, that would make a good novel" is very much a conscious thought.
So yes, Meyer wanted Ed Cullen to be a vampire. Why? If you're not interested in these kinds of questions why on earth do you go online to discuss the books that you read??
Jocelyn wrote: "This site is called Goodreads. That is for people who read books and love books and want to discuss them...so um....."No argument there, but still, literature isn't doing much, at least not much that could actually be measured - except providing a diversion for people - and so does filler.
Could twilight have been told in less pages?
Sure.
But so could be LotR, which consists of about two thirds filler, the thing is that when people like to read something they often don't mind the amount of filler put in. Therefore I have a hard time calling filler bad, bad style maybe, but I think the moment you actively notice the filler, the story isn't working for you anyway and probably couldn't be saved, for you, by taking out the filler either.
Gerd wrote: "No argument there, but still, literature isn't doing much, at least not much that could actually be measured - except providing a diversion for people - and so does filler."That's about as wrong as it gets.
That filler provides a diversion or that literature isn't doing anything measurable?
I really think she's good i love her books i thinks she put alot of detail in them
As an English major, I really don't think that SM wrote her books very well. She uses too many sentence fragments and words that do not make much sense in context. Her characters, especially Bella, also lacked depth and often contradicted themselves. I'm not a fan of the way she portrays Edward and Bella's love either. To me, it seems more like intense obsession. Edward was also very controlling throughout the series.
There's a difference between filler and real movement in the plot and story line. Filler is the crap that is unnecessary and adds nothing to the plot or story line. The latter is what makes the difference. Having real movement in a book is key. When something exciting isn't going on, you should still be learning new things that contribute back to the main plot or a sub plot. And I have to agree that the obsession, controlling, and Bella's lack of personality turned me off.
Racheal wrote: "There's a difference between filler and real movement in the plot and story line. Filler is the crap that is unnecessary and adds nothing to the plot or story line. The latter is what makes the difference"I agree, as people have been using the example of LOTR I thought about it... the only 'filler' in LOTR (in my opinion) was Tom Bombadil. The rest of it all added something to the plot be it atmosphere or history.
From what I recall of Twilight (and I refer only to the this book and not the 'saga') - there wasn't actually a lot of what I would call filler... it was merely a different way to try and show the characteristics of the characters. Was it to my taste, no but neither was it 'filler'. At least that is the take on it I have.
Gerd wrote: "That filler provides a diversion or that literature isn't doing anything measurable?"That literature doesn't do much but provide a diversion for people. If you think that then there's not much left to say is there? One can't really - or shouldn't really bother - to answer questions like "Is Stephanie Meyer any good?" if one holds such a staggeringly low opinion of literature in general.
Carina wrote: "the only 'filler' in LOTR (in my opinion) was Tom Bombadil"I don't think he's filler. The encounter with Bombadil expands on Middle-Earth mythologically, shows that there's a world and powers in middle-earth larger than is encapsulated by the War of the Ring and narratively it provides the company with a respite from the perils of their journey.
Twilight, on the other hand, doesn't really have much of a story so I suppose you could say it's 400 pages of filler. What's the point of any of it? Oh no, keep the chemistry class scene... that's hilarious!
Carina wrote: "I agree, as people have been using the example of LOTR I thought about it... the only 'filler' in LOTR (in my opinion) was Tom Bombadil. The rest of it all added something to the plot be it atmosphere or history."I recently read that there was a point to Tom Bombadil. He saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights and they needed to go there to get their swords. They were special swords, when Merry stabs the Witch King of Angmar the special sword breaks some spell allowing the Witch King to be killed later on. That was the whole point of Tom Bombadil. That's what the internet told me.
According to http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Barrow-blades
"Merry's Barrow-blade played a major role in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. It was enchanted with the power to harm the Witch-king of Angmar himself by a weaponsmith of Arthedain long before. When he stabbed the Witch-king in the knee with it, it broke the spell protecting his undead flesh. This may have killed him, though Eowyn, a woman, drove her sword into his unseen head."
"Filler" is one of those words that's often misapplied. When people don't like something or just found it boring they call it "filler" It's very rare that it even exists in novels, it's far more commonly found in TV or anime shows that need to kill a certain amount of episodes/weeks before they can get back to a main storyline ... it's stuff that could be excised with zero loss because that's how it was intended.Generally what people call filler is just someone's style, either to ramble on a bit, have multiple characters, sub plots or expand on incidents that strike the author as interesting. They're generally important in the sense that that's how the author has chosen to approach the story. People who argue "filler" are generally readers who "read for the plot" and want the characters to get from A-B as quickly as possible.
Alex wrote: "People who argue "filler" are generally readers who "read for the plot" and want the characters to get from A-B as quickly as possible."Are those readers less worthy? Do we have some reader-evaluation here? Are all readers equal?
Can we value so called "informed consumers" more than those who are not informed? (informed = educated or experienced in some way)
There is nothing wrong with the way she writes. However it is what she chooses to write about, pedophilia via vampire and werewolf. That's what makes her a bad writer. Not to mention character development, how could someone like Bella possibly exist? She had no life, nothing realistic about her aside from moping and people breaking their necks for her spoiled white ass. Mary sue. Just saying, she's a dime a dozen. Fan girls on Quizilla and other fan based websites can testify to that.
Scarlet wrote: "There is nothing wrong with the way she writes. However it is what she chooses to write about, pedophilia via vampire and werewolf. That's what makes her a bad writer."I strongly disagree! Every subject is a good subject. And pedophilia is a very serious issue, so it is in fact a great subject.
But THE WAY SHE WRITES (or the way any writer writes) is what makes the difference.
I do agree on poor characters.
Zoran wrote: "Are those readers less worthy? Do we have some...Can we value so called "informed consumers" more than those who are not informed? (informed = educated or experienced in some way) "
If you read books rigidly in only one way then you're likely to miss many good qualities of many good books. You should read a book that was written "for the plot" for the plot. One with lengthy political or conversational digressions etc should probably be read with a view to understanding the digressions.
I would definitely favour taking a broader, more diverse approach when reading novels, for sure.
Scarlet wrote:Fan girls on Quizilla and other fan based websites can testify to that. "
I'm not sure why you'd need someone to testify to your opinion.
How was she spoiled? She drove a truck that was older than she was, and she lived in a poor neighborhood in Arizona. A lot of people there had snubbed her because of that.
She had scrimped and saved to get herself a vehicle, and was very touched and appreciative when her father presented her with her truck; she was moved to tears when he put chains on the tires for her. Most spoiled teenagers aren't appreciative.
Angie wrote: "How was she spoiled? She drove a truck."Teenager who can afford his own vehicle is likely to be spoiled.
(this is not a comment on Twiligh, more on society in general)
Zoran wrote: "Angie wrote: "How was she spoiled? She drove a truck."Teenager who can afford his own vehicle is likely to be spoiled."
If you're going to quote me, Zoran, you could at least quote my entire sentence. Please don't twist my words--or cut them off. At least use them accurately.
Angie wrote: "If you're going to quote me, Zoran, you could at least quote my entire sentence."It wasn't relevant for my point. My point is: a teenager who can afford to own a vehicle belongs to the privileged part of human population.
We can argue that most teenagers in so called "western civilisation" belong to the privileged part of human population, and that might be true.
So, therefore, the fact that she drove an old truck instead of a new one, or the fact that she was moved when it was given to her, can't be used as an argument that she wasn't spoiled.
Beside this, I just want to state that "spoiled character" doesn't make a book good or bad. One could write a great book on spoiled people.
Zoran wrote: "Beside this, I just want to state that "spoiled character" doesn't make a book good or bad. One could write a great book on spoiled people. ."Gone with the Wind certainly springs to mind...
Zoran wrote: "Angie wrote: "If you're going to quote me, Zoran, you could at least quote my entire sentence."It wasn't relevant for my point. My point is: a teenager who can afford to own a vehicle belongs to ..."
She was able to have a vehicle because she worked in order to have spending money. That doesn't make her priviliged; it makes her responsible.
I believe if you reread my post, my argument centered around the fact that she was appreciative of what she had. And yes, I can use that as an argument. This may come as a shock, but you don't dictate what I post or what I can and cannot use to support my opinions.
As for your last statement, I never said that wasn't possible.
Angie wrote: "This may come as a shock, but you don't dictate what I post or what I can and cannot use to support my opinions."Of course, you can use anything, and I can find it irrelevant.
Just as I find this whole debate abot her being spoiled irrelevant.
Zoran wrote: "Angie wrote: "This may come as a shock, but you don't dictate what I post or what I can and cannot use to support my opinions."Of course, you can use anything, and I can find it irrelevant.
Just..."
And yet you felt the need to chime in. It would appear it's not so irrelevant to you after all or you would have been able to resist posting.
I don't think she's a bad writer! Most of the book is of Bella's internal thoughts, so I can see why some people might not like the style, or be annoyed by it, but overall it's personal opinion. I don't see anything wrong with the book, but I can see how others might. Bella's only personality seems to be love, towards Edward. OBSESSING OVER EDWARD THROUGH THE WHOLE BOOK. I prefer the Host by Stephanie over Twilight. It's better written anf the characters have better personalities. :)
Angie wrote: "And yet you felt the need to chime in."Yup. But I'm prone to going off topic. And as I said, my comment about spoiled kids with trucks wasn't about Twilight, but about society in general.
If you really want to discuss that, sure, no problem. We can do that.
Zoran wrote: "Just as I find this whole debate abot her being spoiled irrelevant. ."It's filler, really.
Alex wrote: "Zoran wrote: "Are those readers less worthy? Do we have some...Can we value so called "informed consumers" more than those who are not informed? (informed = educated or experienced in some way) "
..."
All readers should be equal. Just because someone has different taste and looks for different things in a book doesn't make them less worthy.
Jordan wrote: "Alex wrote: "Zoran wrote: "Are those readers less worthy? Do we have some...Can we value so called "informed consumers" more than those who are not informed? (informed = educated or experienced in..."
Here Here
Jordan wrote: "Abby wrote: "Edward will always win!!! Jacob just sucks."
ikr? They are meant to be best friends! not together! in new moon it was just awkward."
I agree. When I read New Moon for the first time I thought Bella was just playing Jacob. She was acting like she like him, but she never liked him. She just like him in Eclipse because she just thought she did.
ikr? They are meant to be best friends! not together! in new moon it was just awkward."
I agree. When I read New Moon for the first time I thought Bella was just playing Jacob. She was acting like she like him, but she never liked him. She just like him in Eclipse because she just thought she did.
Teagan wrote: "Bella's only personality seems to be love, towards Edward. "Yup, that's what people have in mind when they say "shallow and one-dimensional characters".
Alex wrote: "Zoran wrote: "Just as I find this whole debate abot her being spoiled irrelevant. ."It's filler, really."
All fillers, no killers.
Jordan wrote: "All readers should be equal. Just because someone has different taste and looks for different things in a book doesn't make them less worthy. "To me, this is a very interesting issue, because I work as a reporter, and I mostly cover art events, so I often have discussions with artists from various fields. And my impression is that they mostly think that consumer's taste is important only if that consumer is "informed".
For example, a painter couldn't care less what some average person might think about paintings, he is only interested in those who in some way "qualify".
And I personally know a number of writers who have similar views.
On the other hand, none of those writers writes mass market kind of books.
Zoran wrote: "To me, this is a very interesting issue, because I work as a reporter, and I mostly cover art events, so I often have discussions with artists from various fields. And my impression is that they mostly think that consumer's taste is important only if that consumer is "informed"."I wonder if part of it is because if you cared what the average person has to say about your work you might make yourself insane worrying about it. You have to decide whose opinion matters the most partly because if you choose right it may help improve your work while the rest could just make you feel bad about yourself and your work.
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, to be fair, Tolkien's elves didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE elves, and his dwarves didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE DWARVES, Lewis's fauns didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE FAUNS, etc.
It feels really, really weird to defend Twilight. :) It was just the first thing that came to my mind.