Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Erin wrote: "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. "Might be. But a lot of those artists that I interact with, produce very abstract or conceptual art. And it is often inapprehensible to someone who is not educated, or at least used to this kind of expression.
shes not exactly a bad writer its just her books are long and not to be rude but boring!
Larissa wrote: "shes not exactly a bad writer its just her books are long and not to be rude but boring!"
I don't think they're boring at all.
I don't think they're boring at all.
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. "Equal in what way? You still have the right to vote.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "The discussion is becoming extremely pedantic and going in an unusual direction (imo). I answered your question. If you don't like the answer......no biggie. That happens and life will go on."No, it's not pedantic it's called argument and no I don't like your answer because you didn't bother to actually answer the questions. As you say .... no biggie.
The author has stated in interviews that her idea for Twilight came from a dream that she had one night. Edward is a vampire because that it what she dreamed about and from that dream, she was inspired to write a series of novels. Her idea doesn't follow the traditional lore. Why? Perhaps it is because her dream didn't either. I know that I don't dream in accordance with established lore or within any set rules or guidelines. I once dreamed that giant Easter Bunnies in vests and bow ties with glowing red eyes were attacking my house. I dreamed that Spiderman kidnapped Wendy and Wonder Woman had to help Peter Pan get her back. I dreamed that the Hulk wanted to join the Justice League. After an episode of South Park, I dreamed about Moses and Jesus getting into arguments in heaven. I dreamed that my neighbor (who is Cuban) became a leprechaun and kept leaving skittles all over my porch.
And in an amazing twist of online debate, your dreams are about as interesting as Stephanie Meyer's are.
Is it true, do you think, that Meyer dreamed an entire 400 page novel? That would certainly go a long way to explaining its incoherence and lack of decent structure. (sorry, but your eye seems to have inadvertantly slipped over the part where I suggested that writing novels had to involve conscious thoughts. You can't follow pedantic arguments though can you? ... no biggie.)
Mocha Spresso wrote: "It seems to me that if all authors followed traditional lores with no deviations at all, literature would be extremely boring in the sense that all of the vampire books (or any other genre) would all be the same. "I partly agree with you. :-)
I agree that literature tends to be boring if there is no change. But, that is the very reason I find Twilight boring.
Because, it is not a vampire book. Vampires in Twilight lack something that is crucial for a definition of a vampire. They are not scary monsters. We know that a vampire is a vampire if it's a scary, nocturnal monster that drinks blood. You can change it's face, you can change how it looks like, you can give or take it's powers.. there is plenty of room for a writer to be creative. But if you don't make it scary, nocturnal and blood drinking monster, then it's something else - not a vampire. No matter how you call it.
So, it's not a vampire book.
Ok, then what it is?
It's a romance.
And here comes the part where I agree with you. Twilight is boring, because it is just the same as millions of other romance books - a girl meets a boy on page 20, they fall in love on page 50, and from that point on you know that on the last page of the saga they will be together forever.
It would have been cool if she did something different. If I understand correctly, this 50 Shades fanfiction at least has unexpected ending.
(funny thing, it would be quite expected if it happened in real life)
Alex wrote: And in an amazing twist of online debate, your dreams are about as interesting as Stephanie Meyer's are.Is it true, do you think, that Meyer dreamed an entire 400 page novel? That would certainly go a long way to explaining it's incoherence and lack of decent structure.
..."
Whether you or anyone else find my dreams interesting or not is not the point at all. The point was that they don't HAVE to stay true to any particular "lore mandate" and neither does fiction, in my opinion. I didn't say that she dreamed an entire novel. I said that in interviews, she has stated that the idea for Twilight came from a dream that she had.
Gerd wrote: "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."
Just because I like a book, doesn't mean I ignore the filler or I don't notice it...just because we criticize Twilight for x y z, doesn't mean that we're biased in favor of other books that have the same "problems" and against Twilight. I have read books that I liked, and still criticized for having too much filler.
Can you tell me what was the two-thirds filler in Lord of the Rings? I think there was a little filler in LotR, but definitely not as much as two-thirds. (I'm just curious. :D)
Just because I like a book, doesn't mean I ignore the filler or I don't notice it...just because we criticize Twilight for x y z, doesn't mean that we're biased in favor of other books that have the same "problems" and against Twilight. I have read books that I liked, and still criticized for having too much filler.
Can you tell me what was the two-thirds filler in Lord of the Rings? I think there was a little filler in LotR, but definitely not as much as two-thirds. (I'm just curious. :D)
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Whether you or anyone else find my dreams interesting or not is not the point at all. The point was that they don't HAVE to stay true to any particular "lore mandate" and neither does fiction, in my opinion. I didn't say that she dreamed an entire novel. I said that in interviews, she has stated that the idea for Twilight came from a dream that she had. "I completely agree with this. However, the question you were being asked was, "what was the point, in this novel, of Ed Cullen being a Vampire? And your answer was "because she dreamed it". If you actually think that answer is adequate then I suggest you seek medical attention.
Abby wrote: "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 ..."
I know! I can't watch that part in the movie I get so mad at her!
Zoran wrote: "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 iss..."
That is true. But I am saying that you shouldn't count someone as a lower skilled reader than yourself because someone doesn't like what you like. See what I'm sayin? :)
Alex wrote: "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. "Equal in what way? You still have th..."
Yeah, that was worded weird sorry. I mean no reader should be counted as lower skilled because of what books they like.
Alex wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "The discussion is becoming extremely pedantic and going in an unusual direction (imo). I answered your question. If you don't like the answer......no biggie. That happens and ..."No, she didn't. She dreamed the meadow scene. She said that she couldn't let that go so she added onto it and she was shocked to come out with a novel.
Jordan wrote: "Alex wrote: "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. "
Equal in what way? You ..."
I agree.
Equal in what way? You ..."
I agree.
Alex wrote: I completely agree with this. However, the question you were being asked was, "what was the point, in this novel, of Ed Cullen being a Vampire? And your answer was "because she dreamed it". If you actually think that answer is adequate then I suggest you seek medical attention..."
From Stephanie Meyer's Website
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twiligh...
The Writing: I know the exact date that I began writing Twilight, because it was also the first day of swim lessons for my kids. So I can say with certainty that it all started on June 2, 2003. Up to this point, I had not written anything besides a few chapters (of other stories) that I never got very far on, and nothing at all since the birth of my first son, six years earlier.
I woke up (on that June 2nd) from a very vivid dream. In my dream, two people were having an intense conversation in a meadow in the woods. One of these people was just your average girl. The other person was fantastically beautiful, sparkly, and a vampire. They were discussing the difficulties inherent in the facts that A) they were falling in love with each other while B) the vampire was particularly attracted to the scent of her blood, and was having a difficult time restraining himself from killing her immediately. For what is essentially a transcript of my dream,
please see Chapter 13 ("Confessions") of the book....
I don't think any other "point" is needed beyond the author's explanation for it in her own words. Out of all the criticism that the book has recieved, complaints over him being a vampire are the most irrelevant and asinine, imo. I have to be honest, as a reader, I don't really care why Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit. Perhaps I would have enjoyed Tolkien more if I did care.
Peace wrote: "just a thought. what does TLOTRs have to do with SM?"
Because we're discussing filler, and some people pointed out that LotR also has a lot of "unnecessary" material that could have been cut, so they're questioning: why are you criticizing Twilight for x y z, but not LotR?
Because we're discussing filler, and some people pointed out that LotR also has a lot of "unnecessary" material that could have been cut, so they're questioning: why are you criticizing Twilight for x y z, but not LotR?
I don't think she's a bad writer. Her style just isn't complex. It's easy to read.Which isn't a bad thing. I find that the only people who REALLY hate her writing, or try to argue that she's a bad author, only like "literature"... you know, books with big words and metaphors and foreshadowing.
good writing definitely makes for a better book, but at the same, I usually just want to read a book that's entertaining. Who cares if the author doesn't use smart words or include huge long, descriptive narratives that drag the story? lol
So I guess what I am trying to say is... No, I don't think that Stephanie Meyer is a bad writer. But in a review of the book, I wouldn't express that it was "well written"
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I don't think any other "point" is needed beyond the author's explanation for it in her own words."You mean, other than the fact that she could have pulled that out of her ass to explain her "vampire lore?"
I mean, c'mon... "sparkly and a vampire?" Sounds like something from a Care Bears Halloween special.
I'll get to the other stuff you brought up later (need to get back to my physics stuff), but seriously: this is the internet, and people make stuff up all the time here. Meyers' "memory" of how she came up with the idea sounds way too much like something a (bad) author would slap together to explain how her (horrible) idea shit itself into being.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I don't think any other "point" is needed beyond the author's explanation for it in her own words. "But the question wasn't "how did Meyer come up with the idea?" The question was, why does Ed Cullen need to be a Vampire?
Let me try and put it another way for you, then. How does the fact of Ed Cullen's drinking blood alter your perception of the romance within the story? How does that change the nature of the story and would the story work just as well if Ed Cullen didn't drink blood?
Alex wrote: But the question wasn't "how did Meyer come up with the idea?" The question was, why does Ed Cullen need to be a Vampire?Let me try and put it another way for you, then. How does the fact of Ed Cullen's drinking blood alter your perception of the romance within the story? How does that change the nature of the story and would the story work just as well if Ed Cullen didn't drink blood? ..."
I'm still not clear what you are attempting to accomplish with this. If you want to strip the story down to its most basic concept...a love story between a boy and a girl....the paranormal element obviously isn't necessary at all to tell that story. But, then Twilight would no longer be a paranormal romance novel. Doesn't this apply to any story, btw? Middle Earth and hobbits didn't need to be created. They could have been regular humans on earth. But that change also makes it a totally different story. The fact that Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit is part of his character.
Twilight's story would have to be changed significantly if Edward were not a vampire because so much of the plot was written around that element of his character. The author could have made him something else....but it would also been a totally different story. Winnie the Pooh could have been deer instead of a bear.....but then his honey infatuation no longer makes sense and neither do any of the storylines that involve the honeypot.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Twilight's story would have to be changed significantly if Edward were not a vampire because so much of the plot was written around that element of his character. The author could have made him something else....but it would also been a totally different story. Winnie the Pooh could have been deer instead of a bear.....but then his honey infatuation no longer makes sense and neither do any of the storylines that involve the honeypot."I agree with you. I think that his vampireness is part of the story and gives it a different twist than a romance between humans would. That's part of Meyer's creativity at work.
Also, I think people are forgetting that the majority of Meyer's vampires do feed on human blood. Edward belongs to a small minority that chooses not to. Personally, I like the inclusion of a supernatural creature who is part of an alternative lifestyle. I think what's missing from many of Rowling's depictions of supernatural creatures (with the exception of Dobby) is the individualization of them. She'll give us the rudiments of a culture, but won't add much variety to it.
As for the sparkling, I still see no real reason for such hysterical reactions to it.
Isn't the root of the problem an intolerance towards creativity? To go on and on about how she should have done more research is simply a roundabout way of saying that she should have used a more traditional approach. If you want a traditional approach, I think there are authors that do that. Not every author has to follow "the rules" when it comes to supernatural creatures. I like creativity in authors. If others don't, then let them find authors that fulfill their needs. What I don't approve of is this idea that "If I don't like it, it shouldn't exist or it has no value."
Zoran wrote: "Because, it is not a vampire book. Vampires in Twilight lack something that is crucial for a definition of a vampire. They are not scary monsters. We know that a vampire is a vampire if it's a scary, nocturnal monster that drinks blood."In Meyer's world, vampires are scary monsters. Taken as a species, they are a threat to human lives (therefore fitting the definition of scary) and they do drink blood (even the vegetarians like the Cullen clan drink blood). They are not nocturnal, but then again, neither were many traditional vampires.
Your problem seems to center around the fact that she depicted a group that does not follow traditional, stereotypical patterns of the species. I prefer a more nuanced approach to characterization than assuming that because someone is a vampire, he or she has to do this or be like that. It's more interesting to me if an author puts more spin and thought into her story.
Interesting discussion about vampires. Thought I'd add my input...
I can see both sides. I don't think Meyer deserves such vehement reactions to her versions of vampires, but at the same time, I'm not really surprised.
What I, personally, don't like about vampires (besides what I mentioned before about how I thought they were unrecognizable as vampires) is that Meyer seems to change vampires just to fit her story. I wish she'd built her story on the idea of vampires, instead of building her idea of vampires on the story. In other words...she changed it to be lazy. I felt like they were a bit too much of plot devices, most notably the individual superpowers of the Cullens. (Yes, I know it's subjective.) In turn, that made Twilight feel less character-driven and more plot-driven, because it was like Meyer was resorting to plot devices to move her story forward, instead of finding a way for the characters to do it.
Still, and this might seem a little bit weird and contradictory to what I just said, I do like parts of Meyer's concept of vampires. I don't like the sparkling and the repeated descriptions of the marble skin, but otherwise they're quite interesting. I don't like Meyer's application of those elements, but she's not horrible.
I guess I'm on the fence.
I can see both sides. I don't think Meyer deserves such vehement reactions to her versions of vampires, but at the same time, I'm not really surprised.
What I, personally, don't like about vampires (besides what I mentioned before about how I thought they were unrecognizable as vampires) is that Meyer seems to change vampires just to fit her story. I wish she'd built her story on the idea of vampires, instead of building her idea of vampires on the story. In other words...she changed it to be lazy. I felt like they were a bit too much of plot devices, most notably the individual superpowers of the Cullens. (Yes, I know it's subjective.) In turn, that made Twilight feel less character-driven and more plot-driven, because it was like Meyer was resorting to plot devices to move her story forward, instead of finding a way for the characters to do it.
Still, and this might seem a little bit weird and contradictory to what I just said, I do like parts of Meyer's concept of vampires. I don't like the sparkling and the repeated descriptions of the marble skin, but otherwise they're quite interesting. I don't like Meyer's application of those elements, but she's not horrible.
I guess I'm on the fence.
Jocelyn wrote:"In other words...she changed it to be lazy. "Can you point me in the direction of the interview where she confirms this?
Angie wrote: "Can you point me in the direction of the interview where she confirms this?"
Angie, it was an assumption. A pretty big one. I don't mean that I know for sure Stephenie Meyer was being lazy...I simply felt that she was lazy, that's all.
Angie, it was an assumption. A pretty big one. I don't mean that I know for sure Stephenie Meyer was being lazy...I simply felt that she was lazy, that's all.
Jocelyn wrote: "Can you tell me what was the two-thirds filler in Lord of the Rings? I think there was a little filler in LotR, but definitely not as much as two-thirds. (I'm just curious. :D) "I think there's a huge amount of filler to be found in LotR, simply based on Tolkien's way to go from the hundredth to the thousandth.
One of my favourite characters from the book, the owner of the Prancing Pony, could be cut out with nothing being amiss. There's no real need for us to know all the minute detail of Middle Earth's Mythology, nor for the Grand Tour Tolkien takes us on for little other reason than to show us that world.
There's amounts and amounts of storytelling that at the best only belongs tangentially to the main plot or even does nothing other than generate atmosphere.
But then again, entertainment literature is written to entertain, and long as it does so, who cares if there is some filler.
Zoran wrote: "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"."
I'd probably think the same way if my income depended on somebody that thought me an "artist" and himself therefore a "connoisseur". :D
Jocelyn wrote: "I felt like they were a bit too much of plot devices, most notably the individual superpowers of the Cullens. (Yes, I know it's subjective.) In turn, that made Twilight feel less character-driven and more plot-driven, because it was like Meyer was resorting to plot devices to move her story forward, instead of finding a way for the characters to do it."
Ah I think there we got a point I can happily agree on. :)
Parts like the "Port Angeles" chapter are what makes me think Steph to be a bad writer, those moments when her machinations become too visible and the gentle pull of character strings becomes more of a jerking the characters around to get them in position. She clearly lacks subtlety there.
Jocelyn wrote: "Interesting discussion about vampires. Thought I'd add my input...I can see both sides. I don't think Meyer deserves such vehement reactions to her versions of vampires, but at the same time, I'm..."
The more I think about it the more I am with you. I am re-reading a book at the moment about the evolution of Vampires and how the different folk legends evolved into the creatures we know now.
I still dislike Myers vampires as I definitely prefer the tradtional vampires that strike fear into the hearts of mortals. But vampires have evolved, I mean I haven't read any books (Dracula included) that take the approach of Vampires as plague bringers.
Personally I would hope that their are no more sparkly vampires but it is natural that the tales about them evolve so.... yeah.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I'm still not clear what you are attempting to accomplish with this. If you want to strip the story down to its most basic concept...a love story between a boy and a girl....the paranormal element obviously isn't necessary at all to tell that story. But, then Twilight would no longer be a paranormal romance novel. Doesn't this apply to any story, btw? Middle Earth and hobbits didn't need to be created. They could have been regular humans on earth. But that change also makes it a totally different story. The fact that Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit is part of his character. I'm not actually trying to accomplish anything. I thought it was a good question since it gets to the heart of the novel - I have no real strong opinion on the right or the wrong of it. I don't like Meyer's portrayal of Vampires in her fiction but think it's perfectly legitimate for her to call Ed Cullen a Vampire if she wants to. I don't understand why narratively she chose to make Ed Cullen a Vampire since she associates him largely with things that are antithetical to how we perceive vampires. i.e. scary, dangerous, lustful, sexual etc You would think you'd be compelled to write a vampire fiction if you wanted to write about human emotions and motivations that exist on the edge of appropriacy but Meyer very clearly wants to write a very safe, chaste instructional novel about how to have a "good" relationship. As I've stated wlsewhere, one of my main problems with the book is that Meyer tries to sanitise vampire mythology and recreate it in a right-wing conservative way. My own answer to the question would be that Meyer deliberately chose the iconography of vampires because they're seen as dangerous and sexual and she wanted to use them to show that one ought not give in to these kinds of urges.
I think we're all getting sidetracked a little by Middle Earth. We could talk quite a lot about Tolkien's reasons for doing what he did in the way that he did... but that in itself would be an epic undertaking. Just to say, though, that I don't think it's the case that "he just happened to choose hobbits"; races, creatures, mythologies etc are all very important to Tolkien.
I think the amount of books Stephenie has sold speaks for itself! Some people just say they don't like anything that is mainstream just to have something to gripe about. I thought the books were good and the movies are obviously successful because of the books. They are not even close to being as good as the books but still are a billion dollar franchise. I have seen a lot of self published books that I couldn't even understand the sentences because of bad editing but yet everyone uses Stephenie as an example because of her success. It could also be jealousy but I'm not sure.
I'll tell you exactly why Meyers made Edward a vampire, in case you were wondering:$$$
It had nothing to do with dreams, or narrative, or any other such BS. It had everything to do with dollars.
Vampires sell. Point-blank, they sit on an equal footing with zombies as big-time sellers. Action movies, books, manga, anime... every mass medium I can think has at least one vampire-related product.
So spare me the "she had a dream" crap, or the "Edward needed to prey on humans" spiel (literally, there are hundreds of different creatures that do this, and some even sparkle in sunlight), or the "this scene works when you read a later book"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon
...or what she said in interviews (which proves exactly nothing: O. J. Simpson didn't kill his ex-wife or her lover, according to his interviews, and never mind the mountain of forensic evidence that says he did).
She had a thought, started to write, looked at what was popular, slapped "It's Vampires!" into the "conflict" slot in her Build-A-Book™ software, and that was as far as she cared about vampires.
In the absolute laziest fashion possible, she took various bits of her own musings, slapped them together, and called the result vampire, then hoped that, like the drunk who shit in the punchbowl at the wild office party, no one would notice and leave her alone.
Fortunately for us, her run seems to have wound down. No new Twilight novels for the fevered fangirls to drool over... and when people realize that The Host was straight-up ripped off from an Outer Limits episode, the lawsuits should finish off her pathetic career, and good fucking riddance.
So keep that in mind: Eddie and his kind aren't vampires... they're "vampire$."
Bill wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I don't think any other "point" is needed beyond the author's explanation for it in her own words."You mean, other than the fact that she could have pulled that out of her a..."
It's a dream. Whether you believe it or not, it is possible that it happened (which it did). I mean, haven't ever had a weird dream? SM actually did something with hers. You might not like it but millions of people in the world do. Actually, millions of people in the world DO NOT CARE why Edward was a vampire, because that's what she wrote. Again people would be asking the same question if he were something else.
Mickey wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Twilight's story would have to be changed significantly if Edward were not a vampire because so much of the plot was written around that element of his character. The author c..."Exactly! People are always saying how much they hate that the vampires sparkle. I mean, she created that, so why hate on it? There is no other book where vampires sparkle. None. So I think people need to open their eyes and see that they are not the only people who matter. The author likes it and so do so many people.
Bill wrote: "I'll tell you exactly why Meyers made Edward a vampire, in case you were wondering:$$$
It had nothing to do with dreams, or narrative, or any other such BS. It had everything to do with dollars...."
So now you are saying it is lazy to come up with ideas and be creative. Wow, never thought of that. And I know you are going to say that she's not being creative but she is. And she does care about her book. A lot. Yes, I know there are some people who pretend in interviews, but come on,I have had weirder dreams, so why is it so hard to believe?
Gerd wrote: "I think there's a huge amount of filler to be found in LotR, simply based on Tolkien's way to go from the hundredth to the thousandth.
One of my favourite characters from the book, the owner of the Prancing Pony, could be cut out with nothing being amiss. There's no real need for us to know all the minute detail of Middle Earth's Mythology, nor for the Grand Tour Tolkien takes us on for little other reason than to show us that world.
There's amounts and amounts of storytelling that at the best only belongs tangentially to the main plot or even does nothing other than generate atmosphere.
But then again, entertainment literature is written to entertain, and long as it does so, who cares if there is some filler."
I'm afraid that our conversation will derail into LotR, but at the same time I can't help but state my disagreement...:)
The time with the Prancing Pony was when they met Aragorn. Which was a hugely important plot point, not only because Aragorn turned out to be a very important character, but also because, later on before they reach Rivendell, Aragorn helps save their lives. (And if Aragorn hadn't saved the hobbits' lives, then obviously there would be no story.)
Also, I'd like to say that I don't consider time spent on world-building to be filler. It enhances the story. It was part of what made LotR high fantasy. Twilight's filler definitely has nothing to do with world-building, as far as I know.
As for entertainment, I have to disagree. "Who cares as long as it's entertaining?"
In my opinion, a story without a point is not a story. That is, the story should have one main conflict, which Twilight does not seem to have.
When I was younger, I found video games to be entertaining. I could call that a story.
I watched YouTube videos on how to make apple pie, and it was entertaining. I could call that a story.
A story has to go somewhere. It should have a POINT. A story without a point is, again, IMO, not a story.
Even you stated that Tolkien wrote all his "filler" to set atmosphere. That has a purpose. World-building is a purpose.
Rambling on and on about someone's earth-shattering beauty for the umpteenth time does not have a purpose.
Okay, I guess we should stop talking about LotR and just move on. xD
One of my favourite characters from the book, the owner of the Prancing Pony, could be cut out with nothing being amiss. There's no real need for us to know all the minute detail of Middle Earth's Mythology, nor for the Grand Tour Tolkien takes us on for little other reason than to show us that world.
There's amounts and amounts of storytelling that at the best only belongs tangentially to the main plot or even does nothing other than generate atmosphere.
But then again, entertainment literature is written to entertain, and long as it does so, who cares if there is some filler."
I'm afraid that our conversation will derail into LotR, but at the same time I can't help but state my disagreement...:)
The time with the Prancing Pony was when they met Aragorn. Which was a hugely important plot point, not only because Aragorn turned out to be a very important character, but also because, later on before they reach Rivendell, Aragorn helps save their lives. (And if Aragorn hadn't saved the hobbits' lives, then obviously there would be no story.)
Also, I'd like to say that I don't consider time spent on world-building to be filler. It enhances the story. It was part of what made LotR high fantasy. Twilight's filler definitely has nothing to do with world-building, as far as I know.
As for entertainment, I have to disagree. "Who cares as long as it's entertaining?"
In my opinion, a story without a point is not a story. That is, the story should have one main conflict, which Twilight does not seem to have.
When I was younger, I found video games to be entertaining. I could call that a story.
I watched YouTube videos on how to make apple pie, and it was entertaining. I could call that a story.
A story has to go somewhere. It should have a POINT. A story without a point is, again, IMO, not a story.
Even you stated that Tolkien wrote all his "filler" to set atmosphere. That has a purpose. World-building is a purpose.
Rambling on and on about someone's earth-shattering beauty for the umpteenth time does not have a purpose.
Okay, I guess we should stop talking about LotR and just move on. xD
I don't think her writing is bad at all. When I read twilight I enjoyed it SO much. I have grown out of it now and prefer other series above hers but it was nice whilst it lasted.
Jordan wrote: "So now you are saying it is lazy to come up with ideas and be creative."That is not what I said.
I said that she took her slap-dash pastiche of bad ideas and lazily slapped the label of "vampire" on it, instead of actually doing some basic research.
Maybe this is why you like Twilight: For someone on a reading website, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Complaining that she didn't do research is just a roundabout way of faulting her for making something new. If you have a problem with creative reinterpretations, don't read any books with any innovations or novel ideas. There will always be authors who excel at "basic research" instead of creativity. There is plenty of room in the reading world for every taste. Claiming that Meyer's ideas were bad is simply one subjective opinion. I liked her ideas. I thought her reinterpretation was fresh and added something to a supernatural species that had long been stagnant.
Laura-Louise wrote: "She's not a bad writer, its just I think she spends too much time describing what Edward looks like.
The words 'golden eyes', bronze hair', and 'porcelain skin' were mentioned way too much in the s..."
you're right. She doesn't gives time to other things which need to be described. She fusses over one thing at one time!
The words 'golden eyes', bronze hair', and 'porcelain skin' were mentioned way too much in the s..."
you're right. She doesn't gives time to other things which need to be described. She fusses over one thing at one time!
I think that she is a very trash writer, her books are good and addictive but not in a good sense,they are addictive in the sense of facebook. They don't give pure entertainment and are sort of time pass. You don't gain a lot after reading her books.
For me, a good gauge is how quickly I can read a book - I read the first three Harry Potters in three days, and each of the other books in a day each, to give some idea of how quickly I can read good writing.I read twilight in 3 and a half days. I mean, I read the entire saga in 3 and a half days. She can draw you into her world, she can paint a picture well of a town she's never lived in.
However, she adds in too much information, she talks too much about things that don't matter. You can skim over about 60% of the books (I mean, do I really need to know what she feeds Charlie every night? When she refers to Edward or Jacob as anything other than Edward of Jacob - "my favourite mechanic" for instance aswell, is completely unnecessary). There are moments when you re-read, and there are sentences that just feel like padding because they make no sense. Something Bella thinks in the narration in Breaking Dawn stood out for me in this way.
She doesn't seem to understand entirely, the difference in grammar between first person narration, thid person narration, and speech, once in Eclipse I was surprised to see speech marks around something Jasper had been saying, because his entire speech read like a textbook.
But every writer has their foibles. As long as the words flow well, and you can envision what the writer is describing, that should be all that you consider for a good writer.
Coincidentally, 50 shades took me a month. God, that hurt.
I don't think she is a "bad" writer. I personally don't like Twilight, but that doesn't mean that she can't write. In fact, one of my favorite books is "The Host" by Stephenie Meyer! I have not seen as much hate for this book as Twilight, probably because the plot is much better. So, no, I don't think she is a bad writer. She's definitely not the *best* writer out there, either..
Mickey wrote: "Complaining that she didn't do research is just a roundabout way of faulting her for making something new."Strieber created something "new" with his vampires. Christopher Golden (no relation) created something "new" with his vampires in Of Saints and Shadows.
Meyers didn't make anything "new." She trashed something that already existed to make money. That's all.
...now that I really think about it... yes, Meyers is a lazy "writer."
Tolkien (who people in this thread have accused of using excessive "fluff" in his trilogy) built an entire world, created a language for his Elves to speak, gave that world a mythology and body of lore, all so his son could have The Hobbit.
Meyers couldn't be bothered to come up with something other than vampires to fit her "sparkly man" (vampires are decidedly not spakly). She couldn't be bothered to proofread her own work for run-on sentences and excessive purple prose. She rehashed a Hollywood trope with the "vampires vs. werewolves" shtick to create a half-assed love triangle. She flat-out stole from The Outer Limits for The Host.
Yeah... she's bad and lazy. Deal with it.
Peace wrote: "Zainab wrote: "I think that she is a very trash writer, her books are good and addictive but not in a good sense,they are addictive in the sense of facebook. They don't give pure entertainment and ..."
What weird?????
What weird?????
Jocelyn wrote: "Rambling on and on about someone's earth-shattering beauty for the umpteenth time does not have a purpose...."Why?
It illustrates Bella's state of mind/emotion, so I wouldn't say it doesn't have a purpose - only that it is an annoying one. :)
However, one man's filler is probably another man's layer of realism - like Dashiell Hammett dedicating almost a whole page to the description of Spade rolling a cigarette, now that filler was a killer. :)
Jocelyn wrote: "A story has to go somewhere. It should have a POINT. A story without a point is, again, IMO, not a story."
Differing opinions there, to me the point of a story is to tell a story - and that's some times all there needs to be; which probably is why I seldom mind so called "filler".
Personally I would disagree with twilight not having a point, it just may not be a very interesting one for you - but there is a point no less. Conflict is a wide field, to say that twilight has none is not really accurate, but I guess what you mean is a identifiable central conflict that drives the plot?
And I would further assume that schoolgirl falls for elusive guy is not conflict enough for you, although it is, for some, conflict enough for a life time IRL. :D
I tend to think that the more people express their like/love of a contemporary piece (book, tv show, film...), the more there are people who feel the need to waste their energy expressing their dislike or hate of that piece.If they hate it so much, why do they waste their time on it? It only suggests to me that it isn't actually the thing itself they have issue with but rather the fact that it is so popular (which doesn't make sense to me either but... meh).
She may or may not be a 'good writer', it just depends on the your criteria and which aspect you're talking about....not many people are perfect.
Gerd wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Rambling on and on about someone's earth-shattering beauty for the umpteenth time does not have a purpose...."Why?
It illustrates Bella's state of mind/emotion, so I wouldn't say..."
Good point Gerd. I agree.
About the vampire thing...
I can agree that Meyer took put a daring twist on vampires, something that can certainly be respected for. But I can't agree that Meyer put a lot of thought into it. She wrote her first draft of a 500-page book in 3 months. Most authors, especially debut authors, spend WAAAAAY more than that on their first drafts alone, and that's excluding the fact that many of their books are even shorter than 500 pages.
Just my 2 cents.
I can agree that Meyer took put a daring twist on vampires, something that can certainly be respected for. But I can't agree that Meyer put a lot of thought into it. She wrote her first draft of a 500-page book in 3 months. Most authors, especially debut authors, spend WAAAAAY more than that on their first drafts alone, and that's excluding the fact that many of their books are even shorter than 500 pages.
Just my 2 cents.
Feu d'Issey (Laura) wrote: "the more there are people who feel the need to waste their energy expressing their dislike or hate of that piece.
If they hate it so much, why do they waste their time on it? It only suggests to me that it isn't actually the thing itself they have issue with but rather the fact that it is so popular (which doesn't make sense to me either but... meh)."
People have their own personal reasons for doing something. If they're trolling around and calling names, then I could understand this question being asked. But seeing as this seems to be addressed to the anti-Twilighters as a whole...I really don't get why people always ask that. Maybe we just want to, I dunno, share our opinion? Because it's nice to exercise the right to express ourselves? It's just a simple, human desire to let the rest of the world hear their voice, and I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why this question is asked to nearly every single person who talks about why they dislike a book. Is it such a hard idea to grasp that people just have an opinion as well as a desire to share it? That's what Goodreads is for, no? A forum where people can exchange ideas and reactions to books. If everyone just gushed over it, that would be the most boring thing imaginable.
If the people want to spend their time hating it, who is anyone to care? They have their own reasons, whether it's justified or not, and it's no one's business but their own, and I don't think it's right to question someone's purposes behind exercising their freedom of speech rights. "If you hate it so much, why do you spend so much time discussing it?" I guess people see this as a harmless question, and in many ways it is, but just think about it. I certainly don't like being told that what I'm doing is a waste of time, whether it's being addressed at a general audience or a specific person, because it's such a dumb concept. I'm sorry...but it is. Whether it's a waste of time to state their opinion is a decision and judgement that belongs to the person posting, and that person alone--not the people who respond.
Maybe their reasons don't make sense to you. That doesn't matter. Everyone's different, and everyone has different reasons for doing something, and people feel justified in stating their negative opinion just as you do for stating a positive opinion. Perhaps they don't understand why you're a fan of Twilight either, right? I could just as easily say "Twilight suuuuuucks so much, I can't understand why people would like it! That instantly means they're trying to fulfill a personal need to make others feel bad!" It should go both ways. People have a right to give honest criticism if they feel the desire to do so.
Which is why I don't understand when people say, "if I dislike a book, I don't waste time disliking it. You don't see me trolling around threads in books I dislike." What...is the rest of the world supposed to bow down and conform to that opinion or something? Does that automatically make it "weird" and "strange" if people dislike a book, and express their dislike? Just because you (I'm not saying you as in youyou, just people in general) do something, doesn't mean everyone has to do it too, and it doesn't make it weird if people don't do it.
Personally for me, I discuss on Twilight threads because I find it to be interesting. Few other books I've read has generated as much disagreement, discussion and controversy as Twilight. I think that's a sufficient reason to talk about it, isn't it? :)
If they hate it so much, why do they waste their time on it? It only suggests to me that it isn't actually the thing itself they have issue with but rather the fact that it is so popular (which doesn't make sense to me either but... meh)."
People have their own personal reasons for doing something. If they're trolling around and calling names, then I could understand this question being asked. But seeing as this seems to be addressed to the anti-Twilighters as a whole...I really don't get why people always ask that. Maybe we just want to, I dunno, share our opinion? Because it's nice to exercise the right to express ourselves? It's just a simple, human desire to let the rest of the world hear their voice, and I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why this question is asked to nearly every single person who talks about why they dislike a book. Is it such a hard idea to grasp that people just have an opinion as well as a desire to share it? That's what Goodreads is for, no? A forum where people can exchange ideas and reactions to books. If everyone just gushed over it, that would be the most boring thing imaginable.
If the people want to spend their time hating it, who is anyone to care? They have their own reasons, whether it's justified or not, and it's no one's business but their own, and I don't think it's right to question someone's purposes behind exercising their freedom of speech rights. "If you hate it so much, why do you spend so much time discussing it?" I guess people see this as a harmless question, and in many ways it is, but just think about it. I certainly don't like being told that what I'm doing is a waste of time, whether it's being addressed at a general audience or a specific person, because it's such a dumb concept. I'm sorry...but it is. Whether it's a waste of time to state their opinion is a decision and judgement that belongs to the person posting, and that person alone--not the people who respond.
Maybe their reasons don't make sense to you. That doesn't matter. Everyone's different, and everyone has different reasons for doing something, and people feel justified in stating their negative opinion just as you do for stating a positive opinion. Perhaps they don't understand why you're a fan of Twilight either, right? I could just as easily say "Twilight suuuuuucks so much, I can't understand why people would like it! That instantly means they're trying to fulfill a personal need to make others feel bad!" It should go both ways. People have a right to give honest criticism if they feel the desire to do so.
Which is why I don't understand when people say, "if I dislike a book, I don't waste time disliking it. You don't see me trolling around threads in books I dislike." What...is the rest of the world supposed to bow down and conform to that opinion or something? Does that automatically make it "weird" and "strange" if people dislike a book, and express their dislike? Just because you (I'm not saying you as in youyou, just people in general) do something, doesn't mean everyone has to do it too, and it doesn't make it weird if people don't do it.
Personally for me, I discuss on Twilight threads because I find it to be interesting. Few other books I've read has generated as much disagreement, discussion and controversy as Twilight. I think that's a sufficient reason to talk about it, isn't it? :)
Gerd wrote: "Why?
It illustrates Bella's state of mind/emotion, so I wouldn't say it doesn't have a purpose - only that it is an annoying one. :)"
It's annoying because it's pointless.
You're right, it illustrates the main character's state of mind. Just like any other filler in any other book. I don't think the fact that it illustrates her state of mind suddenly makes it relevant, though. :)
Differing opinions there, to me the point of a story is to tell a story - and that's some times all there needs to be; which probably is why I seldom mind so called "filler"
Yeah, but if it doesn't have a point the story isn't a story (IMO).
Let's say an old man was telling a "story." He was telling about how a farm boy had to escape from a bunch of prosecutors from the government. One night he camps. While he's eating, he sees a very nice rock. He goes to that rock. He examines it and waxes philosophical about the rock, going on and on and on and ooooon about the rock.
I don't want the story to center around the rock, I want the story to move the heck on.
Now, if it was something different--say, the rock played some role in the plot later on or something--then I'd be fine with it (though, if it went on and on for a lot more pages than it should, I wouldn't be fine with it).
I don't want to read 400 pages of crap, I want to read 400 pages with some actual substance. It may be entertaining, it may be kind of fun to read (I've actually enjoyed quite a few books with nearly as much filler as Twilight has, though I still criticized them for that reason), but it's still complete garbage that could be cut without taking away from the story. It doesn't enhance the story, it just stretches everything out and postpones what actually IS relevant.
but I guess what you mean is a identifiable central conflict that drives the plot?
Yep, that's exactly what I mean. Thanks for supplying the words--something to drive the plot and set it in motion. xD
And I would further assume that schoolgirl falls for elusive guy is not conflict enough for you, although it is, for some, conflict enough for a life time IRL. :D
Falling in love is not a conflict. A conflict is a problem the main characters need to solve, or an obstacle the main characters need to get over. You could integrate the theme of falling in love with a conflict, or you could combine it with some other things to make it into a conflict, but the simple "she fell in love" isn't a conflict.
It illustrates Bella's state of mind/emotion, so I wouldn't say it doesn't have a purpose - only that it is an annoying one. :)"
It's annoying because it's pointless.
You're right, it illustrates the main character's state of mind. Just like any other filler in any other book. I don't think the fact that it illustrates her state of mind suddenly makes it relevant, though. :)
Differing opinions there, to me the point of a story is to tell a story - and that's some times all there needs to be; which probably is why I seldom mind so called "filler"
Yeah, but if it doesn't have a point the story isn't a story (IMO).
Let's say an old man was telling a "story." He was telling about how a farm boy had to escape from a bunch of prosecutors from the government. One night he camps. While he's eating, he sees a very nice rock. He goes to that rock. He examines it and waxes philosophical about the rock, going on and on and on and ooooon about the rock.
I don't want the story to center around the rock, I want the story to move the heck on.
Now, if it was something different--say, the rock played some role in the plot later on or something--then I'd be fine with it (though, if it went on and on for a lot more pages than it should, I wouldn't be fine with it).
I don't want to read 400 pages of crap, I want to read 400 pages with some actual substance. It may be entertaining, it may be kind of fun to read (I've actually enjoyed quite a few books with nearly as much filler as Twilight has, though I still criticized them for that reason), but it's still complete garbage that could be cut without taking away from the story. It doesn't enhance the story, it just stretches everything out and postpones what actually IS relevant.
but I guess what you mean is a identifiable central conflict that drives the plot?
Yep, that's exactly what I mean. Thanks for supplying the words--something to drive the plot and set it in motion. xD
And I would further assume that schoolgirl falls for elusive guy is not conflict enough for you, although it is, for some, conflict enough for a life time IRL. :D
Falling in love is not a conflict. A conflict is a problem the main characters need to solve, or an obstacle the main characters need to get over. You could integrate the theme of falling in love with a conflict, or you could combine it with some other things to make it into a conflict, but the simple "she fell in love" isn't a conflict.
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...
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?? ..."
The discussion is becoming extremely pedantic and going in an unusual direction (imo). I answered your question. If you don't like the answer......no biggie. That happens and life will go on.
The author has stated in interviews that her idea for Twilight came from a dream that she had one night. Edward is a vampire because that it what she dreamed about and from that dream, she was inspired to write a series of novels. Her idea doesn't follow the traditional lore. Why? Perhaps it is because her dream didn't either. I know that I don't dream in accordance with established lore or within any set rules or guidelines. I once dreamed that giant Easter Bunnies in vests and bow ties with glowing red eyes were attacking my house. I dreamed that Spiderman kidnapped Wendy and Wonder Woman had to help Peter Pan get her back. I dreamed that the Hulk wanted to join the Justice League. After an episode of South Park, I dreamed about Moses and Jesus getting into arguments in heaven. I dreamed that my neighbor (who is Cuban) became a leprechaun and kept leaving skittles all over my porch.
It seems to me that if all authors followed traditional lores with no deviations at all, literature would be extremely boring in the sense that all of the vampire books (or any other genre) would all be the same.