Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Dude, Bill, I was simply trying to balance everything out.
I've realized that if I don't make it very clear that I sympathize with both sides in some cases, people will take it as some kind of outrageous contradiction to their own argument.
Did "daring" really have such a positive connotation? I suppose it did, but what I meant was that it was pretty bold of her to do something different. As you can see, it generated a lot of angry reactions. I don't think anyone can deny that it's daring, whether it produced a positive or negative reaction. Lazy? I agree. Daring? Yes. That's just my opinion. Daring doesn't necessarily mean "smart"...it just means that it's daring.
Also, I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean the sparkling itself was bold, but the simple fact that Meyer decided to ignore traditional vampires was bold. I don't mean to say that simply because sparkly vampires are different that they're good vampires...still, whether sparkling is silly or not is irrelevant to my point.
I've realized that if I don't make it very clear that I sympathize with both sides in some cases, people will take it as some kind of outrageous contradiction to their own argument.
Did "daring" really have such a positive connotation? I suppose it did, but what I meant was that it was pretty bold of her to do something different. As you can see, it generated a lot of angry reactions. I don't think anyone can deny that it's daring, whether it produced a positive or negative reaction. Lazy? I agree. Daring? Yes. That's just my opinion. Daring doesn't necessarily mean "smart"...it just means that it's daring.
Also, I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean the sparkling itself was bold, but the simple fact that Meyer decided to ignore traditional vampires was bold. I don't mean to say that simply because sparkly vampires are different that they're good vampires...still, whether sparkling is silly or not is irrelevant to my point.
Jocelyn wrote:"Did "daring" really have such a positive connotation? I suppose it did, but what I meant was that it was pretty bold of her to do something different."The problem is, after reading so many interpretations that were actually daring and bold, Meyers' version of leeches comes across as hackneyed and anti-creative. It's so hard to convey how original other versions of vampire lore compare to SM's without massive spoilers (especially Golden's version), and every time I see "she's so creative!!!" I have to remember that I can't jump through the monitor and slap the person who said it for being ignorant.
That's why I keep pushing people to read other books with vampires in them... to actually see what real creativity looks like.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote:"Did "daring" really have such a positive connotation? I suppose it did, but what I meant was that it was pretty bold of her to do something different."
The problem is, after reading..."
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I don't mean "different" as in "original" and "creative." I meant "to do something that few other people would do." i.e., have enough guts to demolish vampire mythology.
Remember Bill, I never said she was creative. If anything, I thought her sparkly vampires were quite dumb and silly, though I didn't mind it too much. Like I said, she didn't put too much thought into it--she whipped up her first draft in three months, ripped off some generic plot elements from other, more talented works, and published it.
To desecrate it with her own ignorance is bad in my opinion, but looking on the positive side, at least she was honest enough to just go ahead and do it, right? Whether it's creative or not, again, is totally irrelevant to my point.
The problem is, after reading..."
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I don't mean "different" as in "original" and "creative." I meant "to do something that few other people would do." i.e., have enough guts to demolish vampire mythology.
Remember Bill, I never said she was creative. If anything, I thought her sparkly vampires were quite dumb and silly, though I didn't mind it too much. Like I said, she didn't put too much thought into it--she whipped up her first draft in three months, ripped off some generic plot elements from other, more talented works, and published it.
To desecrate it with her own ignorance is bad in my opinion, but looking on the positive side, at least she was honest enough to just go ahead and do it, right? Whether it's creative or not, again, is totally irrelevant to my point.
Jocelyn wrote: "To desecrate it with her own ignorance is bad in my opinion, but looking on the positive side, at least she was honest enough to just go ahead and do it, right? Whether it's creative or not, again, is totally irrelevant to my point. ."I think that when you've read a helluva lot of books something like Twilight stops looking honest and starts looking plain dumb. It stops looking daring, it just starts looking like "another dumb novel"
I've read a lot of very, very bad novels and found a lot of them rather entertaining, but Twilight somehow - for me - doesn't come across as honest and enjoyable.
If someone's writing a novel, using vampires, to put forward a mantra that "thou shalt not have sex until marriage and thou shalt be a good girl and have thy life revolve around boys" then the value of that honesty is lost on me since it's also degrading and pernicious.
There seems to be some odd misconception that I luuurrv Meyers vampires or something, so let me clarify.
I am not trying to defend Meyer, nor am I trying to attack her. It was meant to be an utterly neutral statement (the part about Meyer being honest enough to go ahead anyway, not the entire post) and the reason why I wrote that was because I didn't want anyone jumping on me to criticize blah blah blah, it's subjective, sparkly vampires suck, etc. It was supposed to balance out what I was going to say next--that Meyer didn't put that much thought into creating her vampires. I've found that if I don't acknowledge every single little teeny thing, people could pick out the tiniest details of my statement and we'd have a whole tangent of utterly irrelevant crap pointing out what I didn't acknowledge. I'm not saying that fans DID do this, as you can see no fan has even responded to my comment...I'm saying that THAT was the purpose of that part of my comment.
I just didn't want fans to jump on me for criticizing Meyer for making a sloppy version of vampires and accuse me of doing this and that because obviously that would be super inconvenient, so I decided to show some respect to Meyer as an author, to acknowledge that I could see where they were coming from and understand their points. Not that the respect isn't genuine--as much as I dislike Twilight, it's in my nature to respect someone who writes. I don't like her, but I respect her.
So let me reword my statement: I respect Meyer as an author, but I think she doesn't put much thought into her creation of vampires.
I am not trying to defend Meyer, nor am I trying to attack her. It was meant to be an utterly neutral statement (the part about Meyer being honest enough to go ahead anyway, not the entire post) and the reason why I wrote that was because I didn't want anyone jumping on me to criticize blah blah blah, it's subjective, sparkly vampires suck, etc. It was supposed to balance out what I was going to say next--that Meyer didn't put that much thought into creating her vampires. I've found that if I don't acknowledge every single little teeny thing, people could pick out the tiniest details of my statement and we'd have a whole tangent of utterly irrelevant crap pointing out what I didn't acknowledge. I'm not saying that fans DID do this, as you can see no fan has even responded to my comment...I'm saying that THAT was the purpose of that part of my comment.
I just didn't want fans to jump on me for criticizing Meyer for making a sloppy version of vampires and accuse me of doing this and that because obviously that would be super inconvenient, so I decided to show some respect to Meyer as an author, to acknowledge that I could see where they were coming from and understand their points. Not that the respect isn't genuine--as much as I dislike Twilight, it's in my nature to respect someone who writes. I don't like her, but I respect her.
So let me reword my statement: I respect Meyer as an author, but I think she doesn't put much thought into her creation of vampires.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "About the vampire thing...I can agree that Meyer took put a daring twist on vampires, something that can certainly be respected for."
Um... no she didn't. She took a sparkly guy ..."
Out of curiosity, how prominent is the romance in Of Saints and Shadows? Reading through some of the reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, I get the impression that it is a secondary story line as opposed to a prominant one. It seems like its genre is closer to Urban Fantasy as opposed to Paranormal Romance. Of Saints and Shadows clearly isn't YA either.
Twilight isn't just a vampire book. It is a YA paranormal romance. I think a lot of the criticism that Twilight recieves completely ignores its genre and its audience.
I am curious about it now, though. I marked Of Saints and Shadows as to read. I probably will read it at some point. (it's taking me forever to get through rereading Wuthering Heights, though. I thought age would help me with it the second time around but it hasn't. I still detest this book.)
Jocelyn wrote: "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'..."
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Twilight is a romance novel. In romance novels, the conflict usually does center around obstacles that a couple face while falling in love with each other.
Jocelyn wrote: "I meant "to do something that few other people would do." i.e., have enough guts to demolish vampire mythology."Ah... I see it now. Mea culpa and all that. :-P
Mocha Spresso wrote: Out of curiosity, how prominent is the romance in Of Saints and Shadows?"
What, exactly, does this have to do with Meyers' interpretation of "vampires?"
I really do not care what genre Twilight is supposed to be in. The microsecond Meyers threw a vampire in it, she became fair game for vampire enthusiasts, and her abhorrent version of vampires became a legitimate point of criticism.
Jocelyn wrote: "Not that the respect isn't genuine--as much as I dislike Twilight, as much as I think SM is a lazy douchebag with zero tolerance for criticism and atrocious writing skills, it's in my nature to respect someone who writes."I think we have very different views of what respect is. I can't imagine ever saying this about someone I respect.
Sorry Angie....I'd realized I was needlessly exaggerating and personally attacked Meyer in the process. Apologies. I edited it out.
Mocha Spresso wrote: You seem to be ignoring the fact that Twilight is a romance novel. In romance novels, the conflict usually does center around obstacles that a couple face while falling in love with each other."
Agreed. I did say that you could integrate it with something to make it into a conflict. Simply falling in love isn't a conflict, though.
The reason why I don't consider Bella and Edward's relationship in the first book alone is because the "conflict" doesn't build up to any important plot points. In other words, we aren't shown the conflict, we're simply told of it. Romance books can still have a plot, even if the conflict is the romance.
Like Pride and Prejudice. Darcy and Elizabeth have three things going against them: their distance in class, Darcy's pride, and Elizabeth's prejudice. This conflict build up to actual plot points, and also creates a problem for the main characters to solve. Most notable one is Elizabeth's rejection of Darcy's proposal. Their opposing views and similar character traits clash.
I guess you could say the "conflict" in Bella and Edward's relationship is the risk of Edward eating her, but since this doesn't result in anything but...um...lots of angst (which is not a plot point in any book, ever), I don't consider it to be a real conflict. Also because this is written in first person from Bella's point of view, instead of Edward's, so all that conflict happens in someone whose thoughts we do not get a single glimpse of. If this were written in third person omniscient or from Edward's POV, I could let it go. But it's not. If the conflict in the novel is internal (which one could argue for Edward), we need to be shown the conflict, not just told about it from time to time. I don't want just a few drops of "btw I just might eat you, BEWARE! tadaaaa, comflict!" every hundred pages or so. That's not a conflict.
(I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the first book; the sequels do actually have conflicts.)
Then, there's James. There was no foreshadowing in the entire book but the preface, and that's just two pages. There's no real plot to connect these two story arcs--one of E&B's relationship, one of going after James--and make them relevant to each other. James had nearly nothing to do with the first 400 pages; there just wasn't enough relevance to appropriately build up to the climax, because the "plot" was so painfully thin. So I don't consider that to be a conflict, either.
Agreed. I did say that you could integrate it with something to make it into a conflict. Simply falling in love isn't a conflict, though.
The reason why I don't consider Bella and Edward's relationship in the first book alone is because the "conflict" doesn't build up to any important plot points. In other words, we aren't shown the conflict, we're simply told of it. Romance books can still have a plot, even if the conflict is the romance.
Like Pride and Prejudice. Darcy and Elizabeth have three things going against them: their distance in class, Darcy's pride, and Elizabeth's prejudice. This conflict build up to actual plot points, and also creates a problem for the main characters to solve. Most notable one is Elizabeth's rejection of Darcy's proposal. Their opposing views and similar character traits clash.
I guess you could say the "conflict" in Bella and Edward's relationship is the risk of Edward eating her, but since this doesn't result in anything but...um...lots of angst (which is not a plot point in any book, ever), I don't consider it to be a real conflict. Also because this is written in first person from Bella's point of view, instead of Edward's, so all that conflict happens in someone whose thoughts we do not get a single glimpse of. If this were written in third person omniscient or from Edward's POV, I could let it go. But it's not. If the conflict in the novel is internal (which one could argue for Edward), we need to be shown the conflict, not just told about it from time to time. I don't want just a few drops of "btw I just might eat you, BEWARE! tadaaaa, comflict!" every hundred pages or so. That's not a conflict.
(I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the first book; the sequels do actually have conflicts.)
Then, there's James. There was no foreshadowing in the entire book but the preface, and that's just two pages. There's no real plot to connect these two story arcs--one of E&B's relationship, one of going after James--and make them relevant to each other. James had nearly nothing to do with the first 400 pages; there just wasn't enough relevance to appropriately build up to the climax, because the "plot" was so painfully thin. So I don't consider that to be a conflict, either.
Jocelyn wrote: "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. :)"If the state of mind of a character doesn't matter, then why complain over a lack of characterization if it's only deemed to be "filler" anyway. :)
Jocelyn wrote: "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."
You probably never fell in love, or just not hard enough to say that ain't no conflict. :D
Gerd wrote: "If the state of mind of a character doesn't matter, then why complain over a lack of characterization if it's only deemed to be "filler" anyway. :)"
The state of mind of a character doesn't matter if it isn't relevant.
I didn't say that characterization is deemed to be filler, only that sometimes, it has the potential to be. Because it does. >:)
Falling in love is a theme, not a conflict. It has some conflict, but it isn't a conflict itself.
The state of mind of a character doesn't matter if it isn't relevant.
I didn't say that characterization is deemed to be filler, only that sometimes, it has the potential to be. Because it does. >:)
Falling in love is a theme, not a conflict. It has some conflict, but it isn't a conflict itself.
Jocelyn wrote: "I guess you could say the "conflict" in Bella and Edward's relationship is the risk of Edward eating her"You mean the risk of Edward eating her out more-like.
Jocelyn wrote: Sorry Angie....I'd realized I was needlessly exaggerating and personally attacked Meyer in the process. Apologies. I edited it out.You insulted the holy virgin Meyer, Mother of Christ herself. Get back Satan. Chastise thyself daily as penance and say 100 hailmeyers or purgatory shall be thy fate.
Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: Sorry Angie....I'd realized I was needlessly exaggerating and personally attacked Meyer in the process. Apologies. I edited it out.
You insulted the holy virgin Meyer, Mother of Chr..."
Lol. Well, it was contradictory to what I said about respecting Meyer. "I think she's such a stupid idiot, but I sooooo respect her!" I didn't realize how weird it sounded until Angie pointed it out. So I fixed it. ;)
You insulted the holy virgin Meyer, Mother of Chr..."
Lol. Well, it was contradictory to what I said about respecting Meyer. "I think she's such a stupid idiot, but I sooooo respect her!" I didn't realize how weird it sounded until Angie pointed it out. So I fixed it. ;)
Not a good writer. Not a bad writer. Just a person with a fantastic LUCK.
I get your human urge to love and respect all men and women (even housewives), but surely in the scheme of things she's probably fairly low down in the chain of respect. It's like George Bush Jr, Adolf Hitler, Sarah Palin, Justin Bieber then Stephanie Meyer. I think that casually insulting these people is very cathartic. Save all that love for more deserving people like Kirsten Dunst and Sarah Michelle Gellar.
No, she's not a bad writer. Twilight, in my opinion, was just a poor story line. The Host is a really great book on the other hand. The problem with Twilight was mainly that the main characters were unbelievably boring and the plot started to just get silly and inspid as it went along. The first book had potential to launch the beginning of a good series but that didn't happen.
The respect is just Meyer's share of what I like giving to anyone. I dont respect her on a personal level...I simply respect that technically, she is a successful published author. She gets a piece of my pie too. :)
That doesn't mean I like her, let alone love her. Based on what I've heard of SM, I think she's quite overwhelmed by her own self-importance. (her bashing of the classics she blatantly rips off for her stories is pretty annoying, especially.) But many authors and celebrities are, after all. Terry Goodkind, Christopher Paolini....the list goes on.
Either way, it probably doesn't matter. Meyer is fully aware of the equal hate toward her series as well as love.
That doesn't mean I like her, let alone love her. Based on what I've heard of SM, I think she's quite overwhelmed by her own self-importance. (her bashing of the classics she blatantly rips off for her stories is pretty annoying, especially.) But many authors and celebrities are, after all. Terry Goodkind, Christopher Paolini....the list goes on.
Either way, it probably doesn't matter. Meyer is fully aware of the equal hate toward her series as well as love.
Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: Sorry Angie....I'd realized I was needlessly exaggerating and personally attacked Meyer in the process. Apologies. I edited it out.You insulted the holy virgin Meyer, ..."
It doesn't take 'academia' to figure out that my comment was more an expression of surprise that someone would claim to respect someone and then say something like that than going to bat for SM.
I'm surprsed you couldn't figure that out your own, Alex.
Angie wrote: "It doesn't take 'academia' to figure out that my comment was more an expression of surprise that someone would claim to respect someone and then say something like that than going to bat for SM. I see what you did there...
Alex wrote: "Angie wrote: "It doesn't take 'academia' to figure out that my comment was more an expression of surprise that someone would claim to respect someone and then say something like that than going to ..."Don't make me laugh. It makes you a bit likable, and I'm not comfortable with that. LOL
Alex wrote: " Jocelyn wrote: "I guess you could say the "conflict" in Bella and Edward's relationship is the risk of Edward eating her"You mean the risk of Edward eating her out more-like."
:) that's what I thought too!
evidentally not seeing that her books hit theaters and are loved by many
Lovehurts wrote: "evidentally not seeing that her books hit theaters and are loved by many"That doesn't mean she's a good writer. That just means that it got turned into a movie. A lot of stories have been turned into movies but that doesn't mean they are good stories or well written.
i tried reading it, i made it through the first book but never started the second. Personally i thought Bella was a little bit whiny at times and overall i did not like her personallity. If someone says no, don't ask again! Though i believe alice was well thought, the story may have been better from her point of view.
Bill wrote: "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."
Sure she did. That's what you're complaining about. You're annoyed that she put a different spin on vampires. You want her to follow more of the traditional vampire lore and not explore new ideas and new situations. As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with being a traditionalist. By all means, go enjoy writers who excel at research rather than creativity, but I take exception at the idea that because you don't like it, it shouldn't exist or it's some sort of an abomination and affront to you.
I'd like to know where you are getting your information as far as her motivations. A lot of what you're saying has no basis in reality. Far from "trashing" vampires, so her books helped make them popular again.
Bill wrote: "...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."
If your baseline for being an "active" writer is Tolkein, then most writers would be lazy, wouldn't they? Not many authors invent languages for their characters. However, if you're basing it on the idea of world building, then Meyer holds her own in that regard. Both species of supernatural creatures has their own culture, traditions, and lore. She was far less "lazy" in that respect than Rowling, for instance, who peopled her series with supernatural creatures who were never fleshed out.
I don't think anyone was equating lazy with filler. That would be a strange idea to float: that writing more is "lazy" as opposed to writing less. Self-indulgent, I've heard before, but lazy doesn't fit exactly.
Bill wrote: "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."
This isn't much of an argument that has to be dealt with. It's just your subjective opinions, and many of them are questionable on a factual level. As far as being lazy at calling Edward a vampire, that just doesn't make any sense. As far as proofreading her own work, that is usually a job for someone else who has more distance from the story. I don't think it's standard for an author to be expected to edit her own work. In fact, we know that Meyer does give other people her stories because that's how Midnight Sun got out. Most of the action and drama in the series was not werewolf versus vampire (as you're claiming) but vampire versus vampire accompanied by werewolf (sometimes).
Just how much of the series did you actually read, Bill? I don't see much substance in your criticism.
Personally, I don't have anything against Stephanie Meyer. I was actually a big fan of The Twilight Saga and The Host for a while, but then I read The Harry Potter series again and I noticed a big difference in the style. I think Stephanie Meyer still has a lot to learn.
I don't think she's a bad author. She made wonderful fairytale- unreal, sometimes too sweet, but still wonderful, becouse that how fairytales are supposed to be.I don't expect frm Stephenie excellent writing and I don't thing that somebody should. She's paranormal romance writer- we are reading this kind of books for pure enjoyment and relax, no for deep, wise thoughts.
Bill wrote: I really do not care what genre Twilight is supposed to be in. The microsecond Meyers threw a vampire in it, she became fair game for vampire enthusiasts, and her abhorrent version of vampires became a legitimate point of criticism."In that case, shouldn't perspectives on Twilight from romance novel and paranormal romance novel enthusiasts also be seen as equally legitimate in judging Twilight? (overall...not simply as a vampire book). Is saying that Stephanie Meyer is a decent romance writer but a terrible vampire novel writer (..assuming one is ONLY interested in reading novels that feature traditional vampire lore...) fair enough of a common ground to meet on?
As an admitted vampire enthusiast, have you read a great deal of paranormal romance novels that involve vampires? In your opinion, which paranormal romance series handled it well besides the two that you mentioned?
Jocelyn wrote: Agreed. I did say that you could integrate it with something to make it into a conflict. Simply falling in love isn't a conflict, though..."I didn't say that falling in love was the conflict. I said that overcoming the obstacles that they faced as a couple was conflict.
The reason why I don't consider Bella and Edward's relationship in the first book alone is because the "conflict" doesn't build up to any important plot points. In other words, we aren't shown the conflict, we're simply told of it. Romance books can still have a plot, even if the conflict is the romance..."
It doesn't seem to build up ONLY because you have already deemed what it does builds up to as "unimportant". When you do this, you are completely dismissing the fact that Twilight is a romance novel.
Like Pride and Prejudice. Darcy and Elizabeth have three things going against them: their distance in class, Darcy's pride, and Elizabeth's prejudice. This conflict build up to actual plot points, and also creates a problem for the main characters to solve. Most notable one is Elizabeth's rejection of Darcy's proposal. Their opposing views and similar character traits clash.
I guess you could say the "conflict" in Bella and Edward's relationship is the risk of Edward eating her, but since this doesn't result in anything but...um...lots of angst (which is not a plot point in any book, ever), I don't consider it to be a real conflict. Also because this is written in first person from Bella's point of view, instead of Edward's, so all that conflict happens in someone whose thoughts we do not get a single glimpse of. If this were written in third person omniscient or from Edward's POV, I could let it go. But it's not. If the conflict in the novel is internal (which one could argue for Edward), we need to be shown the conflict, not just told about it from time to time. I don't want just a few drops of "btw I just might eat you, BEWARE! tadaaaa, comflict!" every hundred pages or so. That's not a conflict.
(I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the first book; the sequels do actually have conflicts.)
Then, there's James. There was no foreshadowing in the entire book but the preface, and that's just two pages. There's no real plot to connect these two story arcs--one of E&B's relationship, one of going after James--and make them relevant to each other. James had nearly nothing to do with the first 400 pages; there just wasn't enough relevance to appropriately build up to the climax, because the "plot" was so painfully thin. So I don't consider that to be a conflict, either. .."
Most of this also ignores the fact that Twilight is a series. Sometimes characters are introduced in the first book and they become important later. I know that you only want to focus on Twilight as an individual book. But this particular criticism isn't fair because it ignores the fact that Twilgiht is part of a series and the death of James becomes important in later books. If you want to only focus on the first novel, your criticism should be limited to things that actually do ONLY pertain to the first novel.
I disagree with what you said about the role of angst in a novel's plot. First, angst happens a lot in romance novels, especially in YA romances. Second, you are not entirely correct that angst in and of itself isn't a plot point because angst is a character trait that affects a character's actions. Angst and other emotions affected the main character's actions in Twilight. This leads back to one of my personal criticisms of Twilight. I think Bella's angst overpowers the story at times to the point where her character starts to become extremely annoying.
Some of your arguments seem to have the viewpoint of "well, that doesn't count as ______ because.....". You are picking and choosing as you see fit to support your opinion while ignoring and dismissing all that doesn't support it. That's not really a fair and objective criticism, imo.
As I understand it, Twilight wasn't conceived as a series, in the way that the Lord of the Rings "trilogy" was. Therefore Twilight the novel stands and falls purely on its own merits, just as Star Wars: A New Hope still does. A standalone with the potential to become a series, like Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone is still a standalone.
Haley wrote: "I hear a lot of people criticizing Stephenie's writing style (I don't know if they are talking about her grammar, her technique, her editing, or if Twilight is just a stupid book) and I just want t..."
The story happens to be fine, in my opinion. For the record I think they were criticizing her technique, her actual writing style. and My opinion, is that yes it is bad.
I still like twilight though, and that's what counts.
The story happens to be fine, in my opinion. For the record I think they were criticizing her technique, her actual writing style. and My opinion, is that yes it is bad.
I still like twilight though, and that's what counts.
Alex wrote: "As I understand it, Twilight wasn't conceived as a series, in the way that the Lord of the Rings "trilogy" was. Therefore Twilight the novel stands and falls purely on its own merits, just as Star..."This is from her website...
"When I'd finished the body of the novel, I started writing epilogues...lots of epilogues. This eventually clued me in to the fact that I wasn't ready to let go of my characters, and I started working on the sequel. Meanwhile, I continued to edit Twilight in a very obsessive-compulsive way."
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twiligh...
I don't know that much about the back story of how LOTR was conceived and written, so I won't attempt to compare the two in that regard. Based on what she says, it doesn't seem that Twilight was initially concieved as a series but it did become one before the first book was finalized and published.
I love Twilight but she isn't the best writer as in technique and skill. If you compare her writing with another author's you will most likely see a difference. I would say she is a very good storyteller though!
Mocha Spresso wrote: "It doesn't seem to build up ONLY because you have already deemed what it does builds up to as "unimportant". When you do this, you are completely dismissing the fact that Twilight is a romance novel."
I'm just going to assume that you do believe that Bella and Edward's relationship, along with some other things, can be considered a conflict. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, the most obvious conflict I can really think of in Bella and Edward's relationship is the possibility that Edward will go crazy and suck her blood. What plot point in the entire first book does this "conflict" build up to?
Yes, I deem that time when Edward manages to suck out Bella's blood without going crazy on her to be unimportant. First, because we don't actually see the conflict. It's written from Bella's point of view, and even more than that, it's in first person. We're simply told of the conflict, instead of shown. Conflicts need to be SHOWN to the reader. Which is why books are longer than simple articles summarizing stuff up. The conflict needs to actually appear. Again, if this were written from Edward's POV, I could let it go. If it were written from third person omniscient, I could also let it go. But it is written from Bella's POV, so 100% of that conflict that takes place within Edward (since it's an internal conflict), we do not get to see.
"If you want to only focus on the first novel, your criticism should be limited to things that actually do ONLY pertain to the first novel."
....Which is why I wrote:
(I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the first book; the sequels do actually have conflicts.)
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I disagree with what you said about the role of angst in a novel's plot. First, angst happens a lot in romance novels, especially in YA romances. Second, you are not entirely correct that angst in and of itself isn't a plot point because angst is a character trait that affects a character's actions. Angst and other emotions affected the main character's actions in Twilight.
I agree. But remember, I said that angst on its own is not a plot point. It can affect how plot points turn out, but angst itself and on its own is not a plot point. What you pointed out was how angst affected plot points, not how it was actually a plot point.
Some of your arguments seem to have the viewpoint of "well, that doesn't count as ______ because.....". You are picking and choosing as you see fit to support your opinion while ignoring and dismissing all that doesn't support it. That's not really a fair and objective criticism, imo.
I think it's fair if I give a reason as to why something "doesn't count." Whether the reason itself is fair or not is the real question, I think.
Haven't you done that as well, though? You've "dismissed" (I'm using your word here because I can't think of a better one) flaws that antis pointed out (insert whatever we pointed out here) because "Twilight is a romance novel." As long as you give a reason, I think it's fine. The real question, again, is whether or not that reason is fair and objective, not the simple fact that someone is "dismissing" something.
I'm just going to assume that you do believe that Bella and Edward's relationship, along with some other things, can be considered a conflict. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, the most obvious conflict I can really think of in Bella and Edward's relationship is the possibility that Edward will go crazy and suck her blood. What plot point in the entire first book does this "conflict" build up to?
Yes, I deem that time when Edward manages to suck out Bella's blood without going crazy on her to be unimportant. First, because we don't actually see the conflict. It's written from Bella's point of view, and even more than that, it's in first person. We're simply told of the conflict, instead of shown. Conflicts need to be SHOWN to the reader. Which is why books are longer than simple articles summarizing stuff up. The conflict needs to actually appear. Again, if this were written from Edward's POV, I could let it go. If it were written from third person omniscient, I could also let it go. But it is written from Bella's POV, so 100% of that conflict that takes place within Edward (since it's an internal conflict), we do not get to see.
"If you want to only focus on the first novel, your criticism should be limited to things that actually do ONLY pertain to the first novel."
....Which is why I wrote:
(I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the first book; the sequels do actually have conflicts.)
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I disagree with what you said about the role of angst in a novel's plot. First, angst happens a lot in romance novels, especially in YA romances. Second, you are not entirely correct that angst in and of itself isn't a plot point because angst is a character trait that affects a character's actions. Angst and other emotions affected the main character's actions in Twilight.
I agree. But remember, I said that angst on its own is not a plot point. It can affect how plot points turn out, but angst itself and on its own is not a plot point. What you pointed out was how angst affected plot points, not how it was actually a plot point.
Some of your arguments seem to have the viewpoint of "well, that doesn't count as ______ because.....". You are picking and choosing as you see fit to support your opinion while ignoring and dismissing all that doesn't support it. That's not really a fair and objective criticism, imo.
I think it's fair if I give a reason as to why something "doesn't count." Whether the reason itself is fair or not is the real question, I think.
Haven't you done that as well, though? You've "dismissed" (I'm using your word here because I can't think of a better one) flaws that antis pointed out (insert whatever we pointed out here) because "Twilight is a romance novel." As long as you give a reason, I think it's fine. The real question, again, is whether or not that reason is fair and objective, not the simple fact that someone is "dismissing" something.
Mickey wrote: "..."Let's face it: you're the closed-minded one here. I've invited you to read several books with actual vampires in them, and been rebuffed several times.
I've pointed out that Edward is not a vampire, compared to real vampires in several (better-written) pieces of vampire literature. You have insisted that he is, based on reading exactly one book with a "vampire" in it (Twilight).
A true "traditionalist" would not recommend The Hunger or The Last Vampire at all, as Miriam Blaylock is as far from a traditional vampire as Edward is from being an actual vampire.
If you won't read any other vampire literature, don't bother telling me how "fresh" and "original" the version Meyers shat out is.
Also, Meyers is objectively lazy, not subjectively, compared to literally hundreds of writers of fantasy and horror. It has nothing to do with volume, and everything to do with her lore-building.
I used Tolkien as a point of comparison because he was mentioned in this topic. If you want to use him as a baseline, go for it... but he still blows Meyers away on every conceivable level.
Even if you go beyond the first novel, she introduces nothing that hasn't been done before, and done better. Leeches vs. lycans? Underworld. A secret society of vampires that strives to keep the entire race out of the public eye? Vampire: The Masquerade RPG. All she does is dumb everything down so that teenage girls can daydream about Eddie and Jacob without being scarred for life by the real beasts they should be.
You and the other fangirls can blindly defend her 'til you're blue in the face, and it won't change the FACT that you're basically defending a lazy, sad "author."
Mocha Spresso wrote: "In that case, shouldn't perspectives on Twilight from romance novel and paranormal romance novel enthusiasts also be seen as equally legitimate in judging Twilight?"
Why? What do they know about vampires (which is the point I was responding to with you)? I don't consult an auto mechanic on whether I should buy an HP or Toshiba laptop... why should I consult them on their opinion of Meyers' (shitty) vampires?
Bill wrote: "Also, Meyers is objectively lazy, not subjectively..."
It kind of depends. It's hard to say that Meyer worked "really, really hard!" when you see that she wrote her first draft in three months, short by nearly any standards.
If you look at the content, it actually is more subjective, though it's not mutually exclusive of the objective either.
It has nothing to do with volume...
In this I have to agree. The misconception that writing more immediately means that you're not lazy is odd. It's actually much more difficult to condense one's writing as much as possible, then to let one's writing sprawl and ramble endlessly. Unless the content can appropriately justify the length, long books are actually in my opinion a sign of laziness, because the author 1) can't bear to sacrifice elements for the sake of a more streamlined story as a result of identifying too closely with them, 2) is shown not to care about how long it takes to communicate his/her story as long as he/she just "gets the job done" in which case the story is serviceable, not outstanding.
It kind of depends. It's hard to say that Meyer worked "really, really hard!" when you see that she wrote her first draft in three months, short by nearly any standards.
If you look at the content, it actually is more subjective, though it's not mutually exclusive of the objective either.
It has nothing to do with volume...
In this I have to agree. The misconception that writing more immediately means that you're not lazy is odd. It's actually much more difficult to condense one's writing as much as possible, then to let one's writing sprawl and ramble endlessly. Unless the content can appropriately justify the length, long books are actually in my opinion a sign of laziness, because the author 1) can't bear to sacrifice elements for the sake of a more streamlined story as a result of identifying too closely with them, 2) is shown not to care about how long it takes to communicate his/her story as long as he/she just "gets the job done" in which case the story is serviceable, not outstanding.
I can't say, because I don't want hate comments, but I think she pretty bad. NO HATE COMMENTS PLEASE!!!
Bill wrote: "Mickey wrote: "..."Let's face it: you're the closed-minded one here. I've invited you to read several books with actual vampires in them, and been rebuffed several times.
I've pointed out that E..."
First, I didn't rebuff you. I stated that the Saints and Shadows book seems intersting and I may consider reading it. Second, why are you making presumptions on what a person has or hasn't read? I am fan of the paranormal romance genre. You don't seem to like or respect that particular genre...but if you've ever browsed that section in a bookstore, you obvioualy know that vampires are popular within that genre. I have read several books/series with vampires...not just one. (I haven't rated every single book that I've read on Goodreads.) I've admitted that I am not a die-hard vampire enthusiast and therefore have not judged them on the level of "who had the better vampire" or "who stuck to tradition the best" because as a romance novel enthusiast, that is what I care more about.
If I had to pick a type of vampire from literture that I liked the most besides Twilight, it would probably be Ann Rice's, the Blade comics, the Sookie Stackhouse novels and the Black Dagger Brotherhood. I am not one that insists on authors sticking to traditional lore. I've liked my fair share of vampire horror and action flicks but when it comes to books, I don't always particularly care for the scary/purely evil vampire. I did like Salem's Lot and I am Legend (novels and movie adaptations.) However, I am finding that I like the cultured and romantic tragic tortured soul vampire better. I also like some of the spins that modern paranormal romance novels have put on them.
As far as judging Twilight is concerned, I don't think it has to be judged SOLELY and/or PRIMARILY as a vampire book considering the fact that it is also a romance novel and YA fiction. I understand that your judgement of it mainly from the pov of the vampire enthusiasts. However, I am trying to point out that there are possibly more pov's that should be considered. We discussed the academic literary pov in these threads and the vampire enthusiast pov....so why not the romance novel ethusiast pov since Twilight is a romance novel?
(btw, I don't presume to know what topics anyone knows or doesn't know about based on what literary genre they prefer most....more misguided snobbery.)
Bill wrote: "Let's face it: you're the closed-minded one here. I've invited you to read several books with actual vampires in them, and been rebuffed several times."Little nod to reality here: There are no such things as vampires. They don't exist, so to say that some vampires are "real" and some aren't is strange. They're all fake. You can put them into the categories "vampires I approve of" and "vampires I don't approve of", but that's about it.
It's not closed-minded to not take reading recommendations from someone. If I were saying something against traditional vampires such as you've done with nontraditional, creative renditions, that would be closed-minded, but I've said several times that there is nothing wrong with traditional vampires. I'm all for inclusion of every type and let people graze where they want without recrimination. If you want to read books that are more researched-based, go for it. I prefer creativity and innovation, but that's a personal preference of mine. I make no value judgements about which is better.
Bill wrote: "Also, Meyers is objectively lazy, not subjectively, compared to literally hundreds of writers of fantasy and horror. It has nothing to do with volume, and everything to do with her lore-building."
I've already talked about her lore-building, which is better than Rowling's. She created a governing body for each of her species (which were totally different from each other) as well as social structuring, culture, manifestations of the supernatural elements, traditions, as well as physical properties. I don't see where she slacked off. You certainly have never made a cogent argument about how she did. You just repeat over and over that this is a fact.
Bill wrote: "Even if you go beyond the first novel, she introduces nothing that hasn't been done before, and done better. Leeches vs. lycans? Underworld. A secret society of vampires that strives to keep the entire race out of the public eye? Vampire: The Masquerade RPG. All she does is dumb everything down so that teenage girls can daydream about Eddie and Jacob without being scarred for life by the real beasts they should be."
Again, there aren't any vampires or werewolves in real life and you are protesting the expanding of those groups outside of their traditional roles as nightmares. If you want to read stories about how they are horrid creatures of the night, they are out there. That someone can change that and write from a sympathetic point of view and with a different intent is fine as well. It might not be to your preference, but the world doesn't revolve around Bill, you know.
The werewolves and the vampires (particularly the Cullen clan) never fight in Twilight. They are under truce, and it is often an uneasy truce, but they are allies. To continually refer to them as against each other is another area that makes me wonder if you've actually read the books.
I would figure that all governments in charge of supernatural creatures would have to have a ban on revealing the truth, as it would fit into the fantasy for the reader that such things are real but that they are kept secret. I don't think anyone tried to float the idea that this was innovative.
Bill wrote: "You and the other fangirls can blindly defend her 'til you're blue in the face, and it won't change the FACT that you're basically defending a lazy, sad "author.""
You can call her lazy all you like, it doesn't change the FACT that she wrote four novels in four years which were wildly successful. She has a loyal fanbase of millions. I don't find these FACTS either lazy or sad.
Bill wrote: "Why? What do they know about vampires (which is the point I was responding to with you)? I don't consult an auto mechanic on whether I should buy an HP or Toshiba laptop... why should I consult them on their opinion of Meyers' (shitty) vampires?"
I see. You consider yourself an expert and that we should all acknowledge your expertise. That explains a lot.
Why do you think your opinion is more relevant than anyone else's? Because you're a vampire enthusiast? It doesn't work like that.
Jocelyn wrote: "In this I have to agree. The misconception that writing more immediately means that you're not lazy is odd. It's actually much more difficult to condense one's writing as much as possible, then to let one's writing sprawl and ramble endlessly. Unless the content can appropriately justify the length, long books are actually in my opinion a sign of laziness, because the author 1) can't bear to sacrifice elements for the sake of a more streamlined story as a result of identifying too closely with them, 2) is shown not to care about how long it takes to communicate his/her story as long as he/she just "gets the job done" in which case the story is serviceable, not outstanding. "Although the way you put down your arguments sound to me like literary snobbery, I think I have to agree with that sentiment, to an extent.
Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake novels got steadily lengthier while featuring increasingly less plot from volume to volume (not that that was the reason I stopped reading them) - though, I'm not sure if calling it "lazy" is the right word, the work has to be done, no less; being an unfocused writer, I guess, is what I would call it.
Jocelyn wrote: I'm just going to assume that you do believe that Bella and Edward's relationship, along with some other things, can be considered a conflict. Correct me if I'm wrong.So, the most obvious conflict I can really think of in Bella and Edward's relationship is the possibility that Edward will go crazy and suck her blood. What plot point in the entire first book does this "conflict" build up to?
Yes, I deem that time when Edward manages to suck out Bella's blood without going crazy on her to be unimportant. First, because we don't actually see the conflict. It's written from Bella's point of view, and even more than that, it's in first person. We're simply told of the conflict, instead of shown. Conflicts need to be SHOWN to the reader. Which is why books are longer than simple articles summarizing stuff up. The conflict needs to actually appear. Again, if this were written from Edward's POV, I could let it go. If it were written from third person omniscient, I could also let it go. But it is written from Bella's POV, so 100% of that conflict that takes place within Edward (since it's an internal conflict), we do not get to see.
We do see his inner conflict with Bella's pov from the things that Edward's says and does. We are "told" from Edward himself because they have conversations and you can make inferences from that and from his actions. Also, at that moment when he sucks out the venom, Bella can hear the dialogue between Edward and Carlisle. I actually do agree with you that Twilight probably would have been better if we saw more of Edward's pov. But a story doesn't have to be narrated in any particular way to fully understand all of the characters. We may think that the conflict could have been better illustrated with a different narration....but that isn't the same thing as having no conflict at all.
Btw, the bloodlust was a major conflict, but it wasn't the only conflict. Bella has a great deal of her own inner conflict in trying to figure out who she is, what she wants and where she belongs. She wants to become a vampire, he doesn't want her to. He tries to force her to do things that she doesn't want to do out of attempting to protect her. When she resists, that causes conflict in their relationship. Their relationship caused some discord within the Cullen family (not every family member approves.) Their relationship also makes it harder for the Cullens to keep their secret. Some of the things that happen in Twilight set the stage for the conflict that arises in future novels.
I agree. But remember, I said that angst on its own is not a plot point. It can affect how plot points turn out, but angst itself and on its own is not a plot point. What you pointed out was how angst affected plot points, not how it was actually a plot point.
But you seem to think the angst is not important to the story or the plot. How can that be? How can a character's emotions not be important to any story? You don't like the fact that she experiences so much angst (neither do I, btw), but that doesn't automatically mean that it suddenly isn't important to the story.
I think it's fair if I give a reason as to why something "doesn't count." Whether the reason itself is fair or not is the real question, I think.
Haven't you done that as well, though? You've "dismissed" (I'm using your word here because I can't think of a better one) flaws that antis pointed out (insert whatever we pointed out here) because "Twilight is a romance novel." As long as you give a reason, I think it's fine. The real question, again, is whether or not that reason is fair and objective, not the simple fact that someone is "dismissing" something. ."
I am pointing out how parts of the argument are flawed in illustrating how Twilight is poorly written because some of the things that you and others are arguing against are actually enjoyed by fans of YA paranormal romance and are actually consistant with that genre. In most of the "comparable books" that are suggested as being better written than Twilight, few of them were actually YA paranormal romance books. The closest truly comparable book that I remember being mentioned are the Mortal Instuments books.
Gerd wrote: K. Hamilton's Anita Blake novels got steadily lengthier while featuring increasingly less plot from volume to volume (not that that was the reason I stopped reading them) - though, I'm not sure if calling it "lazy" is the right word, the work has to be done, no less; being an unfocused writer, I guess, is what I would call it.
Yeah, maybe that's a better word. I heard George R.R. Martin did the same thing too. I've seen quite a few fans complaining about the gradually increasing amount of filler and how entire books in ASoIaF don't really advance the storyline much. I think A Dance of Dragons was considered generally to be the weakest entry, though I haven't read the entire series yet.
Yeah, maybe that's a better word. I heard George R.R. Martin did the same thing too. I've seen quite a few fans complaining about the gradually increasing amount of filler and how entire books in ASoIaF don't really advance the storyline much. I think A Dance of Dragons was considered generally to be the weakest entry, though I haven't read the entire series yet.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "As far as judging Twilight is concerned, I don't think it has to be judged SOLELY and/or PRIMARILY as a vampire book considering the fact that it is also a romance novel and YA fiction. I understand that your judgement of it mainly from the pov of the vampire enthusiasts. However, I am trying to point out that there are possibly more pov's that should be considered. We discussed the academic literary pov in these threads and the vampire enthusiast pov....so why not the romance novel ethusiast pov since Twilight is a romance novel?"I just want to say that this is a fair point that I agree with. I'm mostly on Bill's sides with regards to Meyer's approach to Vampires (I have no idea how Mickey thinks not knowing your subject is "creative", but hey ho) but it's also true that Twilight is a romance novel designed to appeal to lovers of romantic fiction probably a lot more than fans of horror fiction. For me that doesn't atone it for its sins and as we all know the romance genre is chockablock full of weak characters and weaker, contrived scenarios - as is any genre - but that's at least another angle to consider the book from and a fair reason as to why someone reading the book might not see some of the objections that we do as valid.
Jocelyn wrote: "Gerd wrote: K. Hamilton's Anita Blake novels got steadily lengthier while featuring increasingly less plot from volume to volume (not that that was the reason I stopped reading them) - though, I'm ..."TBH with the Anita Blake books I cannot help but think that Hamilton became more enamoured with the ... explicit scenes shall we say and less with the plot. To me the books were never particularly fully of filler just a different story. The Game of Thrones series .. mmm I would not call it filler as to me it serves a purpose as does the majority of Twilight (it shows how obsessed they both were with each other, how Bella makes incredibly stupid decisions etc).
In response to Alex:
For me that doesn't atone it for its sins and as we all know the romance genre is chockablock full of weak characters and weaker, contrived scenarios - as is any genre - but that's at least another angle to consider the book from and a fair reason as to why someone reading the book might not see some of the objections that we do as valid.
In terms of vampire books I really really dislike the entire Twilight series as apart from the sparkling there is no original thought - on the plus side I can now firmly say I prefer the tradtional classic vampire so hey - bonus!
In terms of romance I see very little romance more lust - to me these are two seperate concepts. So as a romance book/series it does't sell the genre to me.
In terms of Young Adult.. eh. I think there are a number of better books out there in this category but they're not as popular. I think any book that encourages people to read (or any movie/play etc) is a good thing.
Young Adult romance - well there is nothing explicit. Others have said that this is a good example of a first relationship so I guess in that sense the series does something well.
Paranormal Romance - again eh. The other paranormal romance books I have read have been a lot more explicit so I find it hard to compare but in terms of the essentials it is all there so eh.
I *think* that covers the major categories the book falls under and my simple objections against them...
Carina wrote: "In terms of romance I see very little romance more lust - to me these are two seperate concepts. So as a romance book/series it does't sell the genre to me...."That's a problem I continually encounter with novels in the so called Romance genre - that most of those labeled thus are less about romance and more about driving lust.
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...
I can agree that Meyer took put a daring twist on vampires, something that can certainly be respected for."
Um... no she didn't. She took a sparkly guy and called him a "vampire." There's nothing daring about that.
If you won't believe me, read Of Saints And Shadows. THAT was a bold take on vampires.
Read The Hunger. That was a smart, scientific take on vampires.
A predator that sparkles in sunlight isn't bold. It's a target for his prey because he stands out from that prey.
Really, I can't make it any damned clearer.