Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
I guess if the main thrust of the novel is about a man and a woman coming together in some kind of relationship then I'm calling it a romance novel. Again, to be fair, romances often begin with lust and if the novel is still ostensibly largely about character interaction rather than physical interaction I'd call it "romance" rather than "erotica". I think that Twilight is primarily about Bella and Edward falling in love, even if it's portrayed in a staggeringly cack-handed way.I don't read modern "romance novels" (with a capital GENRE) either to be honest. My perception is that there aren't that many great ones out there, but I could be wrong ... I mostly just don't have time to read everything.
As a side note, I think that hooking up casually is fine, the problem for me is that novels like Twilight portray "lustful feelings" in a way such that if you feel them you've clearly met "the one true love of your life" and I'm meeting a lot of younger women who can't seem to distinguish sex from love and get very hurt because guys - rightly or wrongly - do. Where I think a classic novel like Pride and Prejudice scores (apart from being, smart, witty, brilliantly structured, insightful, beautiful prose etc etc) is that love is portrayed as a gradual process of coming to know and understand things about another's personality. One falls in love because one realises that on the surface a person may look to be one way, but what's important is getting a rounded view of a character and personality that appeals to you. In other words, in P&P Elizabeth is punished for acting in ways that Meyer praises in Twilight.
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...."I agree. Although, I do think some people confuse "passion" and write it off as simply "lust" when it comes to romance novels. I also think that lust is also a valid feeling within a romance and some conflict often arises from discerning whether what the character is experiencing is actually "true love".
I know people don't like it when I do this, but it does come up more in Edward's POV in Midnight Sun. Edward can't figure out whether he really loves Bella or whether he is just attracted to her blood. In Twilight, he desperately wants to be close to her but has to also learn how to control his raging emotions so that he doesn't accidentally hurt her. A lot of conflict in Twilight involves characters learning how to keep control of their emotions.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "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...."I agree. Although, I..."
I agree that lust in a novel can play its part, just in a romance novel I very rarely see anything romantic and an awful lot of lust going on. I do agree that passion and lust can also be mistaken as one another but in my opinion romance and passion go hand in hand more than romance and lust.
I did read Midnight Sun but I recall even less about it than I do the remained of the Twilight series. When I re-read the books next year I'll make sure to check Midnight Sun out. If it is more clear in that book then perhaps it is a shame Myers never combined the books (as I believe there are other points of view in the other Twilight books?)
Alex wrote: "I guess if the main thrust of the novel is about a man and a woman coming together in some kind of relationship then I'm calling it a romance novel. Again, to be fair, romances often begin with lu..."Mmm yeah. I guess that is my real issue with a lot of the 'romance' books - they start lustful and then there isn't really that much shown of the romantic part of the reltationship. I think this is one of the situations where your own life experiences will really influence how you see it.
I do agree with the issue you raised about Twilight. I have met people (in RL and not on Goodreads before anyone jumps in here) that *do* think that Edward and Bellas relationship is the most perfect in the world and that being stalked is the most romantic gesture... TBH though Twilight didn't start the trend (maybe the stalking/covering partners with glitter part) but it hasn't helped matters either. I think Pride and Prejudice does show a 'healthier' relationship where the love aspect is incredibly clearly seperated from the lust one... but they also lived in an incredibly different time - Twilight is much more modern in its approaches.
Alex wrote: 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. ."I won't attempt to speak for Mickey, just for myself. I don't think "creativity" actually requires "research". I do think Meyer was creative in the sense that she created her own very unique and very defined brand of Twilight Saga vampire lore. As Mickey pointed out, they have a system of government, laws and justice. They have a hierarchy or class structure. They have distinct stages of development (newborn vs. mature). They have different categories...the ones who prey on humans and the ones who make a conscious decision not to. She also didn't do this out of any type or ignorance as some people have been trying to imply. She deliberately wanted her vampires to be different from the rest, That isn't lazy or lacking creativity. I happen to think it is just the opposite.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "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.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying...the reader has to make inferences to see the conflict. The point of writing in general is to communicate, and to communicate as effectively as possible. The author shouldn't just vaguely dance around it.
But the main point I'm trying to make is that the "conflicts" don't build up to any plot points. And plot points, as you know, make up a plot. If the conflict doesn't build up to any real plot points, that's not a plot. If it DOES build up to a real plot point but has nothing to do with the other 80% of the book, that is also not a plot (in the case of James).
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.
Yes, that's a good point, and it's true. BUT Bella is nearly unaffected by that "conflict" even then, the dialogue is still simply telling us instead of showing us. Bella simply acts as a catalyst, which is not nearly enough to convey the conflict because she's nearly unaffected by that conflict. What makes it even worse is that this is in first person, further narrowing the view of the story.
Another thing that would make it acceptable is, again, if it built up to some plot point, even from Bella's POV. Perhaps Edward could lose his control and accidentally injure Bella. (btw, I'm not using my suggestions to justify my point, I'm just giving an example to clarify what I mean.) That way, we could be SHOWN the conflict. Bella is no longer simply a catalyst; she is actually affected in some way by that conflict, and her (very narrow) POV would be more compatible with the story.
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....
That's true. But I think a story does have to be narrated in the way that can best present the conflict to the reader.
...but that isn't the same thing as having no conflict at all.
Okay, I'll give you that. I was wrong when I said there was no conflict. Maybe I could amend that statement: the conflict is there, but it's not enough to give Twilight sufficiently tight plotting and structure.
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.
That would work, once again, if it built up to an actual plot point. Also, if I were being honest, I think that "conflict" in their relationship is a lot more potent in the later books and a lot more vague in the first one, with only very faint hints dropped here and there--nothing more than slight disagreements. An occasional, once-every-hundred-pages temper-tantrum-argument (refer to the banter between E&B after the almost-car-accident scene, for example) from Bella isn't really a sufficient conflict.
Let's use New Moon as an example, since it's by the same author, in the same series, and same genre. Bella's conflict leads to things like suicide stunts, gradually stringing along until that conflict climaxes with her jumping off a cliff.
As for setting the stage for later conflicts, maybe that's true, and I can acknowledge that. Still, that's not nearly enough to excuse the extreme lack of structure and meandering plotting in book one. First-in-a-series books can still foreshadow what happens later on, and still have plots (and yes, even romance books).
Yeah, that's what I'm saying...the reader has to make inferences to see the conflict. The point of writing in general is to communicate, and to communicate as effectively as possible. The author shouldn't just vaguely dance around it.
But the main point I'm trying to make is that the "conflicts" don't build up to any plot points. And plot points, as you know, make up a plot. If the conflict doesn't build up to any real plot points, that's not a plot. If it DOES build up to a real plot point but has nothing to do with the other 80% of the book, that is also not a plot (in the case of James).
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.
Yes, that's a good point, and it's true. BUT Bella is nearly unaffected by that "conflict" even then, the dialogue is still simply telling us instead of showing us. Bella simply acts as a catalyst, which is not nearly enough to convey the conflict because she's nearly unaffected by that conflict. What makes it even worse is that this is in first person, further narrowing the view of the story.
Another thing that would make it acceptable is, again, if it built up to some plot point, even from Bella's POV. Perhaps Edward could lose his control and accidentally injure Bella. (btw, I'm not using my suggestions to justify my point, I'm just giving an example to clarify what I mean.) That way, we could be SHOWN the conflict. Bella is no longer simply a catalyst; she is actually affected in some way by that conflict, and her (very narrow) POV would be more compatible with the story.
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....
That's true. But I think a story does have to be narrated in the way that can best present the conflict to the reader.
...but that isn't the same thing as having no conflict at all.
Okay, I'll give you that. I was wrong when I said there was no conflict. Maybe I could amend that statement: the conflict is there, but it's not enough to give Twilight sufficiently tight plotting and structure.
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.
That would work, once again, if it built up to an actual plot point. Also, if I were being honest, I think that "conflict" in their relationship is a lot more potent in the later books and a lot more vague in the first one, with only very faint hints dropped here and there--nothing more than slight disagreements. An occasional, once-every-hundred-pages temper-tantrum-argument (refer to the banter between E&B after the almost-car-accident scene, for example) from Bella isn't really a sufficient conflict.
Let's use New Moon as an example, since it's by the same author, in the same series, and same genre. Bella's conflict leads to things like suicide stunts, gradually stringing along until that conflict climaxes with her jumping off a cliff.
As for setting the stage for later conflicts, maybe that's true, and I can acknowledge that. Still, that's not nearly enough to excuse the extreme lack of structure and meandering plotting in book one. First-in-a-series books can still foreshadow what happens later on, and still have plots (and yes, even romance books).
Mocha Spresso wrote: " they have a system of government, laws and justice. They have a hierarchy or class structure. They have distinct stages of development (newborn vs. mature). They have different categories...the ones who prey on humans and the ones who make a conscious decision not to."Same thing can be said about the Southern Vampire series, or Laurell K Hamiltons books. Apart from the sparkling Myers vampires have added nothing new to the genre that hasn't already been done before.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "She also didn't do this out of any type or ignorance as some people have been trying to imply. She deliberately wanted her vampires to be different from the rest, That isn't lazy or lacking creativity."
She didn't want her vampires to be different from the rest. She just didn't want her perception of vampires to change. You can confirm that in this interview right here. It's around 4:35, when she says something like "I knew I was breaking all the rules; I guess I didn't want to find out how many I was breaking."
I do agree, though, that whether she was "ignorant" or not is debatable. One could say that she was so absorbed in her own silly version of vampires she wanted to shelter herself from what could have helped improved the Twilight-vampire-lore, another could say that it was nice of her that she decided to just go with her own version. *shrug*
She didn't want her vampires to be different from the rest. She just didn't want her perception of vampires to change. You can confirm that in this interview right here. It's around 4:35, when she says something like "I knew I was breaking all the rules; I guess I didn't want to find out how many I was breaking."
I do agree, though, that whether she was "ignorant" or not is debatable. One could say that she was so absorbed in her own silly version of vampires she wanted to shelter herself from what could have helped improved the Twilight-vampire-lore, another could say that it was nice of her that she decided to just go with her own version. *shrug*
Alex wrote: One falls in love because one realises that on the surface a person may look to be one way, but what's important is getting a rounded view of a character and personality that appeals to you. In other words, in P&P Elizabeth is punished for acting in ways that Meyer praises in Twilight. ..."
How so? In Twilight, Bella has preconcieved notions about Edward. First, from the town gossip and then from her suspicions as to what he really is. The way that she suggests dealing with this is that they spend some time together to get to know each other. Edward is intrigued by the fact that he can't read Bella's mind and spends a great deal of time TALKING TO HER about anything and everything and getting to know more about her.
I agree that Pride and Prejudice is the better book...but not necessarily for its depiction of romance. In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth and Darcy rarely talk meaningfully to each other or share their true feelings with each other in the beginning. They wasted a great deal of time, imo. Most of that time was spent pining away and yearning from afar and constantly misunderstanding because they weren't communicating effectively. Pride and Prejudice is wonderful for portraying WHAT NOT TO DO in a romance, imo.
Carina wrote: "Same thing can be said about the Southern Vampire series, or Laurell K Hamiltons books. Apart from the sparkling Myers vampires have added nothing new to the genre that hasn't already been done before."The discussion was on world-building, NOT innovation. Keep up.
Carina wrote: Same thing can be said about the Southern Vampire series, or Laurell K Hamiltons books. Apart from the sparkling Myers vampires have added nothing new to the genre that hasn't already been done before...."Why give Twilight so much flack and criticism for doing something that many other successful authors out there have also done?
Carina wrote: "TBH though Twilight didn't start the trend (maybe the stalking/covering partners with glitter part) but it hasn't helped matters either. I think Pride and Prejudice does show a 'healthier' relationship ""Stalking" goes on in Pride and Prejudice as well. It's at the stage where someone has an interest in another, but doesn't want to make it known.
There are the passages right before the marriage proposal where Darcy and Lizzy keep meeting each other in the park, which Lizzy finds odd because she tells Darcy (as a warning) that this is her favorite spot. Yet they keep meeting. This could fall under stalking.
Another part added for the 1995 BBC adaptation (so not exactly canonical, but definitely to add to the theme of growing romantic attachment) shows Darcy watching surreptitiously as Lizzy plays with a dog in the yard.
The only difference is that Edward, being a vampire, has the ability to get into people's rooms without being noticed.
I think she kind of screwed herself over when she tried to explain her vampires using science.The whole chromosome/venom thing was just terrible.
I wish I had a GIF of House M.D. rolling his eyes right now. :P
Just so you're aware Mickey, I think the objection might be that Edward Cullen crosses what we call a "boundary" by going into Bella's bedroom and watching her sleep.If you find the idea a turn-on all well and good I suppose. We all have these fetishes.
I prefer the Iron Queen book
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Why give Twilight so much flack and criticism for doing something that many other successful authors out there have also done? "I don't think I have ever said that Myers vampires were bad for having the system of control (aka Volturi) etc. I was merely pointing out she was not the first author to do that. What I said was that, in part due to Twilight, I can now say that I prefer the 'traditional classic' vampire. If anything I think Meyers choosing to have a vampire hierarchy - though not the first to do so - is a good thing to include as it does provide those different aspects, especially in the last book.
Jocelyn wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "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 i..."You keep saying that the inner conflicts don't build up to any plot points. However, it does if you happen to think that the depiction of their romance IS the primary plot. As I said, I think the problem here is that you don't think of the depiction of the development of their relationship as a valid plot, and as such, you discount anything in the story that pertains to it. To me, this is like saying that the main plot of books like The Things They Carried or The Red Badge of Courage should have been the details surrounding specific war/battles and therefore, nothing that pertains to main character's inner conflicts is truly relevant to the plot.
Btw, Edward's conflict does directly affect Bella. His ability to stop demonstrates the power of his love. Even though she was conflicted, she trusted her instincts and always had faith in the fact that he wouldn't hurt her. On the other hand, he wasn't always sure that the love was stronger than his vampire urges until that moment when her life was at stake.
As to the stalking, didn't Bella start leaving her window open or unlocked for him when she realized that he was doing this? Don't interpet this as me saying that I condone the behaviors...but stalking means UNWANTED attention. It isn't stalking if she wants and even expects him to come every night. I think people are putting a very adult and a very negative spin on something that is really nothing more than an adolescent girl sneaking an adolescent boy in through her bedroom window at night.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "As to the stalking, didn't Bella start leaving her window open or unlocked for him when she realized that he was doing this? Don't interpet this as me saying that I condone the behaviors...but s..."
Perhaps, but at the beginning Bella was not aware which does make it stalking. And maybe we are putting an adult spin on it but it is something that is called on a lot - personally I have done this with other books (like the attempted murder in HP) and it is one way of interpreting them. I also do not think that Bella accepting it in any way means he was right to do it without her permission.
Oh my fucking God you did not really just write this...Mickey wrote: "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. "
Holy shit, what a fucking condescending bitch.
I suggested those books to you to show you that vampire lore is much richer and more complex than Meyers seems to recognize, not to prove the existence of vampires.
Practically everyone has their own version of the lore. Some things remain constant (sunlight harms, for example), but they all agree that vampires stalk and prey on humans.
Once again: Edward is NOT a vampire. It's exactly because he's not dark and scary that he fails at being a vampire. The moment he said, "I won't stalk and kill humans," he became a faerie/fairy/however-you-want-to-spell-it. The entire Cullen clan is a bunch of faeries. The real vampire shows up later in the book.
I'm not even going to get into the humungous plot hole that opens up when Edward tries to subsist on a food his physiology should be rejecting.
So put away the smug, holier-than-thou attitude. It's unwarranted.
Oh... and last I checked, I'm not the only person who doesn't see Eddie as a leech. It's not who I approve of, but what constitutes a vampire.
I didn't bother reading past that paragraph, by the way. Obvious troll post is obvious.
Bill wrote: "Once again: Edward is NOT a vampire. It's exactly because he's not dark and scary that he fails at being a vampire. The moment he said, "I won't stalk and kill humans," he became a faerie/fairy/however-you-want-to-spell-it. The entire Cullen clan is a bunch of faeries. The real vampire shows up later in the book."Throwing fits, calling names and restating opinions doesn't really do much for your argument, Bill. An animal is not chiefly defined by what it eats. An example I've already stated is that humans are "naturally" carnivores, but there are groups of people who choose not to eat meat. They do not become "less human" because of their dietary choices. (Although they might to you. You seem intolerant enough to decide that someone who doesn't behave as you think they should loses their right to be called human.)
You're still not getting the point that you don't decide what a vampire is. It's a myth that anyone can play with. Your approval isn't necessary. You can have subjective preferences, but they don't become any sort of "Vampire Law". I don't care how many vampire books you read.
ETA: There's no reason to think that a vampire would reject animal blood. I'd love to know how you determined how a fictional creature's body reacts to different substances. Is it as tenuous as your assertion that Meyer is lazy or that Meyer chose a vampire in order to make money?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "To me, this is like saying that the main plot of books like The Things They Carried or The Red Badge of Courage should have been the details surrounding specific war/battles and therefore, nothing that pertains to main character's inner conflicts is truly relevant to the plot."Oh, my God! I LOVED The Things They Carried! Great example!
Mickey wrote: "Throwing fits, calling names and restating opinions doesn't really do much for your argument, Bill. "Oh, trust me... when I throw a fit, you'll fucking well know it.
At least I HAVE an argument. You still seem to be stuck on "'Cause Meyers wrote it, and she's my Goddess."
As far as approval: who's word carries more weight when you buy a car, a florist or a mechanic? That's basically where you (the florist) and I (the mechanic) are at in terms of vampires until you actually read something with vampires in it. Once you do, you will see that Twilight doesn't count, and you will see that Meyers actually is the greedy, lazy author I've portrayed her as.
Good day.
I'm not sure if anyone has given you this link yet, but you should probably check out this tumblr pagehttp://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/
Bill wrote: "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 la..."
She came up with a completly different way to have a vampire story... to me that's creative. Most vampire books always consist of the same details- burning in the sun, nocturnal, bloodlust but SM decided that's not what she pictured when she pictureed a vampire. I comprehend things just fine thank you very much. You said she just slapped things that she knew about vampires and made a crappy story. Well, these things that she "slapped on" she created entirely by herself.
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..."
Okay, look. There are many authors out there who write vampire novels, WE GET IT. But also keep in mind that vampires are fictional. Therefore authors can put whatever spin they want on it. If people want there vampires to slaughter the town in just an hour? Fine! If SM wants her vampires to sparkle? Fine! There is no right or wrong when it comes to vampires. You may not like it, but many people do. There are probably books that you have read that some people hate.
That doesn't matter. The author can put whatever spin they want on anything. Books are creations. You create what you want. And that's what Meyer's did.
Peace wrote: "i wonder if anyone did read that little blurb, that someone post up there or not?http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com"
I love this site, she's hilarious!
Peace wrote: "who found that site anyhow? i just saw on here i think somone just post it up i just copyed and past on here again."That was me :)
I can't remember where I found it first, though.
Mickey wrote: Oh, my God! I LOVED The Things They Carried! Great example! ..."Thanks. It was something that I thought about with all the talk about what is or isn't filler in a novel. I really don't understand how a character's emotions or feelings can be considered unnecessary filler.
Carina wrote: "I also do not think that Bella accepting it in any way means he was right to do it without her permission..."Yep, I think we had this point in another discussion already. That he gained permission later does not make his behaviour retroactively right.
Gerd wrote: "Carina wrote: "I also do not think that Bella accepting it in any way means he was right to do it without her permission..."Yep, I think we had this point in another discussion already. That he g..."
Ahh, I didn't see that discusion. It is always an interesting point to my mind as there are a number of fans who see no problem with it at all and find it very odd for it to be called stalking behaviour.
TBH Twilight was very good at pointing out 'negative' traits that I had previously overlooked in other books. I still don't think Meyer is a good author but the more I read peoples comments the more I see that some of the things she is accused of other authors aren't. I mean I have never seen anyone calling Christine Feehan out and she has something very similar to imprinting.
Carina wrote: "I mean I have never seen anyone calling Christine Feehan out and she has something very similar to imprinting."I actually contemplated reading Feehan when I was still more into Paranormal Romance, but luckily a reviewer on Amazon pointed out that Feehan is morally highly questionable because quite some of her "heroes" rape the heroine at first.
But here the same strange mechanism seems to take hold in some readers, that because she later falls in "love" with him (or because they are "destined to be") it suddenly is considered less severe.
M.R. wrote: "I think most of the problems with Twilight could actually be blamed on bad editing. Most books undergo intensive rewriting AFTER the author has completed the final draft. The editing is supposed to..."I totally agree.
Gerd wrote: "I actually contemplated reading Feehan when I was still more into Paranormal Romance, but luckily a reviewer on Amazon pointed out that Feehan is morally highly questionable because quite some of her "heroes" rape the heroine at first.But here the same strange mechanism seems to take hold in some readers, that because she later falls in "love" with him (or because they are "destined to be") it suddenly is considered less severe. ."
The first book I read in that series was somewhere in the late 'teens' and there was very little of her imprinting or anything like that. I really liked it so started buying them up - the newer ones I think are not as bad as the older ones were. But you could argue that there is 'rape' in them - that and her imprinting actually takes place on an unborn foetus who is... 'altered' (so not the right word but the best I can think of) to be the perfect match to one of the Carpathians - the next book after that takes place shows how she and Gregori become mates (aka she has no free choice though he 'lets' her spend some time away). That kind of thing is everything I dislike in Twilight (as I can see some of Edwards personality in those books) but as said before you never see Feehan being called out on it!
I do concur that there is something going on with a lot of readers and authors where they think that kind of thing is normal and 'healthy'. Perhaps it is merely a trend in modern writing and as Twilight is a *lot* more popular/well known than Feehans books then it gets more of the slack.
Carina wrote: "I do concur that there is something going on with a lot of readers and authors where they think that kind of thing is normal and 'healthy'. Perhaps it is merely a trend in modern writing and as Twilight is a *lot* more popular/well known than Feehans books then it gets more of the slack."I do see a lot more critical reviews for novels like "Flowers in the Attic" now than I saw or heard when the book was highly poular - and from what I read about it, there's a lot to criticise. I does seem that readers either have become more conscious of these things, or that they didn’t dare to call out writers on it as much back then.
Which reminds me of this post:
http://www.whatifbooksetc.com/2012/12...
Gerd wrote: "I do see a lot more critical reviews for novels like "Flowers in the Attic" now than I saw or heard when the book was highly poular - and from what I read about it, there's a lot to criticise. I does seem that readers either have become more conscious of these things, or that they didn’t dare to call out writers on it as much back then.Which reminds me of this post:
http://www.whatifbooksetc.com/2012/12...
"
Interesting article. I might have to keep an eye out as I would love to see the article about Tamora Peirce (one of my favourite authors from when I was a child).
Perhaps Twilight hit at the wrong time when people were beginning to notice the things in Feehans novels etc which have been mentioned and Twilight became the straw which broke the camels back as it were...
You guys are making my happy I never read the fehaan novels
Be wrote: "You guys are making my happy I never read the fehaan novels"It is a shame really as there are some interesting plot points (vampires are Carpathians who 'turn evil', their is a 'cult' who wants to exterminate them all etc) but the execution doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that if you listen to the soundtrack of the twilight series the music tells the story Better
Ok so I just realized we can talk smack all we want but Stephanie isn't as bad as LJ Smith omg those horrible vampire diaries stories make me cringe
Morgan wrote: "I'm not sure if anyone has given you this link yet, but you should probably check out this tumblr pagehttp://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/"
thanks for posting this, i did read it i actually found it entertaining, but i would never have the time to sit and deceiver all four books. But the notes the girl made were true.
Be wrote: "Ok so I just realized we can talk smack all we want but Stephanie isn't as bad as LJ Smith omg those horrible vampire diaries stories make me cringe"At least the TV show is pretty good. Better than the Twilight movies at least.
That's True, I was so happy that they switched it up, normally im not a fan or creative changes when it comes to books and movies/tv but vampire dairies needed it.
Be wrote: "That's True, I was so happy that they switched it up, normally im not a fan or creative changes when it comes to books and movies/tv but vampire dairies needed it."It's waaaay more entertianing than the books. Like True Blood, but even that is going a bit off the rails I think. The longer it goes on, the worse it's getting.
Like Twilight I think.
1 book, okay.
2 books, not good.
3 books, really pushing it.
4 books, nose dive! Mayday! Mayday!
Hybrid vampires, no battle, inprinting crazyness, Bella is perfect, werewolves have 48 chromesomes...I mean...really? Did SM even research chromosomes or did she just remember what the count was in most humans then add a few because it sounded cool?
S.L.J. wrote: "Be wrote: "That's True, I was so happy that they switched it up, normally im not a fan or creative changes when it comes to books and movies/tv but vampire dairies needed it."It's waaaay more ent..."
I took it upon myself to listen to the audio books then reading the books again because i wanted to see if listening to them would make them better and I thought it did. even though the narrator Ilyana Kadushin did an OK job when she said " OH EDWARD!"I was just like, really dude, really she sound like she was having a fake orgasm or something, for some reason i really do like the audio books. it allowed me to get out of the habit of throwing my book and losing my page.
On the point of the Sookie Stakehouse series, is it just me or is Charlian Harris a big perv. I think that the sex (erotica) scene's are WAY over done. but in the same respect i do love the story, its a new spin on vampire literature but not too far off of a CSI episode. But once the 6th book came out i just couldn't keep up, im planing on devoting the whole month of January to catch up before the show come back out. BTW I don't like the direction the show is going in.Key note: The perv in me doesn't complain when i read the sex passages. LOL
Peace wrote: "i think maybe she look them up, 2 add on there. sounds cool."If she did look it up she read the wrong book.
47 = XYY - Most don't have any real effects of having an extra Y but some are known to have anti-soical behaviour and sometimes have hightened testosterone levels. They are overly confrontational and aggresive at times (like werewolves) but that is rare. And the wolves in Twilight have 48, not 47.
48 = XXYY and that almost always results in poor muscle tone, learning difficulties and even Autism. Most don't live past the age of 50.
Basically, the more chromosomes you add to a human, the worse it gets.
But I'm sure SM knew that.
P.S. The XYY and the XXYY only ever occure in males since females don't have X chromosomes.
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...
That's a problem I c..."
That is very true. It is probably why I do not read many romance novels any more. They were fine when I was younger but when I hit Uni and saw all the people randomly hooking up (often like what happens in the 'romance') books I realised that they are mostly lust. I still don't see much 'pure romance' in Twilight just stalker like tendencies which I personally find totally creepy. However - I have seen that a lot of fans find that romantic so.. *shrugs*