Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Honestly I can't see this ever becoming a classic by any means. The writing is poor, the characters are horrid people (with the exception of the characters Meyer WANTS us to hate like Leah and post New Moon Charlie - both of whom I found far more compelling and sympathetic than 'gets everything handed to her on a silver platter' Bella), and it reads like middle school fanfiction. You could cut out half the pages in each book and not miss a single thing, as a good chunk of it is just Bella gushing over vampires or Edward. Not to mention the plot holes, lack of research (the WEST COAST of Brazil anyone?) and Meyer's constant shirking of her own canon. (Why hello Reneesme, technically you shouldn't exist according to various interviews Meyer gave before Breaking Dawn)In my opinion, the only thing it has going for it is the fact that it's very easy to put yourself into Bella's shoes. However that's doesn't make the writing good by any means. Especially since it's just as easy to be pulled out of that role once you realize what characterization Bella does have is deplorable.
S.L.J. wrote: "That's exactly my point. If SM had kept it supernatural, calling it a curse or magical in origin then their condition would simply be accepted as something spooky but she went down the science road instead. And the science road is very well established and tends to win out in arguments. "I don't think you're getting my point. It still is supernatural. No one knows what the chromosomes that the supernatural creatures inherited (as in the case of the werewolves) or the vampires received through changing consist of. We know they're not human. You are comparing apples and oranges when you make comparisons between extra human chromosomes and supernatural chromosomes.
I think you're the one trying to "go all scientific", but forgetting that these aren't extra human chromosomes.
Mickey wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "That's exactly my point. If SM had kept it supernatural, calling it a curse or magical in origin then their condition would simply be accepted as something spooky but she went down t..."Then why would she bring it up at all? Science may not be exclusivly human in a fiction novel but if you're going to twist it at least have a good reason for it. I keep thinking about shows like Stargate where they have to use the fringier science theories about wormholes and such.
They take the real thing and stretch it to fiction levels for the sake of the story. SM tried the same thing but failed. Why would a thing that never changes need chromosomes? Extra chromosomes at that? How does a thing that is frozen in time create a child?
If she had said it was simply some kind of magic then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But she decided to use real world facts to explain their existance and it just didn't work.
I'm not saying that she is the first author to make this kind of mistake. Hell, I've probably made it myself once or twice but saying a broom can fly because of magic and saying that it can fly because of a gravitation distortion are different because the gravity thing, you've got to be able to back up with hard facts.
What I'm trying to say is that if SM had simply explained her vamps/shifters etc. as being sourced by supernatural origins, instead of bringing science into the mix, she could have avoid all of this. As it goes, she didn't and now we can put them under a microscope and pick them apart.
Besides, the twilight vamps pretty much go against nature itself. Saying that it's a dark magical curse or something would have been completely acceptable. But since SM added science to the mix, now they are just oddities.
They're frozen in time. They don't change. Every important thing that has ever been on this planet changes.
Not really. She is just a young adult writer.
S.L.J. wrote: "Besides, the twilight vamps pretty much go against nature itself. Saying that it's a dark magical curse or something would have been completely acceptable. But since SM added science to the mix, now they are just oddities. They're frozen in time. They don't change. Every important thing that has ever been on this planet changes."
You really don't understand the concept of supernatural. As far as adding science into the mix, in the story it was basically musings of Carlisle, who is a doctor and would be interested in the science of vampires. That vampires and the werewolves were different from humans on a cellular level is not that far-fetched. It's a characteristic of Meyer's supernatural creatures, it was not ever explained (to my knowledge) that the extra chromosomes were the cause of their "supernaturalness".
Trying to draw a line between what extra chromosomes do to a human and what they do to a supernatural creature (although you'd be hard pressed to say it was "extra" then) is too narrow-minded. There's not necessarily a correlation there.
If you can't stomach books that are about supernatural beings, there are plenty of books out there that don't have them, but to fault the author for "going against nature" is a little strange.
Be wrote: "my boyfriend says that the twilight series will not be a classic because there is no cross gender all crossgenerational appeal"Jane Austen's books (which are considered by many to be classics) do not have a great cross gender appeal. Neither do the books of Ernest Hemingway.
This is sort of strangely worded, so I don't know if you meant that Twilight has no cross-generational appeal or it does. I think it does as evidenced by the different ages of fans here. That this book is enjoyed by many different ages is definitely a factor in its popularity and that it crosses age differences is a mark of Meyer's talent.
Mickey wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "Besides, the twilight vamps pretty much go against nature itself. Saying that it's a dark magical curse or something would have been completely acceptable. But since SM added science..."You could you please explain how a creature that is frozen in time can create life then?
S.L.J. wrote: "You could you please explain how a creature that is frozen in time can create life then?"For thousands of years to the present day, people believe that unchangeable beings (gods) have created life. I don't know why you think it's a novel or far-out concept.
In Meyer's version, though, she makes distinctions between fertility in a male vampire and fertility in a female vampire (which makes sense to me, there are time limits and other constraints in females naturally that don't exist in males). I think she still leaves the door open for a pregnant female vampire. I say that because of the secretive and unsociable nature of vampire society could lead to many unexplored and unknown situations like the discovery of half-breeds.
Mickey wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "You could you please explain how a creature that is frozen in time can create life then?"For thousands of years to the present day, people believe that unchangeable beings (gods) h..."
But it still requires them to change. Even the males have to go though a biological/chemical change in order to impregnate a female. But SM specifically said that her vampires are 'frozen' in time and can't change.
And it's seems to be a universal theory that God/Gods can do pretty much anything so them 'changing' or creating life isn't much of a stretch.
she's great writer awesome
S.L.J. wrote: "And it's seems to be a universal theory that God/Gods can do pretty much anything so them 'changing' or creating life isn't much of a stretch."Then I don't understand your problem with the concept if you acknowledge that supernatural beings who are frozen in time and unchangeable have the ability to generate life or reproduce. This is another instance in a long tradition.
Perhaps to create life or regenerate for vampires does not require the change that it does for humans or the changes needed for males to impregnate humans does not fall under the ban that Meyer discussed of changing. Her vampires obviously change from day to day and minute by minute. I think you are being too literal with the "frozen" concept.
There was a very long and tedious conversation recently about "changing" that also featured a person who didn't seem to understand that being frozen in time did not mean that a vampire does not learn or retain information.
I took frozen to be a ban on aging for proper vampires, which is how Meyer used it in the story and this is hardly an unusual trait for supernatural creatures to have. 'Frozen' in time usually means not aging, not that they can't move or cannot learn the mores of new cultures or are forced to wander around in fashions from the time they turned. In Meyer's vision, it also affects the females ability to carry a child to term. (I'm not sure if it states that they can't become pregnant.)
I don't think Meyer's science fails at all. I think instead we have some amateur scientists here who would like others to believe that their objections to Twilight arise from a deep knowledge of science. However, most of the time it comes off as being too rigid and knowing a few scientific rules that they then try to pretend are universal and would apply to the supernatural as well. I always find it interesting when a person is railing on and on about reproduction as if they know something about how supernatural creatures would reproduce based on natural laws and human laws.
Having read books like the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon or The Time Traveler's Wife, where there is no sci-fi explanation for how and why time travel is happening, I don't think not including the sci-fi explanations makes Stephanie Meyer a bad writer. While I do think that it would have been really cool to have it, I also don't think it is truly necessary to these particular stories either. It's the same with the movie "The Lake House". Imo, the focus of the movie is really the relationship that develops between the two people...not how the mailbox works.Btw, I think people are taking the "vampires are frozen in time" a bit too literally. At first, I thought it was just a metaphoric phrase for explaing why they don't age. They obviously aren't 100% completely frozen. They move, they have brain function. They must eat in order to survive. Their eyes change color based on what they have or haven't eaten. (Some may remember that I have said that I didn't think Twilight was particularly well written in some regards and that I had my own personal criticisms of it.....well, this was one of them. I wouldn't call these vampires "dead". But that's just me. :o)
Stephanie Meyer addresses the question of how it was possible for Bella and Edward to have a child on her website...
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq....
Vampires and pregnancy: when did that idea occur to you? How does that work?
The first seed (no pun intended) was planted when I did Bella's computer research in chapter seven of Twilight. Bella reads about several real vampire legends—the Danag, Estrie, Upier, etc. In the novel, I only mentioned a few of the many legends I read through. One that I didn't mention at this point was the entry on the Incubus. The unique feature about that legend was that the incubus could father children. Hmmm, I said, and I filed that kernel of an idea away for later. When I decided to write the first sequel to Twilight (Forever Dawn), I knew it was going to revolve around a hybrid baby from the outset.
When my editor and I decided to go back and really develop Bella's last year of high school, I did so with the knowledge that it was all going to end up with the events in Breaking Dawn. Everything I wrote was pointed in that direction.
I was always very careful when I answered the "Can vampires have babies?" question, because I didn't want to say anything incorrect, but I also didn't want to make the future super-obvious. I focused my answers on the female half of the equation—female vampires cannot have children because their bodies no longer change in any aspect. There is no changing cycle to begin with, and their bodies couldn't expand to fit a growing child, either. I purposely evaded answering the question, "Can a male vampire get a human female pregnant?" to preserve a tiny bit of surprise in the last book. There were many statements on this subject purported to have come from me, but I never made those comments because, obviously, I knew where this was going.
Now, on to the "how is this possible?" question. First of all, of course it's not possible. None of this story is possible. It's a fantasy story about creatures that don't actually exist. Within the context of the fantasy, however, this is how it works:
Vampires are physically similar enough to their human origins to pass as humans under some circumstances (like cloudy days). There are many basic differences. They appear to have skin like ours, albeit very fair skin. The skin serves the same general purpose of protecting the body. However, the cells that make up their skin are not pliant like our cells, they are hard and reflective like crystal. A fluid similar to the venom in their mouths works as a lubricant between the cells, which makes movement possible (note: this fluid is very flammable). A fluid similar to the same venom lubricates their eyes so that their eyes can move easily in their sockets. (However, they don't produce tears because tears exist to protect the eye from damage, and nothing is going to be able to scratch a vampire's eye.) The lubricant-venom in the eyes and skin is not able to infect a human the way saliva-venom can. Similarly, throughout the vampire's body are many versions of venom-based fluids that retain a marked resemblance to the fluid that was replaced, and function in much the same way and toward the same purpose. Though there is no venom replacement that works precisely like blood, many of the functions of blood are carried on in some form. Also, the nervous system runs in a slightly different but heightened way. Some involuntary reactions, like breathing, continue (in that specific example because vampires use the scents in the air much more than we do, rather than out of a need for oxygen). Other involuntary reactions, like blinking, don't exist because there is no purpose for them. The normal reactions of arousal are still present in vampires, made possible by venom-related fluids that cause tissues to react similarly as they do to an influx of blood. Like with vampire skin—which looks similar to human skin and has the same basic function—fluids closely related to seminal fluids still exist in male vampires, which carry genetic information and are capable of bonding with a human ovum. This was not a known fact in the vampire world (outside of Joham's personal experimenting) before Nessie, because it's nearly impossible for a vampire to be that near a human and not kill her.
I didn't get into all of these details at my signings because it's a long, complicated mouthful. Also, it's hard to be clearly heard with all the screaming. Mostly, though, I waited to do this in writing because I have an immature, Homer Simpson-like tendency to giggle when I say the words "seminal fluids" in public.
My personal reactions to this....
I agree with the person who said that Stephanie Meyer should really just leave the sci-fi explanations out of it. Let's face it. I doubt that any sci-fi buff is going to accept that explanation. So why even bother going there? In my opinion, she created a pickle for herself by calling them dead, likening them to stone and marble and chategorizing them as frozen in time like statues and trying to explain the physiological bodily functions of Twilight vampires with science AFTER THE FACT. Here is where the retroactive conitiuty claim from Bill comes in. He actually has a valid point imo, but it stems from her being pushed into it by trying to cater to fans and critics after the fact. In the books, the vampires in the Twilight world were not aware that something like that was possible and they were all amazed by Renessme and Nahuel. I think she should have just left it at that in her explanations and left the rest to the reader's own imagination. Plus, if she and the editor knew where the story was going...why didn't the editor step in and say "let's not call them dead and frozen like statues so much here because later on, it will make it harder to explain how the baby was conceived."
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..."I think people just have a sour taste about her in general! I personally loved the seris and never came across anything that stood out to me as to call her a "bad Writer" however, following her on her website and facebook and watching her interviews and such kind of gave me a bad impression on her. I think that is what most people see!
In my own opinion Stephanie Meyer isn't a bad writer. Just Twilight isn't for some. For example I thought the Hunger Games was horrible, and I know I'll probably get ridiculed for saying that. But different genres appeal to different people. Twilight is no different. I once was a huge Twi-heart, but now I can't even stand hearing about it because it's such a fab now, I can't get back into it.
Avery wrote: "In my own opinion Stephanie Meyer isn't a bad writer. Just Twilight isn't for some. For example I thought the Hunger Games was horrible, and I know I'll probably get ridiculed for saying that. But ..."I feel the same way. It's kind of like all the hype ruined it for me. I know that sounds ridiculous but I don't know any other way to explain it.
Jocelyn wrote: "Yeah, I said it might survive as a classic not based on its merit but its controversy."Simple controversy doesn't do anything for longevity. Take The Satanic Verses, for example. If you didn't have to Google that to find out what it is, I'd be pleasantly surprised.
Bill wrote: "Simple controversy doesn't do anything for longevity. Take The Satanic Verses, for example. If you didn't have to Google that to find out what it is, I'd be pleasantly surprised."
Yeah, it's not just simple controversy. It's that the themes are supposedly (emphasis on SUPPOSEDLY--I am not arguing that Twilight is antifeminist in this case) pushing back feminism a couple hundred years, and it sure takes one daring author (if a stupid one, in your opinion I guess) to do that. So sometimes I just can't help but imagine future generations thinking about that. Thematic development is a crucial part of what makes a lot of books popular.
Like Mocha says, if Twilight ever does become a classic it won't be one of those "literary" ones like Pride and Prejudice or the Lord of the Rings...only something remotely interesting that survived past its heyday.
Eh. *shrug* Guess we'll have to wait out a couple of decades before we really see what happens.
Yeah, it's not just simple controversy. It's that the themes are supposedly (emphasis on SUPPOSEDLY--I am not arguing that Twilight is antifeminist in this case) pushing back feminism a couple hundred years, and it sure takes one daring author (if a stupid one, in your opinion I guess) to do that. So sometimes I just can't help but imagine future generations thinking about that. Thematic development is a crucial part of what makes a lot of books popular.
Like Mocha says, if Twilight ever does become a classic it won't be one of those "literary" ones like Pride and Prejudice or the Lord of the Rings...only something remotely interesting that survived past its heyday.
Eh. *shrug* Guess we'll have to wait out a couple of decades before we really see what happens.
Bill wrote: "Simple controversy doesn't do anything for longevity. Take The Satanic Verses, for example. ..."Hey, hey, give a little credit here - some of us are older than our Avatars make us look. :D
Jocelyn wrote: "Yeah, it's not just simple controversy. It's that the themes are supposedly (emphasis on SUPPOSEDLY--I am not arguing that Twilight is antifeminist in this case) pushing back feminism a couple hundred years,"
Hmm, Atwood said about feminism that it is an illusion, and that the moment things go bad people will become traditionalist again.
(She may have worded it less optimistic)
In that light, maybe twilight’s popularity is just a side-effect on literature caused by a faltering economy.
she's a good writer, but the story is bad !!!!
Dear Charlie wrote: "she's a good writer, but the story is bad !!!!"
Haha! That's interesting. A lot of people say the opposite.
Haha! That's interesting. A lot of people say the opposite.
Jocelyn wrote: "Dear Charlie wrote: "she's a good writer, but the story is bad !!!!"Haha! That's interesting. A lot of people say the opposite."
yeah i know but, i don't like the story, idk I hate "love love ooooh i love you" "you are the love of my life" "im yours" blablabla, but she's a good writer... The Host is amazing.
Dear Charlie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Dear Charlie wrote: "she's a good writer, but the story is bad !!!!"Haha! That's interesting. A lot of people say the opposite."
yeah i know but, i don't like the story, idk I hat..."
Yeah, I honestly love Twilight, it's just not everyone's cup of tea. I think people should stop basing her writing off this novel. People have said the Host is amazing (I have not read yet, but will soon) and Twilight was her first novel, and she didn't even mean for it to become a novel. I think people shouldn't judge her until she has more books out there because with the Twilight series, she wasn't at all experienced.
I can understand how people dislike the "you are the love of my life" thing. I love it, but again, not everyone's thing.
Gerd wrote: "Hey, hey, give a little credit here - some of us are older than our Avatars make us look."That's a good part of my point, though. The fatwah on Rushdie, and the subsequent removal from (most) bookstores and libraries of Verses, was a pretty big deal when it happened. The book itself is barely a blip on peoples' radar even after the controversy itself is all-but-forgotten.
Whatever controversy surrounds Twilight is barely a fraction as contentious as a hit put out on the author by Shi'ite Muslims. I don't see it as extending its longevity at all.
Jordan wrote: "Dear Charlie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Dear Charlie wrote: "she's a good writer, but the story is bad !!!!"Haha! That's interesting. A lot of people say the opposite."
yeah i know but, i don't like..."
obviously, i really like The host, i read twilight and i think it's ok, it doesn't mean stephanie is a bad writer.
Bill wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Hey, hey, give a little credit here - some of us are older than our Avatars make us look."That's a good part of my point, though. The fatwah on Rushdie, and the subsequent removal fr..."
actually, 60 minutes did an episode on Salman Rushdie only a few months ago. so, it's not like it's forgotten or anything.
Kirby wrote: "actually, 60 minutes did an episode on Salman Rushdie only a few months ago. so, it's not like it's forgotten or anything."Huh. Since I don't watch much TV, I missed that big time... but still: how often have we been updated on Rushdie's status? (I'm quite sincerely shocked that he's still alive, to be honest.)
Bill wrote: "Kirby wrote: "actually, 60 minutes did an episode on Salman Rushdie only a few months ago. so, it's not like it's forgotten or anything."Huh. Since I don't watch much TV, I missed that big time....."
ah, yeah...I work at a tv station, so I couldn't exactly avoid it. and it is true that I hadn't heard anything about him for quite a while, either...and I guess he was only on there b/c he's written a new book. here's an article about the episode (including how he stayed alive).
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162...
I think she is a fantastic story teller. I wish I could spin a tale that could generate me millions.However, do I like "Twilight"? Emphatic no.
I am not a fan of Twilight, well... I didn't hate the first book it was light and fluffy and made a good read after a fight with an ex-boyfriend a looong time ago when it first came out...However... The Host was fantastic, very different from her other books and I loved it... people who aren't sure about her should try The Host. :)
i didnt like the story, it's stupid
No, Stephanie as a writer is pretty good..
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Having read books like the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon or The Time Traveler's Wife, where there is no sci-fi explanation for how and why time travel is happening, I don't think not including..."Agreed completely. She should have just left that part out.
She also probably should have left the whole child-grooming thing out of the story since that has biological elements to it...as well as just being really wrong.
S.L.J. wrote: Agreed completely. She should have just left that part out.She also probably should have left the whole child-grooming thing out of the story since that has biological elements to it...as well as just being really wrong. ..."
She probably should have. But to be honest, I really don't like to put the most negative and most adult spins on things that were probably not intended to be as such. Child grooming has a negative connotation and usually implies that the child will be exploited in some way later on. I'm not convinced that this is the case with imprinting in Twilight. This may be due to my own experiences with animals gtowing up....but the imprinting process isn't always sexual, therefore, that isn't the first thought that comes to my mind when I read about imprinting in Twilight.
But I do see the point that you are making and it may have some validity. I'm starting to think about "Gigi" (which is one of my favorite old movies.)
Mocha Spresso wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: Agreed completely. She should have just left that part out.She also probably should have left the whole child-grooming thing out of the story since that has biological elements to i..."
It was stated in the books that 'Imprinting' was a way of finding the best mate so that the 'Werewolf/shapeshifter' gene could carry on. So basically, Jacob is going to wait until Nessie is at an age where she can reproduce then impregnate her and...well, what the result is would make an interesting story but I wish it could have come around some otherway.
S.L.J. wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: Agreed completely. She should have just left that part out.She also probably should have left the whole child-grooming thing out of the story since that has bi..."
Lol... Underworld, anyone?
Fairii wrote: "NO, SHE'S NOT A BAD WRITER. LOVE HER OR HATE HER, SHE HAD ACCOMPLISHED EVERYTHING A WRITER CAN EVER DREAM OF.AND...
THE HOST IS AMAZING! That is all."
I'm a bitch anyway so my comment doesn't matter. Tsk. People.
This thread was addicting - I read every page in one sitting. :) I really have nothing to add to the conversation, since all my thoughts - both positive and negative - have been addressed. I loved two of the books in the Twilight series, but the others...maybe not so much. :)
Even so, Twilight was the first book I ever saw my youngest daughter read cover-to-cover - and for that I am grateful! Stephenie managed to succeed in something I wasn't able to accomplish in 14 years of motherly cajoling.
That alone puts me squarely in the "Stephenie Meyer is NOT a bad writer" camp :)
No. to be honest her writing was what opened me up to reading new genres and reading more!
Ive read 2 of the books not my thing. I found them boring but that being said..I think good writing is when the author has the reader thinking of the charactors.. Wondering what will happen next..Have you excited to finish a book. So if the book does that to the reader then its good writing. run on sentence and such can be fixed being excited about reading a book can't
Teresa wrote: "Ive read 2 of the books not my thing. I found them boring but that being said..
I think good writing is when the author has the reader thinking of the charactors.. Wondering what will happen next...."
You have a point.
I think good writing is when the author has the reader thinking of the charactors.. Wondering what will happen next...."
You have a point.
I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twilight but as she wrote the books she became better or had at least better editors. Writing is a collabrative process that requires planning, proofreading, and editing. For Twilight I think she just winged it. Her eventual style is no better or worse than say a James Patterson. Sometimes he is good and sometimes he is a hack.
no , i dont think she is a bad writer.... just that the main charcter bella didnt always come in the correct form for me....
Jeffrey wrote: "I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twilight but as she wrote the books she became bett..."So are you saying its all about the grammer and run on sentences or about getting the reader excited. I can find books that are technically perfect but not interesting or fun to read.
Isn't reading about enjoyment?
Jeffrey wrote: "I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twilight but as she wrote the books she became bett..."Also isn't it a slippery slop telling potential new readers that a book they love it bad writing.
You can point out grammer mistakes or a technical level but reading is suppose to bring enjoyment and excite someone
Jeffrey wrote: "I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twilight but as she wrote the books she became bett..."Bull. If you self-edit to begin with, you may learn to do better, but you will not recieve any editorial help as you continue writing, because publishers think you know what you're doing. Likewise, if you start with an editor/proof-reader, you're more likely to learn how they can streamline your writing and eventually you won't need them anymore. Editorial work is temporary.
Siobhan wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twilight but as she wrote the books..."
The way you say this, its as if your speaking from experience. Do you?
The way you say this, its as if your speaking from experience. Do you?
Why don't you ask Charles Dickens? I'm sure he'll have something to say about it... something good.
Angela wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twilight but as she..."My friend got me some self-editing books a couple of years ago, because she knows that I do want to be published, it was in there, and I've seen articles in the past that back that up. I'm not saying Stephenie started out self-editing, or with an editor, but that is the way it normally goes.
Siobhan wrote: "Angela wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "I'm an 8th grade reading teacher that has had this discussion with my students. I have stated to them that I thought she was a poor writer during Twi..."
Interesting. Thank you.
Interesting. Thank you.
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'm not a big fan of classics, USUALLY. But that is probably because I am a teenager and I find them quite boring. But I think this does have potential of being what some would consider a "classic" because, IMO, its just that good.