Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
East of Eden is a bit intense and meaty for most teens, but I read it and loved it. Any teen with the attention span and stomach for some of the content would probably find the book amazing.
I wasn't asking whether teens would enjoy it. I was asking if people thought the content of East of Eden was appropriate for a teen audience. I ask because I am confused as to why Bella Swan of Twilight supposedly has more power to potentially corrupt innocent young girls than Cathy from East of Eden. I am not following why the content in East of Eden is deemed acceptable and Twilight's content is so potentially damaging. It seems a little hypocritical to me.
Cathy is not held up as a role model, she is shown more as someone evil. I doubt teens would be confused about Cathy's role in the book. East of Eden is literature, it has richness of themes, finely crafted plotting, well developed characters and writing so beautiful it puts the reader right on the scene. I do not see anything harmful to anyone in East of Eden. On the contrary, reading East of Eden should be highly beneficial. I am not saying Twilight is harmful either, just inferior writing to East of Eden, To Kill a Mockingbird, or a host of other books. I am delighted for all the readers who enjoy Twilight, I just decline to see it as the best book ever. Also, all this name calling in some of the posts is offensive. It has nothing to do with the quality of the books discussed.
Bill wrote: "What he did was a form of bullying, just as sure as what the cult of personality around Meyers has been doing this entire thread to "antis." We're brushed off, our points are dismissed as "mere opinion" (in the technical world, technical problems are bugs, not opinion, and Meyers makes plenty of technical mistakes), and in some instances we're ganged up on and personally attacked.. But we're the "bullies," we're wrong, and Meyers fanatics are not a cult, right?"So Bill thinks he's being bullied because his pronouncements are being "dismissed...as mere opinion". I don't know how a person reaches his middle ages without learning that others have opinions and they aren't easily swayed by ranting and raving. I can only imagine that the people in Bill's life coddle him and he's learned that when he throws a big enough fit, he gets his way. As I've said before, I feel sorry for anyone who has the misfortune of knowing Bill in real life.
The internet is different in the fact that we are disembodied posts and, as such, are not as easily intimidated by each other. I think this is part of Bill's frustration and why he lashes out here at every post. He can't stand that he cannot bring everyone to heel in the same way that works in his life. (I remember a post once where he talked about wanting to reach out and slap people who were saying that Twilight was good.) I'm not saying Bill resorts to violence, but I think all the justifications he gives himself here about his behavior and how he deals with "dissent" leads me to believe it's pretty probable.
What we have here is a person who is obviously used to being tip-toed around and has the unrealistic expectation that name-calling and ranting are effective means to change people's minds or get them to listen.
Bill wrote: "I can make fun of Twitards because they can help what they are: they can choose to read better books, idolize better authors... or, better yet, simply appreciate a good author without trying to force everyone around them to like them, too. You'll note, though, that I never go for their mental illnesses, or physical deformities. That's going way over the line."
This is just justification by Bill for his behavior. The truth is: People can like any book. Liking a book that Bill does not is hardly a good justification for "making fun" of them.
It's also interesting that he feels he has standards for what is acceptable and unacceptable to make fun of someone for. He's told others here that they don't have a sense of humor because they get offended by what he says to them, yet he cannot take a shot of his own medicine. Gerd was editing his work in much the same way as Bill has edited others. Kirby discussed his arguing style after he did the same to others. If anyone is lowering the tone around here, it would be Bill.
When discussing what civil conversation is, why would Bill make the rules? Why does he get to decide that he can call people stupid with impunity but that the line is drawn at mental illness? People can't help their intelligence level. There is no medication for that. However, people with mental illness have medications and therapies they can use to get better. The reason why Bill gives this a pass is not because people can't help themselves, it's because he's vunerable on this point. I think everyone who has been on here knows that Bill's paranoia and controlling behavior are not in the "mentally healthy" range.
Bill wrote: "If I were to take what I see in Mickey's picture and call her a "flat-chested, rat-faced, dyke-looking bitch," who here wouldn't automatically jump all over me and call me out? Who here wouldn't just tear into me like a well-cooked steak?"
I was thinking about how to respond to this. Since Bill doesn't have a picture up, I went searching using his name and location to see if I could find pictures. I found a picture of what probably is his son and wife. I was thinking of making a crack about how I probably do have a flatter chest than his son, but it's not his fault that he was born into Bill's family (and he's probably suffered enough for that) and, taking a step back, I'm not a person that engages in tearing down people that way. I'm on a book website because I'm a reader. I'm on the Twilight threads because I like Twilight. I have no burning frustrations in my life that I feel I have to visit on strangers. I don't need to puff myself up by knocking others down and I don't feel the need to control and punish people who have differing opinions. In short, I'm not like Bill.
This is such a subjective question and kinda pointless. Although I question SM personal relationships and world view (I think its a little skewed)I'd have to say given the success of her novels she is a decent writer. I found her very easy to read and she can weave a tale that captures and holds peoples interest.To Bill: Come on get a grip, leave the personal insults out of it.
Bill wrote: "Alex wrote: "..."No. There's no excuse that makes that funny in any way.
If I were to take what I see in Mickey's picture and call her a "flat-chested, rat-faced, dyke-looking bitch," who here w..."
So, just because we like Twilight It's okay to make fun? No! Okay, I get why you went off on Gerd, but if you want him to be nicer, maybe you should try it first.
Lulu wrote: "This is such a subjective question and kinda pointless."
Thinking critically about literature is never pointless (and, not to be a dick, I can't help but question why one is saying that this is "pointless" on a site dedicated to readers) and it's not only subjective--I believe it can be objective just as well.
Thinking critically about literature is never pointless (and, not to be a dick, I can't help but question why one is saying that this is "pointless" on a site dedicated to readers) and it's not only subjective--I believe it can be objective just as well.
I could excuse writing errors in grammar or her style, but a horrible plot and pointless characters are inexcusable.
Erica wrote: "I could excuse writing errors in grammar or her style, but a horrible plot and pointless characters are inexcusable."Unless a lack of plot and pointless characters was written so beautifully or humorously that you forgive her that. She can have one or the other, not both.
Jocelyn not all questions are created equal. Of course this question (like most analysis of literature) is totally subjective. To be objective, there would need to be a test or criteria one could apply which is not based on personal preference, which is impossible (when any test or criteria is constructed it is subject to this selection bias). I mean on what basis would you argue that a writer is bad? First you would need to define what is meant by "bad" plus is it a sliding scale or absolute measure? Then what rating would commercial success play in your measure? Then you would have to consider theories dealing with low and high art (pulp fiction like this is considered low art and hence by definition is bad or that's how those theories go).
Lulu wrote: "Jocelyn not all questions are created equal. Of course this question (like most analysis of literature) is totally subjective."
Heh. I think most analysis of literature is objective. Or maybe I'm confusing it with literary criticism.
Thanks for clarifying. I had thought you meant that this question was solely subjective--because of course, that's not true. This question still has the potential to be examined from an objective point of view.
However I still don't think the discussion question is pointless. It's always good to question whether the books you read are good ones.
Heh. I think most analysis of literature is objective. Or maybe I'm confusing it with literary criticism.
Thanks for clarifying. I had thought you meant that this question was solely subjective--because of course, that's not true. This question still has the potential to be examined from an objective point of view.
However I still don't think the discussion question is pointless. It's always good to question whether the books you read are good ones.
The problem on this thread is that there are people who want their opinion to be more than subjective. They want to claim objectivity and in such a thing as whether a writer is good or bad, it is completely subjective. For instance, you can say you didn't like the portrayal of vampires in Twilight, but to say that it was "wrong" or that it objectively proves that Meyer is a bad writer isn't supportable. I liked the changes Meyer made to her vampires. I thought it made for a more interesting story. That's entirely subjective and I'm perfectly fine with that. Some people have the unrealistic expectation that their opinions should be taken as fact (to the point that they actually say it's a fact). This isn't conducive to a respectful and interesting discussion.
Josh wrote: "I'd say no author that gets published is well and truly terrible. It's only once you've read several really good books and your standards are pushed a bit higher that you start calling stuff like T..."Yeah, that definitely does it. When I first started reading properly I was 14/15 and Twilight was one of the first books I read and enjoyed. However as I started writing myself and reading "better" books, my opinion of the series dropped...and the film came out and Kristen Stewart just made me angry.
The opinion of the books being badly written could also come from the age of the reader and the target age. Twilight is YA and I read a mixture of YA and adult but I enjoy adult much more now. As you get older your expectations change maybe...and then there's just what type of books a person enjoys in the first place (some may have been driven to the read the books because of the awful films).
Christina wrote: "The opinion of the books being badly written could also come from the age of the reader and the target age. Twilight is YA and I read a mixture of YA and adult but I enjoy adult much more now. As you get older your expectations change maybe...and then there's just what type of books a person enjoys in the first place (some may have been driven to the read the books because of the awful films)."I've heard this before, but it doesn't explain how many fans on here are middle aged adults who have read widely. I think what happens when you are growing up is that a lot of one's concept of maturity and intelligence comes from "branding" yourself by what you like and another thing that happens is a distaste for things that you've recently grown out of.
In other words, kindergarteners and first graders are often striving to get into chapter books and will often denigrate picture books as for babies and with every step up the reading hierarchy, you define yourself by what you read. I was always one of the first kids in my class to venture into new territory. I started reading YA books in elementary school and by middle school, I was reading only adult fiction. However, once you get to be a certain age, you don't have the same hang ups as before. I've read picture books that I think are outstanding and I don't feel self conscious that I'm reading kiddie literature, partially because, at a certain age, you realize the silliness of rejecting books based on their target age.
Mickey wrote: "Christina wrote: "The opinion of the books being badly written could also come from the age of the reader and the target age. Twilight is YA and I read a mixture of YA and adult but I enjoy adult m..."For me, it's not the age classification or even the genre. A beautifully written book is a beautifully written book. It should just be that simple when you read. You could get into any book really, if you only give it the chance. Or maybe you won't like what you read, but you'll feel something about it, regardless of who it was written for (it was written for the author first, after all). I'm glad I'm not the only one who loves books for books, not genre or age or vogue.
story of the book is quite stupid,its like nothing was planned.she just made next book without any thoughts or proper planning.it could have been alot better,i will say movies are better than the book.
Amna wrote: "story of the book is quite stupid,its like nothing was planned.she just made next book without any thoughts or proper planning.it could have been alot better,i will say movies are better than the ..."
Really, I thought the movies were worst, can't bring myself to watch the last two but I managed to read the whole series. Characters are a lot more flat in the movies.
Nuran wrote: "Amna wrote: "story of the book is quite stupid,its like nothing was planned.she just made next book without any thoughts or proper planning.it could have been alot better,i will say movies are bet..."
books are quite dragged on,specially new moon.
{cant say the movie was better}
movies were bearable,because of some effects,it could have been alot more exciting if it was not given from bellas point of view.
books are dry,at some places,SM tried to sound smart but was failed miserably,i think she was trying to match JK Rowling :p
Amna wrote: "story of the book is quite stupid,its like nothing was planned.she just made next book without any thoughts or proper planning.it could have been alot better,i will say movies are better than the ..."
I agree - I don't know why, though, but I usually find the movies better.
mkc120 wrote: "I don't think SM was trying to match JK Rowling because, to be truthful, JK Rowling isn't that good of an author."
I have to agree there. People are often saying "see Harry Potter is such a fucking masterpiece and why do people compare it to shit like Twilight." I like HP but I've never thought of it as extraordinary.
I have to agree there. People are often saying "see Harry Potter is such a fucking masterpiece and why do people compare it to shit like Twilight." I like HP but I've never thought of it as extraordinary.
mkc120 wrote: "Yes! Thank you: you have no idea how many people I've spoken to thinks that I'm stupid because I don't worship J.K. Rowling."
Whoa, that's pretty bad...:P
Can't say I've had that happen to me, but I'm pretty sure it will happen down the road.
This is a little irrelevant, but I've made a hobby of rambling, so whatever: HP really isn't that good, IMO. It's not bad either, but it's far, far, faaaaar from flawless--in fact, I would say it contains many of the same flaws people claim Twilight has.
Bad prose, for example. Rowling's prose isn't horrible but to me it always seemed very lackluster and inconsistent with its tone, jumping around so arbitrarily I had to wonder what the editor was doing before the books were published. Ultimately it lacks a real, consistent, solid style. She uses a lot of cliche terms and rather flippantly at that. In my opinion, words should be used with precision and flair, not carelessness.
Its characters aren't bad, but again they're nothing extraordinary. They are likable, but not unique in literature as a whole, and I felt like the "strong" women were specifically molded to fit the ideal of a strong female character. I don't like that. I like personalities that naturally arise from the characters, not ones that are imposed on them.
Etc. etc. Really, I think the people who go on a tirade of "HP is SOOO AWESOME and THEREFORE Twilight is SUUUCH SHIIIT and people who do not agree with me are IDIOOOOTS" should turn around and take a closer look at what they're proclaiming. That's saying a lot, because I'm actually one of the people who dislikes this series. It's fine to be an HP fan (I would even consider myself to be an HP fan, albeit not a very devoted one), but using this so-called "masterpiece" as an objective opinion is a little...cheap.
Whoa, that's pretty bad...:P
Can't say I've had that happen to me, but I'm pretty sure it will happen down the road.
This is a little irrelevant, but I've made a hobby of rambling, so whatever: HP really isn't that good, IMO. It's not bad either, but it's far, far, faaaaar from flawless--in fact, I would say it contains many of the same flaws people claim Twilight has.
Bad prose, for example. Rowling's prose isn't horrible but to me it always seemed very lackluster and inconsistent with its tone, jumping around so arbitrarily I had to wonder what the editor was doing before the books were published. Ultimately it lacks a real, consistent, solid style. She uses a lot of cliche terms and rather flippantly at that. In my opinion, words should be used with precision and flair, not carelessness.
Its characters aren't bad, but again they're nothing extraordinary. They are likable, but not unique in literature as a whole, and I felt like the "strong" women were specifically molded to fit the ideal of a strong female character. I don't like that. I like personalities that naturally arise from the characters, not ones that are imposed on them.
Etc. etc. Really, I think the people who go on a tirade of "HP is SOOO AWESOME and THEREFORE Twilight is SUUUCH SHIIIT and people who do not agree with me are IDIOOOOTS" should turn around and take a closer look at what they're proclaiming. That's saying a lot, because I'm actually one of the people who dislikes this series. It's fine to be an HP fan (I would even consider myself to be an HP fan, albeit not a very devoted one), but using this so-called "masterpiece" as an objective opinion is a little...cheap.
Mickey wrote: "Christina wrote: "The opinion of the books being badly written could also come from the age of the reader and the target age. Twilight is YA and I read a mixture of YA and adult but I enjoy adult m..."Yeah my mom is in her 40's and thinks it's fantastic! she seriously never put it down! She canceled everything she had planned for that day just to read it. She read the entire saga in 4 days.
Jocelyn wrote: "mkc120 wrote: "I don't think SM was trying to match JK Rowling because, to be truthful, JK Rowling isn't that good of an author."I have to agree there. People are often saying "see Harry Potter i..."
I think the ending of Harry Potter was fantastic. I think she wrapped it up amazingly, but thinking back on the ENTIRE series, I can't say I enjoyed every minute of it. I mean the first book bored me out of my mind, but that doesn't mean it was bad. I read it at, like 7 or 8 years old, but whatever.
Sonny wrote: "Awkward phrases and too wordy at times, but overall I think shes a good storyteller, which I think is the most important part of the novel. Go Stephenie!"I absolutely agree with this. I really enjoyed the first and last book in the Twilight series and also The Host was quite good though I did find that I got bored in between.
I loved the books but I found that she would repeat herself when describing Edward and she would constantly say how beautiful and perfect he was. That annoyed me a little about the books, but I overlooked it and just enjoyed reading them.
mkc120 wrote: "The Deathly Hallows bored me in some parts."
Yeah, it bored me too. Rowling lost her stride in some places and I thought she was kinda meandering around the writer's block. The rhythm of the novel especially dropped when they were hunting the Horcruxes and camping.
Yeah, it bored me too. Rowling lost her stride in some places and I thought she was kinda meandering around the writer's block. The rhythm of the novel especially dropped when they were hunting the Horcruxes and camping.
Peace wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "mkc120 wrote: "The Deathly Hallows bored me in some parts."Yeah, it bored me too. Rowling lost her stride in some places and I thought she was kinda meandering around the writer's..."
jk is a great writer...she wrote books with some rich details,described the characters properly,one cannot think of her next twist while reading.
if deathly hallows was boring at some parts but dont forget that she made connection of things with knowledge that was mostly ignored by all.lets give her some credit.
best part is,harry grew up as the readers grew up.JK captured a particular generation.she has a unique style that is shown not only in HP series but also in casual vacancy.
she created a new world for its readers.
mkc120 wrote: "Amna wrote: "Nuran wrote: "Amna wrote: "story of the book is quite stupid,its like nothing was planned.she just made next book without any thoughts or proper planning.it could have been alot bette..."
JK wrote some good books with proper logic and rich details.she gave some great lessons of life and family.
i believe that her books are not about magic or spells,but she wrote about family and friendship.she nourished the characters as the readers grew up.
she gave us a magical decade,lets give her some credit.
mkc120 wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "mkc120 wrote: "I don't think SM was trying to match JK Rowling because, to be truthful, JK Rowling isn't that good of an author."I have to agree there. People are o..."
haha
i think stephanie myers is a great writer. the only problem i have with her works is that she spends too much time discribing things, people, feelings, places etc. i enjoyed reading the twilight sega. i am a self proclaimed twihard. i love the idea of vampires, werewolves and the magic and history involved. but you dont need to take pages to describe how edward looks and how he makes bella feel. i have been trying to read 'the host' and it is the same problem. i cant get into it because she spends pages describing the detail of the cave walls. move on! give us some action!
I don't think she is a bad writer. But, for me twilight was THE WORST BOOK SERIES EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But when I read The Host I loved it . If she had never wrote Twilight I would put her in my top 20 best author . But sadly no because of stupid twilight . Bad role model , bad message , and I HATE BELLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nataly wrote: "I don't think she is a bad writer. But, for me twilight was THE WORST BOOK SERIES EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But when I read The Host I loved it . If she had never wrote Twilight I would put her i..."high five nataly...I HATE HER TOO :p
I really love the quote of the day:“Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it means...”
— Umberto Eco
From The Name of the Rose
Of course she's a terrible writer. The fact that the characters in her novels, specifically Twilight, go through no significant development as human beings is the first indication of her bad writing skills. They just go from being bad people to even worse versions of themselves. Her books are nothing but fluff: there is no substantial material or knowledge to gain from them, no sense of insight into these character's personalities because they have no personality. They are generic characters with barely any description provided for them so they can serve as a shell for angst-ridden teenage girls to fill, so they can easily take the place of the characters in these novels. To sum it up, the characters make so significant effort to drive the plot forward because they themselves do not drive forward and do not undergo any changes. Anyone who thinks this woman has even a drop of literary talent is extremely misguided.
Rosa wrote: "They just go from being bad people to even worse versions of themselves."But then you can't claim that there's no development, can you?
Gerd wrote: "Rosa wrote: "They just go from being bad people to even worse versions of themselves."But then you can't claim that there's no development, can you?"
Facepalm.jpg
Darci wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Rosa wrote: "They just go from being bad people to even worse versions of themselves."But then you can't claim that there's no development, can you?"
Facepalm.jpg"
I wouldn't be so harsh, she probably just meant that there's no character development for the better. :)
People are just too quick to criticize when they are probably the ones who have all of her books anyways (: She has had HUGE success from her books and just has a different style of writing. But it obviously paid off and she knows what she's doing.
Chrissy wrote: "People are just too quick to criticize when they are probably the ones who have all of her books anyways (: She has had HUGE success from her books and just has a different style of writing. But it..."So did fifty shades and that is equally terrible. Capitalising on the current craze is not the same as being talented enough to draw a fan base.
Yeah, money does not equal talent. She's a two-bit hack. It's OK to love her books, I love some things that are objectively terrible too, but it's just delusional to insist that it's good writing.
Darci wrote: "Yeah, money does not equal talent. She's a two-bit hack. It's OK to love her books, I love some things that are objectively terrible too, but it's just delusional to insist that it's good writing."Who are you to decide what's "objectively terrible"? You have a subjective opinion like everyone else, and you're entitled to that, but your opinion certainly doesn't deserve the weight you're giving it. Calling others delusional because they might have a different opinion than yours? Allowing people to love her books as long as they don't find the writing good? What authority do you have to tell people how to respond to a book?
It's terrible. Ask a critic, or a literature professor, or anyone who is fucking literate. This is not good writing, and yes you are delusional if you insist otherwise. SMeyer doesn't need your defense, she has your money already.
Darci wrote: "...or anyone who is fucking literate."Well, I have no idea who Literate is, but I wonder how sleeping with him or her makes one an expert to judge the quality of twilight? o_o
Mickey wrote: "Darci wrote: "Yeah, money does not equal talent. She's a two-bit hack. It's OK to love her books, I love some things that are objectively terrible too, but it's just delusional to insist that it's ..."Subjective: Bella was heart-broken, passionate and desprete for any contact with her soul-mate.
Objective: She jumped off a cliff in order to have a hallucinogenic visitation from her dead ex-boyfriend.
There are healthier ways to deal with loss <- also objective.
S.L.J. wrote: Subjective: Bella was heart-broken, passionate and desprete for any contact with her soul-mate.Objective: She jumped off a cliff in order to have a hallucinogenic visitation from her dead ex-boyfriend.
There are healthier ways to deal with loss <- also objective
"
Of course there are. But honestly, I usually tend to hate it when characters are completely perfect and do exactly what they are supposed to all pf the time.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: Subjective: Bella was heart-broken, passionate and desprete for any contact with her soul-mate.Objective: She jumped off a cliff in order to have a hallucinogenic visitation from he..."
Getting therapy, having to work through your problems and having those problems to begin with makes a person less than perfect.
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...
East of Eden might be a bit intense for some teens, although the writing is sublime and the themes of the story very worthwhile. If the teen is reading at an advanced level, then East of Eden would be awesome.