Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 101-150 of 2,281

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "So far, I'm not impressed with your skills. "

LOL damn, now I can't live with myself!

[Zoran]

Peace wrote: "why do some ppl don't like SM when she was the one that wrote, the whole twi books even before the movie came out type of thing.."

Because we think that it is a very, very bad book.

[Kirby]

Marie wrote: "I also don't like how she changes point of view. If you go back and read the beginning of the series, the first chapter of the first book was written kind of in first person, and with out acknowledging that it was possibly a journal entry she switches into third person for the rest of the book. "

the entire series was first person- the only thing that changed was that part of book 4 was in jacob's (still first person) POV. I'm really confused as to what you're talking about...

[Mickey]

Kirby wrote: "Marie wrote: "I also don't like how she changes point of view. If you go back and read the beginning of the series, the first chapter of the first book was written kind of in first person, and with..."

I was wondering that, too.

[[deleted user]]

I couldn't stand Twilight. I only read the first one. It could have used better editing but I have read worse. I really liked "The Host" and the writing was just fine. Not the best I've ever read of course but it didn't get in the way of the story and that is what is important to me. I have read enough books that had cringe-inducing writing and even though I didn't care for the Twilight story, it wasn't the writing that was the problem for me. I wish SM would write more SF/F.

[Amanda]

Dipendra wrote: "Stephenie has scored a bloody good number of fans.This only means that she is a bloody good writer or people,nowadays,fall for everything gooey romantic."

With all due respect, but just because someone (or something, for that matter), is popular does not mean it's good or right. However, I agree with you that society nowadays have somehow made abusive relationships admirable and desirable.

Anyway, in my opinion her writing is quite...drab.
Her characters and plot line are somewhat one dimensional, no layers to enhance her writing at all.
Though it isn't the worse writing that could possibly exist, it doesn't deserve much high praise, either.

[[deleted user]]

Scrooge wrote: "Dipendra wrote: "Stephenie has scored a bloody good number of fans.This only means that she is a bloody good writer or people,nowadays,fall for everything gooey romantic."

With all due respect, b..."
I haven't read Stephenie's other books except the vampire series and I have a general idea of how she writes. I too believe that her writing is rather dry. You can absolutely question her writing skills. But she came out of the box opening a whole new dimension to seeing the long existing stereotype of vampirism fed to people by the likes of Bram Stoker and Anne Rice. She brought something new, something corny...Funny thing is she sold it and she sold it good. Guess new generation likes new and corny...We know Stephenie Meyer is a trademark now, so every crap she throws at us, is welcomed. It's not like people are gonna stop reading her stuffs just like that. People are obsessed.

[Candace]

The plot wasn't that bad, obviously a large amount of people enjoy her stories (or at least have a fascination with them). It just bugged me that her books had many typos (grammatical, spelling, etc.), and if a series is going to sell that many books you would think they could run it past a few more editors. I found myself correcting her grammar and punctuation while I read the books.

[Erin]

I enjoy the story part just because I have always liked vampire stories. Though I agree with Zoran. Edward was often described as "perfect," but most writers know, or should at least, that perfect is an empty descriptor. The writers job is to show not tell and that, in my opinion obviously, is where she fell short. She did describe to a large extent certain things but she never really showed it. She didn't paint a picture for the reader. That doesn't mean that she is a horrible writer, I really enjoyed The Host, but I do agree that certain things could have been done better with a little more effort.

[Diane]

Zoran wrote: "It's the same with SM fans. You guys don't really care for good writing, you just want vampire romances and some prince charming that you can dream of. And the fact that SM couldn't write well if it ment her life, that is not really your concern.
"

I don't get why people need to make comments like this.

Do they do this to get attention? Or do they really believe that those damaging generalizations are true? Do they get off on belittling other people?

[Nermin]

Jordan wrote: "I think Stephanie is an amazing writer! I mean, People can say they don't like the books, that's they're opinion. But the storyline doesn't make her a good/bad author. People are only saying that b..."

nope, you're wrong there, i like love triangles and I really love vampire novels like Dracula and Anne Rice's vampire series. I wouldn't criticize SM even if i didn't like these things. I just don't like Stephanie Mayer's writing techniques and Twilight's plot. I hate these unrealistic characters, i don't mean vampires when i say unrealistic. i don't have problems with fantasy elements in literature, but i really hate "perfect characters". they're handsome/beautiful, wealthy, strong, special, they can do anything. what's more irritating is that they always fall for really stupid and insecure human beings. they encounter some difficulties, overcome it and live happily ever after. that's it. i don't know you but i get no pleasure reading stuff like this. Again, I won't say Twilight is a horrible book, I've read much worse books (take fifty shades series for instance), but it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more.

[[deleted user]]

Narmin wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I think Stephanie is an amazing writer! I mean, People can say they don't like the books, that's they're opinion. But the storyline doesn't make her a good/bad author. People are onl..."

You hit the nail on the head. I mean Jordan never even offered any information on how she's an amazing writer but rather attempted to vindicate her by condemning the people who dislike her work. I can say right now that not only does she fail to create any sort of convincing characters, but her prose is boring, over stuffed with info, really pretentious and contained many hanging modifiers.

[Mickey]

Narmin wrote: "...it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more."

I always think it's an interesting claim to say that a book doesn't deserve the attention it gets. It's sort of "according to whom?" How can you reasonably have an expectation that everyone should feel like you? It got attention because a lot of people like it. There's something there if a lot of people are fans of it. It's a shame if you couldn't enjoy it the way others did, but not every book is for every person.

And aren't you giving it attention by talking about it? If it doesn't deserve the attention it gets, why are you giving it more?

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "And aren't you giving it attention by talking about it? If it doesn't deserve the attention it gets, why are you giving it more? "

We like to state our views :-p

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "We like to state our views :-p"

That's funny, Zoran, because I've given you the floor several times to make your case as to how Twilight is badly written (which you claim is "a fact") and you refuse to do it. I think it's more like "We like to snark, but when asked to put up or shut up, we'll do neither".

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "...it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more."

I always think it's an interesting claim to say that a boo..."

Now, I don't know about Narmin, but when I'm mentioning "undeserved attention" in terms of music, writing or I don't know what, I refer to quality of execution. Like, when you have mega popular singer that isn't really singing very good, but is very pretty or sexy or I don't know what... and gets very popular. I call that "undeserved attention" because it isn't deserved by quality of singing or music. One might argue that it is deserved by many hours of gym practice, needed to get a sexy body, but somehow I feel that sexy body shouldn't be important when we are discussing music.

Much like that, when we are discussing books, "undeserved attention" would refer to a badly written book, that got popular because it has pretty characters inside, or I don't know, BDSM scenes. One might argue that it is deserved by many sold copies or something like that, but somehow I feel that market scores shouldn't be important when we are discussing books.

Again, it's my view, I don't know what Narmin ment by it :-)

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "...it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more."

I always think it's an interesting claim to say that a boo..."

"It got attention because a lot of people like it. There's something there if a lot of people are fans of it."

I'm pretty sure the only reason why people like Twilight (the majority being female young adults) is that Bella is practically the frame for any girl to fit in. She has no distinctive quality to make her character unique or stand out in any way but rather as a looking glass. The romantic counterpart, Edward Cullen, is a Mary Sue; he is a perfect individual who will love this frame completely and unconditionally. To add to that, Meyer sugarcoats everything about their relationship with their only affliction being that he's a vampire and she's not. What insecure teen girl wouldn't want to have an Edward Cullen?

[Zoran]

Uncommon Sellsword wrote: "I'm pretty sure the only reason why people like Twilight (the majority being female young adults) is that Bella is practically the frame for any girl to fit in. She has no distinctive quality to make her character unique or stand out in any way but rather as a looking glass. The romantic counterpart, Edward Cullen, is a Mary Sue; he is a perfect individual who will love this frame completely and unconditionally. To add to that, Meyer sugarcoats everything about their relationship with their only affliction being that he's a vampire and she's not. What insecure teen girl wouldn't want to have an Edward Cullen?"

Exactly. Those traits make Edward great as a fantasy, but at the same time awfull as a book character.

(When I say "awfull" I mean badly written)

[Nermin]

Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "...it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more."

I always think it's an interesting claim to say that a boo..."

Jesus, we are discussing a book here. there's a question asked and I'm stating my opinion. i don't always talk about twilight, if i had been trolling in every twilight topic you could've said I'm giving it my attention. but I'm not doing that, I'm just answering a question, it's not "giving attention".

"There's something there if a lot of people are fans of it" A lot of people may like a lot things, this doesn't make those things "good". because obviously quantity is not necessarily quality.

[Nermin]

Zoran wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "...it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more."

I always think it's an interesting claim to..."

I meant exactly what you mean, Zoran :)

[[deleted user]]

Narmin wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "...it just doesn't deserve all the attention and acclaim it got. This is just an average book. nothing less nothing more."

I always think it's an interesting claim to..."

Do all these DIE-hard Meyer fans go apeshit over one comment about this novel's overly received attention? LOL

I find that quite mind-boggling.

[Zoran]

Uncommon Sellsword wrote: "Do all these DIE-hard Meyer fans go apeshit over one comment about this novel's overly received attention? LOL"

Nope, but Mickey does :-))))

[Mickey]

Uncommon Sellsword wrote: "I'm pretty sure the only reason why people like Twilight (the majority being female young adults) is that Bella is practically the frame for any girl to fit in. She has no distinctive quality to make her character unique or stand out in any way but rather as a looking glass."

Finally, someone answered the question (well, sort of)!

Do you think there's something wrong with being either female or young? Explain, please. I don't find older males to be a much more prestigious reading demographic than young females.

And if Bella was constructed as an everyman character (much like Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker), what is wrong with that? It's a perfectly legitimate practice to have a main character that is easily identified with. In fact, there are people who fault writers all the time for making their characters hard to like or not relatable. I don't see a problem here (except personal preference, maybe).

As for Edward Cullen being a Mary Sue, explain in what ways that he is. Loving someone unconditionally isn't a characteristic of a Mary Sue character. He is not written as perfect at all, perhaps you haven't dug deep enough in the novel to realize that Bella, being in love with Edward, calls him perfect, but Jacob, in his section, doesn't share that view. Bree, in her book, doesn't notice his perfection either.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean when you say she "sugarcoats everything about their relationship with their only affliction being that he's a vampire and she's not". Explain that.

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "What insecure teen girl wouldn't want to have an Edward Cullen?" I'm not sure how a favorable reaction to a male lead is a valid criticism. (BTW, many teens girls prefer Jacob.)

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "was constructed as an everyman character (much like Harry Potter "

What do you mean by HP being everyman character? I think he fits into a quite specific archetype. I don't like that archetype and I think it's been overused in literature, but he has some distinctive traits.

Also, I think that there are much more girls in HP fandom, than boys in Twilight fandom. So I guess it's not the same thing, just with opposite sexes.

[Nermin]

"but Jacob, in his section, doesn't share that view."

Why would Jacob think Edward is perfect if they're in love with the same girl and if they don't like each other in the first place?

And Edward is described as being beautiful, wealthy, strong, loving, caring, immortal and so on. doesn't that kind of sound like perfect man?) and do you think this series would be so popular if Edward was an ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes(like our beloved tyrion lannister)? I don't think so.

[Mickey]

Narmin wrote: "Jesus, we are discussing a book here. there's a question asked and I'm stating my opinion. i don't always talk about twilight, if i had been trolling in every twilight topic you could've said I'm giving it my attention. but I'm not doing that, I'm just answering a question, it's not "giving attention"."

Well, it is true that if you were trolling on every Twilight topic, you would be giving it more attention, however, I don't think you can reasonably say that you coming here and complaining about it getting so much attention is not giving it any attention at all. You're part of the problem then, aren't you? Or are you just upset with positive attention?

[Zoran]

Narmin wrote: "and do you think this series would be so popular if Edward was an ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes(like our beloved tyrion lannister)?"

Exactly.

[Mickey]

Narmin wrote: "And Edward is described as being beautiful, wealthy, strong, loving, caring, immortal and so on. doesn't that kind of sound like perfect man?) and do you think this series would be so popular if Edward was an ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes(like our beloved tyrion lannister)? I don't think so."

Again, how is this a valid criticism? If Edward is such a perfect man, why are there women who prefer Jacob? Edward's appeal to the reader is hardly visual. It's a book. There are no visuals. So to fault readers for liking a book because of the attractiveness of the male lead is strange to me. Can you explain further?

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "Also, I think that there are much more girls in HP fandom, than boys in Twilight fandom. So I guess it's not the same thing, just with opposite sexes."

You guess what's not the same thing?

[Nermin]

Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "And Edward is described as being beautiful, wealthy, strong, loving, caring, immortal and so on. doesn't that kind of sound like perfect man?) and do you think this series would be s..."

According to you, criticizing a book for being poorly written, for having unconvincing, unrealistic characters is not valid. Then what is valid criticism to you, Mickey? can you explain?

As for Jacob, well isn't he also a Mary Sue? it's not at all surprising that people prefer a hot handsome werewolf(or shapeshifter) to a blood-sucking cold vampire.

"So to fault readers for liking a book because of the attractiveness of the male lead is strange to me."

To like a book for attrectiveness of the male characters is even stranger, if you ask me.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "You guess what's not the same thing? "

Twilight being popular because girls can project theselves in "Bella frame" and fantasize about prince charming is not the same thing as HP is for boys.

Because if it were, then HP would be read predominately by boys, just as Twilight is by girls. But that's not the fact.

And that's because there is more to HP story, so both genders can enjoy it, while Twilight is... well.. it's like, men have porn movies. And they are poor acting, bad camera, no plot... but men still watch them. Yes, some girls also watch them (I'm not talking about feminist porn here, I'm talking about regular ones) but statistics show that they are rare compared to male audience. Somehow, porn films respond to some male needs.

Twilight is like that. In a way, it's like female version of porn - poor characters, bad writing, lousy plot, but girls still love it. Yes, some guys also, but they are rare compared to female audience. Somehow, Twilight responds to some female needs.

But that doesn't make porn films good films (in terms of film making), or Twilight a good book (in terms of writing).

[Mickey]

I don't think it's a given that it is badly written, though. Is there a consensus even on this thread? I'm waiting to hear how the characters are unconvincing or unrealistic. Really, the OP was asking for specifics and most of the posts feature sweeping statements and generalizations. This is your chance to explain.

If you want to say that Jacob is a Mary Sue, I'm still waiting for how Edward is one. Saying it doesn't make it so. Explain it.

If preference makes someone a Mary Sue, then aren't all characters Mary Sues? Every character has a fan base. My favorite HP character is Severus Snape. This doesn't make him a Mary Sue.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "If you want to say that Jacob is a Mary Sue, I'm still waiting for how Edward is one."

Narmin told you that. It's been probably told to you thousand times before, I would bet, but you are in denial :-)))

Well, it's your choice. I guess one would have to be mad to try to change your view :-))

After all, "fan" is short for "fanatic", isn't it? ;-)

[Nermin]

"A Mary Sue (sometimes just Sue), in literary criticism and particularly in fan fiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader. It is generally accepted as a character whose positive aspects overwhelm their other traits until they become one-dimensional" sayd wikipedia. Both Jacob and Edward perfectly fits in this category.

Nobody says preference is making Edward a Mary Sue. The way he is, the way he is described is what makes him a Mary Sue.

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "Twilight being popular because girls can project theselves in "Bella frame" and fantasize about prince charming is not the same thing as HP is for boys.

Because if it were, then HP would be read predominately by boys, just as Twilight is by girls. But that's not the fact."

You're ignoring the fact that a lot of boys will not read a "girl's" book. It's even a fact that having a female author (even if the lead is a male) is considered a possible stumbling block. This is why women still go by their initials as opposed to their first names (J.K. Rowling, S.E. Hinton being the first examples off the top of my head). Girls will read books by males or females with male or female leads. Boys won't. This makes HP more easily marketable than Twilight, which makes the case that Twilight's popularity is even more deserved, because it has to overcome the disability of having a female lead and a female author (who didn't use her initials).

I don't know what such an argument has to do with Harry Potter being an everyman character.

Saying that Twilight caters to women's concerns is not a real criticism. That it does accounts for a lot of flak it gets, I'm sure, although most people will deny it, but it's evident when they talk about the female fan base as if this somehow proves its worthlessness.

As far as being like porn, no one's made any persuading argument that it is badly written. People say it but can't show it.

[Nermin]

Zoran wrote: "Mickey wrote: "If you want to say that Jacob is a Mary Sue, I'm still waiting for how Edward is one."

Narmin told you that. It's been probably told to you thousand times before, I would bet, but y..."

Yeah, i feel like Mickey is arguing for the sake of argument. Because I don't know how i can be more precise than I already am.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "As far as being like porn, no one's made any persuading argument that it is badly written. People say it but can't show it. "

People show it all the time, you just decide not to see it ;-)

[Mickey]

Narmin wrote: ""A Mary Sue (sometimes just Sue), in literary criticism and particularly in fan fiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and prima..."

This is a description of what a Mary Sue is. This is not an explanation to how it applies to Edward or Jacob. (I've already been over this with Zoran.)

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "You're ignoring the fact that a lot of boys will not read a "girl's" book. It's even a fact that having a female author (even if the lead is a male) is considered a possible stumbling block. This is why women still go by their initials as opposed to their first names (J.K. Rowling, S.E. Hinton being the first examples off the top of my head). Girls will read books by males or females with male or female leads. "

LOL Wow, a serious argument! I'm impressed :-))

Yes, that might be.

Of course, it also might not be, because Rowling was so famous that very soon everyone knew she was a woman. Maybe not with the first book, but soon afterwards.

I tend to feel that the prejudice towards female writers is a thing of the past, but I might be wrong - I socialise mostly with people of liberal views, and vast majority of others often surprises me with their conservative ideas.

On the other hand, if we ignore the writer and discuss just the work, some books are indeed considered "girl's books" and some are considered "boy's books". And some are not cosidered either.

And I guess that those books who are considered "boy's" or "girl's" might really respond to some needs specific to reader's gender.

If those books are well written, one might read them because they are good literature.

If they are not well written - well, it's just like what I said about porn :-))

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "People show it all the time, you just decide not to see it "

There's an even simplier explanation: it's not there. If it were, why aren't you making a case? Because you don't have anything. Far from being "a fact", your insistence that Meyer is a bad writer appears to be an uninformed and unfounded opinion.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "Far from being "a fact", your insistence that Meyer is a bad writer appears to be an uninformed and unfounded opinion. "


Hardly :-))

Look there, Narmin gave you a Mary Sue, and you keep going "No it's not, no it's not, I don't see it, explain to me..."

Well, I'm sorry. I see that you are just as bored as I am, otherwise one of us wouldn't be here having this discussion, but this is the amount of effort I'm willing to invest in your enlightment. If one tells you "Mary Sue", gives you a link, and tells you why Edward is one (and Narmin did) and you still need more explanation... LOL I guess I'm not THAT bored.

On the other hand, if you need that much explanation... nah, I'm not going to say that.

[Nermin]

Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: ""A Mary Sue (sometimes just Sue), in literary criticism and particularly in fan fiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy f..."

oh, it applies to them because they are both overly idealized, lack noteworthy flaws", primarily function as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the reader(for SM herself as well , something tells me) And their (especially Edward's) "positive aspects overwhelm their other traits until they become one-dimensional".

As for poor writing, shall i fetch a copy of twilight and write every sentence here and analyze it? i see you've read Dostoevsky books, well can't you tell the difference between good and bad writing?

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "LOL Wow, a serious argument! I'm impressed"

Thanks! I make serious arguments all the time, but it's nice to be appreciated for them occasionally. It helps when people give you enough information to present one. (Keep that in mind...)

As far as being in the past, when did the first Harry Potter book come out? It wasn't the distant past.

This doesn't really explain how Harry is not an everyman character that readers are supposed to identify with. Are you contending that Harry has flaws like Snape or Dumbledore or Ron? The only time he shows something even a little off-putting was the "whininess" in the fifth book, which was discontinued after the criticism she received.

[Mickey]

Narmin wrote: "oh, it applies to them because they are both overly idealized, lack noteworthy flaws", primarily function as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the reader(for SM herself as well , something tells me) And their (especially Edward's) "positive aspects overwhelm their other traits until they become one-dimensional"."

This is still just saying something. Let me give you an example of explanation: Jacob is overly idealized because in chapter 4 of New Moon, it says... You aren't giving the "how". You are stating that he's overly idealized. Okay. How?

How does it apply to them? Saying that it does doesn't make it so. Perhaps you should go on some threads and look at how fans explain. That will give you a better idea of what's considered acceptable on this site.

Narmin wrote: "As for poor writing, shall i fetch a copy of twilight and write every sentence here and analyze it? i see you've read Dostoevsky books, well can't you tell the difference between good and bad writing? "

I can tell the difference between good writing and bad. Twilight isn't bad writing. This is coming from someone who has read widely. Your arguments to the contrary aren't very convincing. (I don't even think they reach the level of arguments. They're just statements.)

Maybe you should think about whether you are a proper judge of good literature or if you are elevating your opinions into fact.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "As far as being in the past, when did the first Harry Potter book come out? It wasn't the distant past.

This doesn't really explain how Harry is not an everyman character that readers are supposed to identify with. Are you contending that Harry has flaws like Snape or Dumbledore or Ron?"

Nope, HP wasn't published in distant past but also I'm not sure that publishing it under Rowling's full name would have changed anything.

So, you say HP is also Mary Sue character? Might be. He is not as smart as Hermione, and he seems a bit unable to understand her feelings... but he is overall smart enough, fine looking, popular, brave, sportsman... yeah, I see no serious flaws. His values are not as bluntly overstated as Edwards, but that's just because Rowling is better writer than SM.

Yeah, I might agree that HP is MS character, at least in the first book (I read only first HP book). On the other hand, it is a children's book, and I am ready to tolerate less complex characters in children's books, because too much complexity might confuse such young readers.

[Nermin]

Mickey wrote: "Narmin wrote: "oh, it applies to them because they are both overly idealized, lack noteworthy flaws", primarily function as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the reader(for SM herself as well , someth..."

I never once elevated my opinions into fact. I never said I'm a proper judge of good literature. But then you don't have to be literary critic to share your opinion about a book or to see that Twilight does NOT fall into the category of good literature. I know what's coming next, now you're going to ask me to explain what a good literature is. But that's it for me. Because as i said earlier, you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Even Meyer would be impressed with your unwavering defence. But I'm not, I'm really bored and tired. if you don't see how truly one-dimensional, how fake(not to mention boring and unoriginal) these character are I don't think any passage i quote from the book would change your mind. if you like these books, go on and enjoy them by all means, i have no intention of stopping you. But I'm certain, I'm very certain Twilight will never be considered as a great literary work or Stephanie Meyer a prominent writer.

[Zoran]

Narmin wrote: "I'm very certain Twilight will never be considered as a great literary work or Stephanie Meyer a prominent writer."


Well, she is young, she COULD learn how to write in next ten years... I guess.

[Nermin]

Zoran wrote: "Narmin wrote: "I'm very certain Twilight will never be considered as a great literary work or Stephanie Meyer a prominent writer."


Well, she is young, she COULD learn how to write in next ten yea..."

yeah well, let's hope for the best:D

[Izzat]

The Host has proven to me that she can write. It's just she needs experience. Her Twilight publishing journey seems like a roll of dice and it's her fortune that the book becomes viral.

Her biggest flaw is the way she characterize her protagonists, I guess. She needs to keep writing to improve herself, not to bother with them Hollywoods busy making movies and stuff.

[Ilavenil]

I read through the comments just to see why so many people like Twilight. Please don't make excuses, Stephenie Meyer is a BAD writer. Check out some people who can really use English - Tolkien, P.G.Wodehouse, Jane Austen, etc, and come back to Twilight.

Of course, Twilight is also sexist. And vampires don't sparkle, they're scary (the last sentence is meant to be a joke, in case you don't get it.)