Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 1,451-1,500 of 2,281

[Gerd]

Well, I always thought that compared to the whole "I can see dead Edwards" storyline, jumping off a cliff made her look downright sane. :D

[Mickey]

Darci wrote: "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 def..."

I'm literate and the question still remains: Who are you to tell others how to feel about a book?

Also, what happens when critics or literature professors disagree about a book? Should we all crawl up in a ball because we obviously can't formulate our own opinions? You can speak for yourself if you want, but I don't need others telling me what to think. I find it odd that appeals to popularity don't mean anything, unless it's popularity among a select group, then we present them as valid authority.

[Mochaspresso]

S.L.J. wrote: Getting therapy, having to work through your problems and having those problems to begin with makes a person less than perfect.

True, if this were realistic fiction. But it is kinda boring for the paranormal romance/fantasy genre, honestly.

You guys should write fanfiction about Angela and Ben. Have them get together and have a nice appropriate HS romance where they go to prom together and are voted king and queen.

....or read the "Sweet Valley High" series. Those are about nice, sweet normal only marginally or slightly "less than perfect" HS kids who always do what is "appropriate".

[Melissa]

I agree, SM isn't the greatest writer. She isn't horrible either. The series was entertaining and who doesn't love a love story? However the whole reason that her series is so popular is because of the idea that a girl who, by the author's own definition, sees herself as utterly ordinary can fall into eternal love with a man that is "perfect". Deep down, even though we as women won't admit it, that is very appealing. Not realistic, but appealing. I don't believe SM set out to be seen as a literary genius or a brilliant writer. She shared a story that she obviously loves. And we as women (both young and olderish) connected with it.

[Mickey]

S.L.J. wrote: "There are healthier ways to deal with loss <- also objective."

Books should feature characters who deal with loss in only healthy ways-subjective.

The quality of a book can be measured by a character having a rational and correct response-subjective.

[S.L.J.]

Mickey wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "There are healthier ways to deal with loss

Books should feature characters who deal with loss in only healthy ways-subjective.

The quality of a book can be measured by a characte..."

Life is stranger, harder and more powerful that fiction - subjective/objective.

Read some stories about guys that went through WWII. They experienced loss and pain that goes way beyond not being able to talk to their sparkly boyfriend. Some went into a downward spiral that never ended, some got help and some managed to live again despite the horrible memories they carried.

My point is that people have endured far greater hardships. And looking at their life stories inspires me to be better. Bella may be a fictional character but real or not, she has had influence over others. That's why this book is so hotly debated. Not because it's a simple fairy tale but because people (like yourself) are willing to stand up and defend it like gospel.

[Ashleigh]

★ Mist ☆ Cassidy ★ wrote: "I don't think she's a bad writer but I don't think she's without her flaws either. There were some things I really didn't care for with Twilight (Bella's attitude and personality for example), but ..."

I agree completely. I liked Twilight, but the movie made me despise it.

I like the host though, so I hope the movie doesn't ruin that too! :(

[S.L.J.]

mkc120 wrote: "Ashleigh wrote: "★ Mist ☆ Cassidy ★ wrote: "I don't think she's a bad writer but I don't think she's without her flaws either. There were some things I really didn't care for with Twilight (Bella's..."

It was way too long. But I must admit, it was an intresting take on body snatchers.

[Mickey]

S.L.J. wrote: "Read some stories about guys that went through WWII. They experienced loss and pain that goes way beyond not being able to talk to their sparkly boyfriend. Some went into a downward spiral that never ended, some got help and some managed to live again despite the horrible memories they carried.

My point is that people have endured far greater hardships. And looking at their life stories inspires me to be better. Bella may be a fictional character but real or not, she has had influence over others. That's why this book is so hotly debated. Not because it's a simple fairy tale but because people (like yourself) are willing to stand up and defend it like gospel.

Deciding whether a character has a right to be depressed-subjective

Deciding that literature's purpose is to inspire-subjective

As far as my reading, I don't take recommendations from people that I have a feeling have different sorts of tastes than I do. If you think WWII soldiers had it bad, though, maybe you should read some literature from concentration camp survivors Elie Wiesel or Primo Levi, although I'm not sure they would meet your "inspiring " standard.

Your ideas about what literature is good or not is entirely subjective. I don't agree with the idea that a character's job is to be rational or inspiring. I think if you like that sort of thing and want to make it a personal standard, go for it. You'll miss out on a lot of good literature that doesn't fit that narrow view, but that's your choice. When you try to extend it out as an objective standard, that's when you're over-reaching.

[Jordan]

Darci wrote: "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 def..."

I am not delusional and I happen to love her writing. You don't have the right to call people delusional because someone likes a book.

[S.L.J.]

Mickey wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "Read some stories about guys that went through WWII. They experienced loss and pain that goes way beyond not being able to talk to their sparkly boyfriend. Some went into a downward ..."

So we both agree that Bella's problems in the Twilight series are insignificant compared to the kind of struggles that others go through and that her actions are not the slightest bit inspiring.

Deciding that literature's purpose is to inspire-subjective - I agree with you there. After all, some people believe Mein Kampf is inspiring.

But even when I take a step back and pretend I'm a robot, simply looking at the logistics, the motivations, the actions/consequences etc. It still doesn't make sense. Then I try to add a subjective view onto it. Including the characters personsal feelings etc. It still doesn't make sense.

[Jordan]

S.L.J. wrote: "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 in..."

Maybe, but we aren't talking about life lessons, we're talking about the book itself, and the way she wrote it made it a heck of a lot more interesting than if Bella decided to do something that wasn't reckless.

[S.L.J.]

Jordan wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "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 d..."

Very true and I'm sure SM didn't write it with the intention of jumping into the hearts and minds of millions of impressionable girls. But it did and now we get to bring it under fierce debate.

[Mickey]

S.L.J. wrote: "So we both agree that Bella's problems in the Twilight series are insignificant compared to the kind of struggles that others go through and that her actions are not the slightest bit inspiring."

No, actually, we don't agree. I'm saying that deciding that a character's problems are not a big deal is subjective, particularly the idea that personal loss is not a reason for irrational behavior. The idea that a book must be inspiring is also subjective.

Widening the discussion to discuss Twilight in light of your standards is not something that we're doing. I'm questioning the standards themselves.

S.L.J. wrote: "I agree with you there. After all, some people believe Mein Kampf is inspiring.

But even when I take a step back and pretend I'm a robot, simply looking at the logistics, the motivations, the actions/consequences etc. It still doesn't make sense. Then I try to add a subjective view onto it. Including the characters personsal feelings etc. It still doesn't make sense."

I'm getting the feeling that you aren't following what I'm saying. Deciding that literature must be inspiring in order to be good is subjective. We're not even talking about what the literature is.

As far as your robot comment, I'm not sure what the relevance is to the discussion. Feeling upset over a breakup makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to say.

[Kirby]

S.L.J. wrote: "Very true and I'm sure SM didn't write it with the intention of jumping into the hearts and minds of millions of impressionable girls. But it did and now we get to bring it under fierce debate. "

I have a question- it seems that people consider girls as much more "impressionable" than boys...is that true? or is b/c I've only heard that in twilight threads, that do have a largely female fanbase? however, boys DO read the books and I've never heard anyone express concern that they're going to do everything that edward or jacob ever did...

anyone else notice this?

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "anyone else notice this?"

I think it may be due to the fact that Twilight is targeted mostly at girls, and therefore people focus more on its influence on girls than its influence on boys.

[[deleted user]]

Jordan, you don't seem delusional. I don't seem delusion- well, I'm not aware that I'm delusional. Half the people on this thread don't seem delusional.

Only half? ^_^

[[deleted user]]

mkc120 wrote: "I think that most boys don't want to read Twilight. In fact, there are lots of males I know that don't like any books with the POV of a female . . . I guess that's why guys read so much less books. (Don't mean to be sexist)"

I think you might be talking about a specific group to guys. Teenagers maybe? Most of the adult males I know read quite a lot. Or at least I've met a lot of adult males on GR who read a lot.

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby wrote: "anyone else notice this?"

I think it may be due to the fact that Twilight is targeted mostly at girls, and therefore people focus more on its influence on girls than its influence on..."

well, yes, I acknowledged that most (not all, however) of the readers are girls. but focusing on the influence over girls more is one thing- entirely is another. I have never once heard anyone even consider that one of the teenage boy fans would be impressionable.

after hearing it so many times, I just don't like the idea that so many people think that teenage girls are just, what? limp pieces of putty waiting for a popular book to come along and completely shape their minds, personalities, and life choices? I just don't like it, but maybe it's just me.

[S.L.J.]

Kirby wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "Very true and I'm sure SM didn't write it with the intention of jumping into the hearts and minds of millions of impressionable girls. But it did and now we get to bring it under fie..."

Sorry, that came out sounding very degrading and I didn't mean it too.

@Mickey - Literature that envokes emotions and a desire to be a better person. Fiction that inspires courage, understanding and love is something I am in full favor of. I don't see how running away from mortality like Bella does is a good thing.

@Mkc120 - 96% of all crazy people don't know that they are crazy. The same goes for delusional people. - That's not a dig at you by the way, I'm just stating facts.

[Kirby]

S.L.J. wrote: "Sorry, that came out sounding very degrading and I didn't mean it too."

ah, I appreciate that!

if that was the first time I'd heard someone say that, it probably wouldn't bother me so much. but it seems to be a common thought...

[Kirby]

mkc120 wrote: "Of course, depending where you live, it's different. "

I think that's true. where I live, there are a lot more female readers than male readers.

[Mochaspresso]

Kirby wrote: after hearing it so many times, I just don't like the idea that so many people think that teenage girls are just, what? limp pieces of putty waiting for a popular book to come along and completely shape their minds, personalities, and life choices? I just don't like it, but maybe it's just me.


No, it's not just you. I hate that sentiment also. Always have.

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby wrote: "anyone else notice this?"

I think it may be due to the fact that Twilight is targeted mostly at girls, and therefore people focus more on its influence on girls than ..."

Mmm, yeah, that's a good point with the girl/boy thing. I will acknowledge that.

But I think books in general should be taken more seriously than "it's just a book." Years of history with banning and burning books have shown that people actually fear the influence of books, and it's not just melodramatic paranoia. Writing is a way of expression and has the potential to be extraordinarily powerful when it wants to be.

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "mkc120 wrote: "Of course, depending where you live, it's different. "

I think that's true. where I live, there are a lot more female readers than male readers."

But on GR, it's the Internet, meaning you're taking distance out of the equation.

[Alex]

Kirby wrote: "well, yes, I acknowledged that most (not all, however) of the readers are girls. but focusing on the influence over girls more is one thing- entirely is another. I have never once heard anyone even consider that one of the teenage boy fans would be impressionable.

after hearing it so many times, I just don't like the idea that so many people think that teenage girls are just, what? limp pieces of putty waiting for a popular book to come along and completely shape their minds, personalities, and life choices? I just don't like it, but maybe it's just me. ."

Both boys and girls are equally impressionable limp pieces of putty, you just need to step book and think about how boys are socialised one way and girls another to see why Twilight might be a problem. It's precisely because there's an erroneous male idea of what female gender ought to be that the messages in Twilight are considered problematic.

If you're a guy and you're reading Twilight in the first place you've probably done more to overturn male assumptions about masculinity than most guys generally do. If you're a girl reading Twilight, then you're currently buying into the latest "female" trend. Not to say that female fiction written by and for females is a bad thing, but Twilight isn't - shall we say - the most progressive example.

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "But I think books in general should be taken more seriously than "it's just a book." Years of history with banning and burning books have shown that people actually fear the influence of books, and it's not just melodramatic paranoia. Writing is a way of expression and has the potential to be extraordinarily powerful when it wants to be. "

ah, that is a good point too.

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "But on GR, it's the Internet, meaning you're taking distance out of the equation. "

true. and, it probably is an equal mix on GR (actually, I'd really like to know what the ratio is). but, I bet you still wouldn't find many rural wv males with GR accounts!

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "true. and, it probably is an equal mix on GR (actually, I'd really like to know what the ratio is). but, I bet you still wouldn't find many rural wv males with GR accounts!"

Ha! Neither would you in southern California, at least where I live and attend school. Every boy I know is all hung up on sports and basketball stars and whatnot...they probably wouldn't even know literature existed if it wasn't a subject at school.

[Lindsay]

I thought she was a bad writer until I read The Host. The problems with the Twilight series are exactly what everyone has already said. The Host was better in part because the narrator wasn't a whiny teenager who would die for love and perfectly happy living an immortal, never-changing life. Another big part, I think, was that she had a better editor.

[[deleted user]]

With all the people who keep saying Twilight sucks but the Host is better, I think I'm gonna have to check it out.

[Mochaspresso]

mkc120 wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby wrote: "anyone else notice this?"

I think it may be due to the fact that Twilight is targeted mostly at girls, and therefore people focus more on its influence on girls than ..."

Very true. My nephew is 10 and he hates reading books about girls. The only author that he seems to make an exception for is Judy Blume, but only the Fudge books which feature a boy...and even then, he sneaks his sister's books and tries to hide the fact that he's reading them. (Even though the fudge books are about a boy and he likes them, he still thinks of Judy Blume as a "girl's author" in general and doesn't want to be seen in public reading it.)

btw, in regards to sexist media...it is very true. People are so worried about what it potentially does to girls, but what about the boys? His biggest complaint about most of the popular kid's shows that air on the Disney and Nickelodeon channels is that the girls are mostly portrayed as exceptionally smart and good and the boys are mostly portrayed as either nerds or as bumbling dufusses with huge puppy-dog crushes on these smart girls who don't like them back.

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "With all the people who keep saying Twilight sucks but the Host is better, I think I'm gonna have to check it out."

I think you should. just perhaps keep in mind that the first part of it is a little bit slow. but once I got past that part, I couldn't put it down. at all.

[Erin]

Kirby wrote: "I have a question- it seems that people consider girls as much more "impressionable" than boys...is that true? or is b/c I've only heard that in twilight threads, that do have a largely female fanbase? however, boys DO read the books and I've never heard anyone express concern that they're going to do everything that edward or jacob ever did...

anyone else notice this?"

I think this is a really good question. I have heard that statement in regard to boys but really only in response to the effect of porn on boys and how it shapes their views and expectations of sex. Also, though I have never heard that exact statement in response to this, but people also assume that if kids and teens find out professional athletes are doing steroids then kids and teens will start doing it too because they think it's ok. As to whether that's true I don't know. I think teens are much smarter than a lot of people realize, they just need the chance to be smart good people. I also think children are rather brilliant. Anyway, I think boys and girls are equally impressionable but not nearly as impressionable as people tend to think they are. What is most important is that they have good parents who can help guide them which unfortunately isn't always the case.

[Erin]

Nuran wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "mkc120 wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby wrote: "anyone else notice this?"

I think it may be due to the fact that Twilight is targeted mostly at girls, and therefore people focus..."

Do you mean wired differently as in they are socialized differently and our society has different expectations for them to adhere to at this age? Because I agree with that.

If you mean that they are completely different from each other I am going to be annoying and say that they are actually pretty similar developmentally in this stage except girls develop faster than boys and the thing that makes the most difference are just social aspects of development. There have been many studies that show that men and women and boys and girls are actually have a lot more similarities than differences. That whole book Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus was a lot of bs. There are differences because our society wants there to be differences so that that is how boys and girls are raised to be. Sorry I know I am being annoying.

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "I think you should. just perhaps keep in mind that the first part of it is a little bit slow. but once I got past that part, I couldn't put it down. at all."

All right then. Added to my to-read shelf! The worst it can possibly be is probably just brain candy. Candy still tastes good, after all.

[S.L.J.]

Nuran wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "mkc120 wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby wrote: "anyone else notice this?"

I think it may be due to the fact that Twilight is targeted mostly at girls, and therefore people focus..."

I'm pretty sure that ladies enjoy sex just as much as men. Otherwise we'd never get laid. :P

[Kirby]

Alex wrote: "Both boys and girls are equally impressionable limp pieces of putty"

in some ways, yes. but how much impact do you honestly think that one book series could have? I truly don't think that either sex is that impressionable.

"It's precisely because there's an erroneous male idea of what female gender ought to be that the messages in Twilight are considered problematic."

well, I don't know. I still haven't really begun to believe that it has messages, or that they are harmful if it does. I mean, I read a lot of vc andrews books as a kid/teen and I never once considered incest, familial abuse, or statutory rape to be okay or romantic. they entertained me and I liked them. that was it.

and, if the problem is the erroneous male ideas of female gender, then wouldn't we be more concerned about how males are going to act after reading the books? (although you did have a good point about that below)

here's maybe part of my confusion- exactly what book heroines (or movie characters) do people think bella is displacing? who are all these perfect role models that girls would be reading about, if only it weren't for twilight? or are we really criticizing everything they're exposed to and twilight just gets the brunt of it?

"If you're a guy and you're reading Twilight in the first place you've probably done more to overturn male assumptions about masculinity than most guys generally do. If you're a girl reading Twilight, then you're currently buying into the latest "female" trend."

I do think the point about the guys who do read twilight is a very good one. but I'm still not sure I can agree with the second part. couldn't you at least concede that at most it would be: "you're more likely to be currently buying into...?"

[Mickey]

S.L.J. wrote: "@Mickey - Literature that envokes emotions and a desire to be a better person. Fiction that inspires courage, understanding and love is something I am in full favor of. I don't see how running away from mortality like Bella does is a good thing."

That's your opinion. 1984 does not do the things you describe. Neither does Lolita. This does not make them bad literature. What I am objecting to is the limiting of literature to what you prefer. I know some people don't like to read depressing or distressing literature and others will read only literature that coincides with their ideas of morality. I acknowledge that they can do this (and probably still have a lifetime of good reading to choose from), but, personally, I like all kinds of literature. It doesn't have to fit in a box.

Earlier in this thread, we had a "vampire enthusiast" who didn't like the portrayal of vampires. That hindered his enjoyment of the book, but what should that mean for the rest of us? Am I supposed to take into account that someone else can't handle deviations from the norm? It's not an objective argument and I think a lot of people are having problems with the idea of their opinion being just that-an opinion. They want to be recognized as an authority around here, and I have a problem with that.

[Jordan]

mkc120 wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Darci wrote: "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...."

haha, yeah, i just think the comment was kind of... well, he could have thought of something else to say

[Jordan]

Alex wrote: "Kirby wrote: "well, yes, I acknowledged that most (not all, however) of the readers are girls. but focusing on the influence over girls more is one thing- entirely is another. I have never once hea..."

I also read Twilight because everyone was crazy about it. I feel like I was, like the last person to finally read it, LOL!

[Jordan]

Jocelyn wrote: "With all the people who keep saying Twilight sucks but the Host is better, I think I'm gonna have to check it out."

Me, too! I mean, if I love twilight, which a lot of people hate, and those same people love the Host, I think that's saying something...

[Kirby]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "His biggest complaint about most of the popular kid's shows that air on the Disney and Nickelodeon channels is that the girls are mostly portrayed as exceptionally smart and good and the boys are mostly portrayed as either nerds or as bumbling dufusses with huge puppy-dog crushes on these smart girls who don't like them back."

I've actually noticed that, too, when watching some of those shows with my niece.

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "in some ways, yes. but how much impact do you honestly think that one book series could have?"

Well, I don't think Twilight has a huge impact but it is a piece of literature, meaning it is part of literature as a whole. If we said "well this is just one book series" for every single book series, then it would all add up. If we are to use this argument of "this is just one book series" then we have to specify: which books should we exclude from this kind of judgement, and which should we include?

[Kirby]

Nuran wrote: "Boys are not effected by the same things as girls. Boys will be effected by something visual, like porn or video games. How many times have media said video games are bad influence on them???"

I actually think that may be just b/c porn and video games were considered boy things for so long. more girls/women are playing video games/watching porn now, so I don't know that it really affects them differently as much as boys have been exposed to them longer.

[[deleted user]]

Jordan wrote: "Me, too! I mean, if I love twilight, which a lot of people hate, and those same people love the Host, I think that's saying something..."

Ah, thanks for supplying the right words--I wanted to say that but didn't quite know how. :)

[Mickey]

Jordan wrote: "Me, too! I mean, if I love twilight, which a lot of people hate, and those same people love the Host, I think that's saying something..."

I didn't particularly like The Host, but, then again, I'm not a big sci-fi person.

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby wrote: "in some ways, yes. but how much impact do you honestly think that one book series could have?"

Well, I don't think Twilight has a huge impact but it is a piece of literature, meaning..."

but that may go back to part of my point- what exactly is the objection? is it to twilight specifically, or to all or most media? if it's the latter, why should twilight have to bear nearly all of the criticism? that doesn't really seem fair.

[Mochaspresso]

Nuran wrote: Boys are not effected by the same things as girls. Boys will be effected by something visual, like porn or video games. How many times have media said video games are bad influence on them??? Saying media is never worried about what boys are influenced by is bullshit.

Boys and girls are wired differently. Girls are influenced by fairytales and boys are influenced by porn, so the media concentrates on different things that might effect them


...not that you asked, but here is my take on video games...

I am not an advocate for scapegoating forms of media for parental shortcomings. Millions of kids play video games and are fine. The ones who are that adversely affected most likely ALREADY HAD OTHER MENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE PROBABLY NOT BEING ADDRESSED IN AN EARNEST, MEANINGFUL AND HELPFUL WAY. Those are the ones who shouldn't be playing them. The rest of the sane, rational, level-headed kids in the country are able to play them without the risk of going insane or being adversely affected in some way.

...but back to your point...fair enough, I will take back the statement that the media is never concerned about boys. However, when it comes to books, I rarely hear worries about how a popular book might adversely affect them. No one accuses Twilight of turning boys into stalkers. It only teaches girls to love them. It teaches girls to "attempt suicide" just to hear their boyfriend's voice. But Edward's actual suicide attempt in New Moon doesn't teach boys that it is ok to off yourself when you think that your girlfriend has died.

All of that is just plain silly to me. If people are indeed raising kids that are that impressionable, that speaks more to the parenting that has been happening (or not happening) than to Twilight's influence.

[[deleted user]]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "No one accuses Twilight of turning boys into stalkers."

Well, I'll admit that I haven't seen that happen for Twilight, but you also seem to be talking about media in general, and I did see it happen for the book Beautiful Disaster by Jamie Mcguire.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

This is the excerpt quote:

And I'm also thinking about boys, they're not exactly the target audience but still; reading this must lead to wonder if this kind of behavior is what chicks like. It just spreads some sort of sickening message, "be aggressive, show your jealousy as well as the fact that she's yours, have no limits & be in control, use your strength to make a point, don't let her do what she wants because she doesn't really know what's good for her. You know better".