Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
She is a great plot writer. Her stories are great. Just the ways he writes them are a little off key, you know? Just her way of writing is not the brightest diamond at the jewelry store. Her stories are great though!
Stephenie Meyer is an awesome writer but to everyone who thinks she is a bad writer, you are wrong. I don't want to sound rude but she is one of my favorite authors.
Elizabeth wrote: "Stephenie Meyer is an awesome writer but to everyone who thinks she is a bad writer, you are wrong. I don't want to sound rude but she is one of my favorite authors."Favouring an author isn't a sign they're good. Every writer has something they can improve upon. The good thing about that is, if you like a writer's style, you get more to read while they improve their craft.
Ahhh... I get it now:1. Find a thread that criticizes your favorite author.
2. Ignore almost 2000 posts explaining why she's a God-awful writer.
3. Make the same "popular == good" fallacy argument, or confuse "I like her, therefore she is good!" subjectivity with objective criteria.
4. Look like a blind fangirl.
It is all so clear to me...
I think people should keep in mind that the twilight series was meant for Tweens and Teens. So, there must be something there to have adults interested and talking about it. Just saying...
Don't feed the trolls guys. Lol
N. wrote: "I think people should keep in mind that the twilight series was meant for Tweens and Teens. So, there must be something there to have adults interested and talking about it. Just saying..."Is that supposed to excuse the lax editing, no-dimensional characters, disrespect for the lore, and overall lack of quality in Twilight?
"It's just for kids! They'll never suspect that the writing is shit!"
I read the first book because someone told me it was a vampire novel. Thanks to that, I know enough to keep my own kids as far from Meyers' books and
N. wrote: "I think people should keep in mind that the twilight series was meant for Tweens and Teens. So, there must be something there to have adults interested and talking about it. Just saying..."Okay, this is one reasoning I absolutely hate with a passion. I'm talking generally, by the way.
"Oh it's for kids. Who cares if it's absolute trash." To paraphrase the Nostalgia Chick. People defend all manner of things with this reasoning. Movies, television, books.
"Who cares if it's stupid, makes no sense and gives them absolutely no valuing brain nourishment? It's just for kids."
But notice noone says this about other things?
Oh it's just a car seat, who cares if it's shit? Oh it's just food, who cares if it increases their chances to have a heart attack?
I grew up watching some stupid shitty TV shows, but I am grateful that there were some writers out there who cared enough to give me some really well written and nourishing TV shows and movies. A bit of junk in a child's diet is reasonable and is perfectly fine. But it doesn't excuse it either.
A fluffy book for enjoyment is great if it gets kids reading, but just because it's aimed at them does not in any way excuse questionable content, bad character development, bad grammar or bad writing. Books are more than enjoyment, they enrich your education and exercise your brain muscles. Teaching or introducing them to bad writing habits and then outright defending those practices because "it's just for kids" is, in my opinion, disrespectful.
Kids are smart and they deserve the best from all areas of their lives. Food, protection AND entertainment.
Meeeeeeeiyu♫Lalalaalalala Girl♫ wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Stephenie Meyer is an awesome writer but to everyone who thinks she is a bad writer, you are wrong. I don't want to sound rude but she is one of my favorite authors."I totally ag..."
To Elizabeth, please don't confuse personal taste with quality. I don't enjoy reading Charles Dickens, but I don't deny his talent and influence as an author. I respect the bloke as an author/artist, though I won't go out of my way to read his works .
If you love SM, that's awesome. I'm glad for you. But the way you tried to defend her was quite rude and you presented no actual evidence, or compelling argument.
To Meeeee....
Well critisism (even if it's particularly harsh) is part of the job and often helps an author to improve their technique. It's not the easiest job to be an author (although with self publishing, it is a tad easier to become a published author.) But if you're passionate, have some talent and are willing to learn the ropes, you can be a successful author and even gain lots of praise for your work.
If you can't do that, then don't become an author. She published her novels, which is wonderful for her, but she must face the consequences that comes with that. Like every other author in history. You can't expect people to worship your work and then feel sorry for yourself when that doesn't occur. I get the feeling, though, that some Twilight fans do expect that and then expect people to feel sorry for SMeyer because of the critiques she has gotten.
I'm not saying you do, just some Twihards I have encountered.
I wish SMeyer the best, but she has yet to gain my sympathy after the harsh critiques of her book. It's part of her job, after all. And after her appalling performance after Midnight Sun was leaked she has lost my respect as an author.
Just my opinion.
Somerandom wrote: "I grew up watching some stupid shitty TV shows, but I am grateful that there were some writers out there who cared enough to give me some really well written and nourishing TV shows and movies. A bit of junk in a child's diet is reasonable and is perfectly fine. But it doesn't excuse it either. A fluffy book for enjoyment is great if it gets kids reading, but just because it's aimed at them does not in any way excuse questionable content, bad character development, bad grammar or bad writing. Books are more than enjoyment, they enrich your education and exercise your brain muscles. Teaching or introducing them to bad writing habits and then outright defending those practices because "it's just for kids" is, in my opinion, disrespectful.
Kids are smart and they deserve the best from all areas of their lives. Food, protection AND entertainment."
Disrespectful to whom? Kids? I think it's more disrespectful to decide that your opinion of what kids should be reading is more important than what they choose themselves. Who are you to decide what's worthy or not?
As for your argument about TV shows, you understand that if you were to lay out which shows you think are worthy, there will probably be a difference of opinion among adults about which goes on what list, because such a thing is completely subjective.
Mickey wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "I grew up watching some stupid shitty TV shows, but I am grateful that there were some writers out there who cared enough to give me some really well written and nourishing TV sh..."I never said kids shouldn't choose what to read or watch whatever. They are free to decide what to read and watch and they will find out what interests them and what they don't enjoy. That's part of life. What I object to is defending lazy movies or novels by saying "well it's only for kids" as if they're somehow not worthy of anything but something lazily thrown together for them. I'm not an anti or a hater, I'm just saying we shouldn't make excuses for entertainment or whatever just because it's aimed at kids. They at least need to be taken seriously by authors or movie producers or directors to put effort into their works. Take Vampire Academy for example. I loved this series as a high schooler. But even then I felt downright insulted by the constant recaps by the author because it was like she thought I was an idiot. The series is still a guilty pleasure for me but I still wouldn't defend it for anything simply because it's a YA title. Kids deserve the best we can possibly offer them.
Look, the nostalgia critic explains this better than I do okay?
No! She's not. Anyhow, I didn't like the way she ended Breaking Dawn. That's all. :D
Somerandom wrote: "I never said kids shouldn't choose what to read or watch whatever they choose. They are free to decide what to read and watch and they will find out what interests them and what they don't enjoy. That's part of life. What I object to is defwnsing crappy movies or novels by saying "well it's only for kids"You did make statements that your personal opinion of the book meant that it was not good for kids and that's what I'm objecting to in your statement. Everyone has different opinions on what makes books worthy, even children. If they enjoy stories about vampires or wizards, who are you to decide what books are the right ones for them?
Somerandom wrote: N. wrote: "I think people should keep in mind that the twilight series was meant for Tweens and Teens. So, there must be something there to have adults interested and talking about it. Just saying..."Okay, this is one reasoning I absolutely hate with a passion. I'm talking generally, by the way.
"Oh it's for kids. Who cares if it's absolute trash." To paraphrase the Nostalgia Chick. People defend all manner of things with this reasoning. Movies, television, books.
"Who cares if it's stupid, makes no sense and gives them absolutely no valuing brain nourishment? It's just for kids."
But notice noone says this about other things?
Oh it's just a car seat, who cares if it's shit? Oh it's just food, who cares if it increases their chances to have a heart attack?
I grew up watching some stupid shitty TV shows, but I am grateful that there were some writers out there who cared enough to give me some really well written and nourishing TV shows and movies. A bit of junk in a child's diet is reasonable and is perfectly fine. But it doesn't excuse it either.
A fluffy book for enjoyment is great if it gets kids reading, but just because it's aimed at them does not in any way excuse questionable content, bad character development, bad grammar or bad writing. Books are more than enjoyment, they enrich your education and exercise your brain muscles. Teaching or introducing them to bad writing habits and then outright defending those practices because "it's just for kids" is, in my opinion, disrespectful.
Kids are smart and they deserve the best from all areas of their lives. Food, protection AND entertainment.
When asked why they liked any popular fiction book or were drawn to it in the first place, how many children or teenagers do you honestly think would list "...because it teaches me good grammar." as their primary reason? Do you honestly think that kids were reading Twilight or Harry Potter or Diary of a Wimpy Kid or Hunger Games or Percy Jackson or any other series for lessons in grammar?
Some of these goodreads arguments are teaching me that some people are clearly out of touch with what motivates children to read and with why certain series are way more successful than others.
Kids are not reading "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" and saying "I want to be like Greg Heffley. He sure is a great role model." They are reading "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" and saying, "I'm actually a lot like Greg Heffley. I have some of the same feelings and problems that he does." That series would not have been as popular if it had been about a model kid who always makes good choices and had been written with perfect grammar.
Somerandom wrote: "N. wrote: "I think people should keep in mind that the twilight series was meant for Tweens and Teens. So, there must be something there to have adults interested and talking about it. Just saying..."It being for the younger generation is more of a reason for good grammar, editing, plot and characterisation. Kids are sponges, and teens are too, though less so. They're going to take the bad grammar lessons from their novels on board far more than any lesson plan.
And mocha (sorry, just caught up with the thread) I'm not saying they go out and do this intentionally. But I know that when something catches the imagination it will leave it's mark. If you can find a teenager who thinks any of their school reading resonates with them in the same way as their personal books, you can almost guarantee they're going to be better spoken than their peers (I say almost, because there are always other environmental influences).
Mochaspresso wrote: "When asked why they liked any popular fiction book or were drawn to it in the first place, how many children or teenagers do you honestly think would list "...because it teaches me good grammar." as their primary reason? Do you honestly think that kids were reading Twilight or Harry Potter or Diary of a Wimpy Kid or Hunger Games or Percy Jackson or any other series for lessons in grammar?"How many adults read books for lessons in grammar? If you want grammar lessons, why would you go to the fiction section anyway? Why not pick up an actual book on grammar? When did people decide that they could expect textbook grammar from stories that are often meant to depict real life about people who are not grammarians? That wasn't the case in Mark Twain's time or Langston Hughes's time. If these writers can write how people spoke or thought, why can't Meyer?
Siobhan wrote: "It being for the younger generation is more of a reason for good grammar, editing, plot and characterisation. Kids are sponges, and teens are too, though less so. They're going to take the bad grammar lessons from their novels on board far more than any lesson plan."Actually, if you look at the curriculum and approved books for children and young adults, most educators don't hold your view that bad grammar is singularly damaging to young minds. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is often taught in school and that does not show good grammar. In Shakespeare's time, use of the double negative and the double comparative were both widely used and was not considered bad grammar. Their Eyes Were Watching God is another example of a book that has bad grammar that is often actually taught in school. The Catcher in the Rye is another. To Kill a Mockingbird...Flowers for Algernon...Thank You, M'am...
Mickey wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "It being for the younger generation is more of a reason for good grammar, editing, plot and characterisation. Kids are sponges, and teens are too, though less so. They're going to t..."That holds true only if you look at the style of speech. Those books are on the curriculum because they hold important allegories or historical information. They are still well written, because their language is part of the characterisation, you understand the world view of the narrator well, but at the same time, the writer has made efforts to write well. And you can't judge Shakespeare by our standard, English four hundred years ago had a different rhythm and set of rules.
Mickey wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "I never said kids shouldn't choose what to read or watch whatever they choose. They are free to decide what to read and watch and they will find out what interests them and what ..."I apologize if that's what you took from my comment. That's not what I meant. All I'm saying is kids entertainment often gets a free pass simply because it's for kids. People don't seem to care if it's something that is just thrown together by a studio for a simple cash grab. Like some of the Disney sequels. Some are great but some don't even make sense in the Disneyverse. And I like most Disney sequels. But it's hard to deny their laziness at times. But they're brushed off as well, who cares it's only for my child.
To mocha, I'm still a teenagers. You honestly think I don't know why my peers read books? Of course we don't read to be taught good grammar or punctuation. Unless it's required reading for English class. But a basic grasp of the English language is essential for any author. It's part of their job as an author to understand the rules of writing and to take their audience seriously. I think the authors of the books you mentioned did take their kids seriously. Admittedly I didn't read a diary of a wimpy kid.
I'm not saying that the books I like have to universally loved by my peers nor am I saying that people can't enjoy what they enjoy. I'm saying obviously lazy artists who just peddle things out to kids for a quick buck shouldn't be excused so lightly.
Siobhan wrote: "That holds true only if you look at the style of speech. Those books are on the curriculum because they hold important allegories or historical information. They are still well written, because their language is part of the characterisation, you understand the world view of the narrator well, but at the same time, the writer has made efforts to write well. And you can't judge Shakespeare by our standard, English four hundred years ago had a different rhythm and set of rules."If bad grammar were so ruinous to kids as you claim, I don't think we would educate children by immersing them in such "narrative styles", unless you're saying that there are no books that contain the same amount of "allegories or important historical information" that do not also contain the bad grammar. You can't say on one hand that books that do not have standard textbook grammar are bad for kids and then say that they are also educational. There's more to books than grammar.
You aren't understanding that Bella's voice would also fit under this new umbrella of narrative voice. If Huckleberry Finn (whose grammar was far worse than Bella's) doesn't damage children, I think they'll be okay after reading Twilight.
Who's judging Shakespeare? I think he's wonderful. I think he belongs in high school classes. Your argument that children cannot handle anything but strict modern grammar and should not read anything but such works argues for the idea that Shakespeare should not be allowed.
Siobhan wrote: It being for the younger generation is more of a reason for good grammar, editing, plot and characterisation. Kids are sponges, and teens are too, though less so. They're going to take the bad grammar lessons from their novels on board far more than any lesson plan.
And mocha (sorry, just caught up with the thread) I'm not saying they go out and do this intentionally. But I know that when something catches the imagination it will leave it's mark. If you can find a teenager who thinks any of their school reading resonates with them in the same way as their personal books, you can almost guarantee they're going to be better spoken than their peers (I say almost, because there are always other environmental influences).
..."
I am going to respectfully disagree. My reasoning comes from first hand experience with the NYC public schools. For years, the schools employed a teaching philosophy that was developed by Lucy Calkins, a professor at Columbia University. She believed that children would learn grammar far better from complete and total immersion in "quality literature" rather than from direct instruction. This went on in the elementary schools for years. Do you know what the biggest complaint in high schools and in the city colleges was while this was going on in the elementary schools? That large numbers kids were coming out of the city schools unable to write. Poor grammar, poor spelling, poor sentence structure etc.
So no, I don't believe that always reading quality literature will always guarantee a direct correlation with good writing habits or that it is somehow better than direct instruction (...essentially, the traditional ways that most of us old folks learned grammar in school). Like you said, there are other environmental factors to contend with as well.
I think I am digressing a bit, though. I am thinking back to my childhood reading habits. I honestly don't believe that I would have developed the same love of reading had someone told me that I shouldn't read Pippi Longstocking because she is a bad role model or that Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn books were bad because they contained poor grammar. I didn't learn grammar from Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer nor did I ever expect to. In school, when we learned about grammar, we had a book called "The Little Brown Handbook".
Honestly, I think that people who are picking apart Twilight are either not all that familiar with children's and YA fiction literature or are being extremely hypocritical just because they didn't like it.
Mickey wrote: How many adults read books for lessons in grammar? If you want grammar lessons, why would you go to the fiction section anyway? Why not pick up an actual book on grammar? When did people decide that they could expect textbook grammar from stories that are often meant to depict real life about people who are not grammarians? That wasn't the case in Mark Twain's time or Langston Hughes's time. If these writers can write how people spoke or thought, why can't Meyer? I agree. Personally, I'm inclined to write the whole thing off as lazy parenting. Rather actually sitting down with their kids and doing the "dirty work" of teaching them what they want them to learn, parents would rather put more energy into sanitizing the rest of the world so they don't have to worry about it. As if that approach ever really works...
Somerandom wrote: I apologize if that's what you took from my comment. That's not what I meant. All I'm saying is kids entertainment often gets a free pass simply because it's for kids. People don't seem to care if it's something that is just thrown together by a studio for a simple cash grab. Like some of the Disney sequels. Some are great but some don't even make sense in the Disneyverse. And I like most Disney sequels. But it's hard to deny their laziness at times. But they're brushed off as well, who cares it's only for my child.To mocha, I'm still a teenagers. You honestly think I don't know why my peers read books? Of course we don't read to be taught good grammar or punctuation. Unless it's required reading for English class. But a basic grasp of the English language is essential for any author. It's part of their job as an author to understand the rules of writing and to take their audience seriously. I think the authors of the books you mentioned did take their kids seriously. Admittedly I didn't read a diary of a wimpy kid.
I'm not saying that the books I like have to universally loved by my peers nor am I saying that people can't enjoy what they enjoy. I'm saying obviously lazy artists who just peddle things out to kids for a quick buck shouldn't be excused so lightly.
People are presenting subjective criticisms as if they are objective and definitive statements of fact. What if I told you that I thought that Stephanie Meyer did in fact take her (intended) audience very seriously? (...and no Bill et al, vampire lore traditionalists were not Twilight's intended audience.) What if I told you that many people posting in this thread may or may not have been her intended audience, myself included? What if I told you that I thought it was pretty amazing that this book was able to reach so far beyond it's intended niche audience?
I don't know if the original poster necessarily meant that bad writing was ok simply because it was a book for teens. Only N. can elaborate on what he or she really meant, but I do think that comment could have been interpreted in a number of ways. Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at SM for Twilight, not having a clear understanding of who her intended audience was certainly isn't a valid one, imo.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I think I am digressing a bit, though. I am thinking back to my childhood reading habits. I honestly don't believe that I would have developed the same love of reading had someone told me that I shouldn't read Pippi Longstocking because she is a bad role model or that Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn books were bad because they contained poor grammar. I didn't learn grammar from Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer nor did I ever expect to. In school, when we learned about grammar, we had a book called "The Little Brown Handbook"."I loved Pippi, too! I also remember being very attached to Beverly Cleary's Ramona Quimby. I remember that what I liked about her was that she had feelings I could identify with. I remember reading how she was feeling angry and squeezed a whole tube of toothpaste out in the sink when her family was pinching pennies. (Definitely NOT role model behavior!) I think it's somewhat disrespectful to kids to say that these sorts of characters should not be allowed or are not "good". It's saying that children's or YA literature should be directed at children instead of written for them.
Someone mentioned Disney movies a while ago, and I actually think that Disney movies are now often aimed at adults as well. If you look at an older Disney movie, such as Sleeping Beauty, you'll see that it is geared towards being understood and appreciated by children. Compare that with something like Aladdin, which has a lot of the humor that is actually over kids' heads and is more for the adults. I think when people say, "It's for children," they may not actually be excusing it for "lazy writing", they may be saying that it's geared towards kids. Sesame Street is geared towards kids, it's not something that an adult should expect to learn life lessons from. I think adults have grown to expect that all books and forms of entertainment should appeal to them first. If not, they are "bad". Is there room for romantic books aimed for teens as fantasies that might appeal to them about true love and faithfulness? Or does teaching them to be suspicious of their feelings and of the transitory nature of attraction trump that? Should children's books be about what they want or what some adults think they need?
Mickey wrote: "Should children's books be about what they want or what some adults think they need? ..."I'd go for option c: What they want and need. :)
Mickey wrote: I loved Pippi, too! I also remember being very attached to Beverly Cleary's Ramona Quimby. I remember that what I liked about her was that she had feelings I could identify with. I remember reading how she was feeling angry and squeezed a whole tube of toothpaste out in the sink when her family was pinching pennies. (Definitely NOT role model behavior!) I think it's somewhat disrespectful to kids to say that these sorts of characters should not be allowed or are not "good". It's saying that children's or YA literature should be directed at children instead of written for them. Someone mentioned Disney movies a while ago, and I actually think that Disney movies are now often aimed at adults as well. If you look at an older Disney movie, such as Sleeping Beauty, you'll see that it is geared towards being understood and appreciated by children. Compare that with something like Aladdin, which has a lot of the humor that is actually over kids' heads and is more for the adults. I think when people say, "It's for children," they may not actually be excusing it for "lazy writing", they may be saying that it's geared towards kids. Sesame Street is geared towards kids, it's not something that an adult should expect to learn life lessons from. I think adults have grown to expect that all books and forms of entertainment should appeal to them first. If not, they are "bad". Is there room for romantic books aimed for teens as fantasies that might appeal to them about true love and faithfulness? Or does teaching them to be suspicious of their feelings and of the transitory nature of attraction trump that? Should children's books be about what they want or what some adults think they need?
You expressed what I was thinking very eloquently when you said "I think it's somewhat disrespectful to kids to say that these sorts of characters should not be allowed or are not "good". It's saying that children's or YA literature should be directed at children instead of written for them."
There are so many wonderful children's books that break all sorts of rules.
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day has hardly any punctuation in the entire book. This was an interesting thing for an author to do in a children's book but imo, I think it works for this book because the focus of the story is how Alexander is feeling and all of the things that are causing him to feel that way. Clearly, this isn't a book that was ever intended to be used in school as a model for good grammar and punctuation. He's not a good role model either because he's not handling his bad day very well. He's being a bit of a brat about it. Should this definitively mean that it is ultimately a "bad book"? No, it doesn't because the purpose of the book wasn't to teach kids grammar and punctuation or to teach model behavior. The book was aimed at kids because it embodies what a typical child might be feeling on one of those bad days when all of the things that annoy you the most all happen in one day.
That is along the lines of how I interpreted N.'s comment about Twilight being a book for teens.
Uh-oh...Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Mickey R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Someone has Summoned the Grand Meyers
She Cannot Distinguish Subjective ("I Lyke It, therefore it is Goode and Juste") from Objective ("It's Grammar is Flawed, therefore it is Badde"), and will use Subjective to Argue.
She will Never Admit that Anyone Else is Right. She will Attempt to Bully You into Her Way of Thinking, and if you Disagree, YOU become the Bully.
Do yourself a favor, and Pretend that She is Not Here. Do Not Respond to Her in Any Way. She may Slink Back to the Temple of Cullen, wherein She Worships the Gospel According to the Holy Stephenie (probably Naked).
As an aside, happy mother's day to any and all who fit the role in any way.Remember that discussion a while back about stay at home Moms...well, I saw this today and thought of it. Imo, a price tag can't be put on it, but salary.com tried.
It's amazing you can't get a PhD in it, really!
Olivia wrote: "here is Q. is SM really that bad or writer or not?"It appears that some say yes and some say no. I don't think there is ever going to be a universally accepted definitive answer to that question.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Somerandom wrote: I apologize if that's what you took from my comment. That's not what I meant. All I'm saying is kids entertainment often gets a free pass simply because it's for kids. People don'..."Hmm I see your Point. I guess I took it as if N thought that teens were stupid and would read any old crap because of that.
I was Smeyers intended audience when I read Twilight. I felt like the book was constantly patronizing me. Bella's usage of random long words felt condescending at times and kind of clunky. Like she used the word infinitesimal in book one. I have never known anyone to use that word so casually, not even the so called "nerds" at my school. It made me question if she was even 16. Then in another book she tells me that Arrow laughed using three sentences one after another on the same page. I don't know what her intensions were or if it was just inexperience on her part, but as part of her target audience I felt like she didn't take me seriously.
Then there was the time that Midnight Sun was leaked. SMeyer emotionally blackmailed her fans and basically blamed them for the whole fiasco. So I disagree that SM took her audience seriously. At least from my perspective.
On another note Pipi Longstocking is awesome. But I never understood parent objections to her character. I don't agree with their assessment of Bella either. I don't think kids would act like her though wanting a guy like Eddie like many of my friends do is slightly disconcerting. I get his allure but I found him creepy. And not in the cool creepy vampire way either.
Also Happy Mothers Day to any mums on the forum!
Mochaspresso wrote: "Somerandom wrote: I apologize if that's what you took from my comment. That's not what I meant. All I'm saying is kids entertainment often gets a free pass simply because it's for kids. People don'..."Hello, I have been reading your responses and I feel the need to defend myself. lol First I would like to say that just because something is for children doesn't mean it should be substandard. I, personally, believe children should be able to read whatever catches their attention, because the important thing is that they READ. I think the more a person reads, the more they expect in their reading. I don't read the same things I read in my youth. Although, I have read most of the authors mentioned above and then some. I believe people read what they can relate to, children or adults. Is Stephanie Meyers a good author? To some yes, to others not so much. If you do not like an author, don't read their books. If you prefer perfect grammar, buy a grammar text book. I feel it is my job, and her teacher's, to teach my child grammar. One more thing, unless you have read bad writing, how will you recognize good. (off the soapbox)
I would not say she is a bad writer. 1. I agree with many here- most of the technical problems are the fault of the editing team.
But
2. She wrote in the style of romance novels which are written in such a way that you can easily place yourself and your love interest in the characters' positions without having to mentally change hair color and body shape.
So far as the characters lacking depth, that was intentional so that even short attention span hand held beings would not have to put too much thought and effort in order to relate.
N. wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Somerandom wrote: I apologize if that's what you took from my comment. That's not what I meant. All I'm saying is kids entertainment often gets a free pass simply because it's..."Well in that case, fair enough. I guess I was a tad upset when I wrote that because people were dismissing me because of my age. My apologies.
Somerandom wrote: "Hmm I see your Point. I guess I took it as if N thought that teens were stupid and would read any old crap because of that.I was Smeyers intended audience when I read Twilight. I felt like the book was constantly patronizing me. Bella's usage of random long words felt condescending at times and kind of clunky. Like she used the word infinitesimal in book one. I have never known anyone to use that word so casually, not even the so called "nerds" at my school. It made me question if she was even 16."
I'm not sure why you would think N. was saying that kids would read "any old crap". If you look at her rating for Twilight right by her name, she rated Twilight 5 stars. She obviously has a higher estimation of the merits of the book.
As to whether it's patronizing to have a 16 (wasn't she 17, though?) year old character use long words, I don't see the connection between the charge and the offense. Are you saying that no 16 year olds would use words like infinitesimal? I find that position rather patronizing. Sixteen year olds are like any other age group. There's as wide a variety of skills, quirks, and levels as any other age group. Bella's a reader. I find it absolutely realistic that she would know and use big words. I did at that age, too.
I wouldn't be so sure that you were Meyer's intended audience. That's, again, using nothing but age to define people and I think that doesn't go deep enough. There are other 37 year olds (my age) on this site, but this does not mean that we like that same books or are looking for the same things in our reading.
Mickey wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Hmm I see your Point. I guess I took it as if N thought that teens were stupid and would read any old crap because of that.I was Smeyers intended audience when I read Twilight...."
I think I was just upset when I wrote my response. Chalk it up to a bad day.
I wasn't saying that it was the big words being used were patronizing but the way they were thrown in the story seemingly at random was. Most of the time it felt unnecessary and forced, like SM was saying "look I know big words yay!" I'm assuming SM didn't intend for this to occur, but this was my personal interpretation when reading it.
It just seemed forced and unnatural, if that makes sense?
I am a person who loves romance, vampires and fantasy and I happened to be a young adult at the time of reading Twilight. The age may not be indicative of a target audience but I think that I meet the necessary requirements to be at least a candidate for belonging in the target audience of this particular book.
I felt that the way Bella spoke flip flopped between downright accurate to stilted and forced.
I hung around a variety of people in high school, some highly intelligent some who were into discovering religion, some flower power people and some philisophical. I have never heard any of them use the word infinitesimal. Not even my teachers used that word. Perhaps it's just an unusual word where I'm from or something?
This is just my personal experience I suppose. But it's just how I viewed it. Then again I read Twilight during the height of it's popularity and I think that tainted my whole experience of the whole thing.
Somerandom wrote: "I wasn't saying that it was the big words being used were patronizing but the way they were thrown in the story seemingly at random was. Most of the time it felt unnecessary and forced, like SM was saying "look I know big words yay!" I'm assuming SM didn't intend for this to occur, but this was my personal interpretation when reading it."Using the word patronizing in this new sense does not make sense, either. If the intent was to impress the reader, as you claim, then it could only be considered patronizing if she assumed the reader didn't know what the word meant and explained it. That might be considered patronizing. She didn't do that. Again, the charge and the offense don't bear much resemblence to each other.
If you've read the A Series of Unfortunate Events series by Lemony Snicket, that features many words and allusions that would be considered over the target audience's head. (I don't have the books in front of me, but one I remember was an instance in a later book where an adult was explaining original meaning in the law and Sunny, who is a baby but whose babbling has evolved into scholarly allusions says the "nonsense word" Scalia at that time, referring, no doubt, to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is a proponent of original meaning in interpreting the Constitution. How many preteens would understand this reference? I don't find the inclusion of this to be patronizing on Snicket's part, though. It's definitely something that a large percentage of children will not get, but its inclusion cannot accurately be called patronizing.
As far as the idea that it's patronizing because the big words are in your words "thrown in there randomly", this also doesn't make sense. They were obviously thrown in there deliberately, not randomly. Or maybe you meant that it's good form to throw in a clump of multisyllabic words, not just one at a time.
Your objections seem forced and disjointed, and this is mainly because your conclusions don't seem to follow your assertions. A writer who uses a large vocabulary is not usually considered to be "patronizing" her audience or "talking down" to them because of it.
Somerandom wrote: "I felt that the way Bella spoke flip flopped between downright accurate to stilted and forced.
I hung around a variety of people in high school, some highly intelligent some who were into discovering religion, some flower power people and some philisophical. I have never heard any of them use the word infinitesimal. Not even my teachers used that word. Perhaps it's just an unusual word where I'm from or something?"
I can't say as to where you live and who you hang around. If you are on a college bound track, you should know words like infinitesimal. Using them is an even better way to incorporate them. If you've never heard of words like infinitesimal before, you should thank Meyer for introducing them to you, especially since your teachers seem not to be helping you expand your vocabulary.
I'm thinking about teens in popular culture, particularly the show Gilmore Girls, if you've ever seen that. Rory Gilmore uses a very sophisticated vocabulary and the show is known for its intelligent and far reaching allusions to literature, philosophy, history and many other areas. Rory participates whole-heartedly in the dialogue. Is it realistic that a girl from a single parent household headed by a high school dropout would talk like that? Maybe not. However, it's not an impossibility either. I would have a hard time seeing how such a setup could be called patronizing, though.
ETA: Another example of a teenager on TV who is shown to use big words or concepts is Alex Keaton from the '80's sitcom Family Ties. I just watched an episode in which Alex, trying to spin why he hired a housekeeper with no experience, quoted Sartre. Maybe the vast majority of 19 year olds would not use Sartre to explain themselves, but it's entirely in keeping with this particular 19 year old character that he would. I just think you need to realize that not all people of the same age are alike.
Somerandom wrote: "I think I was just upset when I wrote my response. Chalk it up to a bad day."No, no, no... don't back down to Her. If you do, She'll harass the hell out of you until you believe Up is Down, Left is Right, and 2 + 2 = 5.
You are absolutely correct: dropping a "big word" into a narrative just to drop it is patronizing and insulting. If the narrator uses the words regularly, it's one thing (see: Horus Rising, where "future archaic" language is used by narrator and characters as a way to establish the setting). It's quite another to have it thrown at you out of nowhere to try and prove how "smart" you (or your characters) are.
Okay. I agree with you that it is cool to see them improve their craft.
I studied his face, trying to read it. His eyes seemed to narrow infinitesimally.Meyer, Stephenie (2007-07-18). Twilight (p. 103). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.
This is happening when Bella is inviting Edward to the beach at LaPush.
I don't know about it being patronizing to readers, but imo, the sentence is a bit awkward. I will admit that there are probably smoother ways to rephrase it. It's awkward only because infinitesimallly isn't typically used in that particular context in every day speech. But on the other hand, I guess she wanted to convey the idea that the change was minute and that the only reason that Bella noticed it all was because she was studying his face so intently at that moment.
Mochaspresso wrote: " I studied his face, trying to read it. His eyes seemed to narrow infinitesimally.Meyer, Stephenie (2007-07-18). Twilight (p. 103). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition."
Is this the only use of the word? And here I thought it was something she said. When people describe things, they are going to use a more precise vocabulary (if they're able).
This is beginning to sound like a reasoningwithvampires deal.
Mickey wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "I wasn't saying that it was the big words being used were patronizing but the way they were thrown in the story seemingly at random was. Most of the time it felt unnecessary and ..."Infinitesimal was just the first "smart" word used in Twilight that I could think of. To me it's awkward and clumsy. I know what infinitesimal means, have done for years. It's just not used casually where I live by anyone. Doesn't matter how smart they are or what subjects they happen to be discussing. Also because the rest of the writing surrounding it is so simple and casual it just makes the word stick out like a sore thumb.
I can't remember which book in thw Twilight series, but I do remember this being in it somewhere:
Arrow laughed.
Hahaha he chuckled.
That's obviously paraphrasing since I don't have the book in front of me. But who writes like that?
Honestly it looks like it belongs in a young children's novel.
Then there were the thousands of dedcriptions of Edward. I get it he's an Adonis, move on already!
The rest of the book had dozens of repeated words in it. Chargrin for example
So I'm wondering where her large vocabulary was during this? Maybe it improves in the later books?
I'm Australian so I guess our language tends to be more relaxed. Perhaps I'm just reading too much into it. That also means I have no idea who this judge is.
But I felt patronized whilst reading Twilight. Even some Twilighters I know have told me the same thing.
I remember Gilmore Girls. It was fun to mess with my teacher's head using that show. But with Rory it felt natural. She was spunky and funny so I liked the character. I hated Bella. I thought she was kind of arrogant and thought herself smarter than everyone else. So perhaps that influenced how I viewed her narrative.
My Teachers were big on expanding vocabulary by the way. Not all teachers are lazy.(But English teachers tend to have a really dirty sense of humor outside school)
How does your "Arrow" (I suppose you mean Aro) example fit with your contention that she's being patronizing by using big words? Or your problem with the focus on Edward? I'm not sure what the characteristics of "spunky" and "funny" have to do with whether a character can use big words. It's a bit irrelevant to the discussion.
If you've known words like infinitesimally for years, then your idea that no one knows/uses it is rather odd, isn't it? If a person is describing a small increment, it'd be a natural word if it were part of your vocabulary.
Anyway, just because you've overheard other people saying that it's "patronizing" for others to use big words in books doesn't necessarily mean that it fits the description of what that means. It's actually the opposite. If she had made sure to use only smaller words or concepts, one could say she was of the impression that her audience couldn't handle something more complex. It's a bit like when students complain about a book by saying, "This book is stupid. I don't understand it."
I really enjoyed the Twilight series and would love to read The Host. I wasn't phased by any so called grammer or complicated phrases. I just thorougly enjoyed the story. Some authors do have those kinds of mistakes in their books but if you are caught up in the story - who honestly cares. Are you reading for the story or reading to pick up mistakes?
by the way for those who thought her writing was childish, remember who the books were written for. also it is untrue to say that those who read this kind of genre only read that genre. i am well read and enjoy all kinds of books regardless of flaws that readers pick at
Mickey wrote: "How does your "Arrow" (I suppose you mean Aro) example fit with your contention that she's being patronizing by using big words? Or your problem with the focus on Edward? I'm not sure what the ch..."
The endless details of Eddie was a pet peave of mine. It just got repetitive and boring and I felt like she was drilling into my head just how hot Edward was.
Aro, that's the bastard. Knew it was something like that. Well bashing your audience over the head with details like a character laughing as if you dont know what laughing is seems pretty patronizing to me.
There are alot of words that I don't use in normal discourse. Like verboten and antidisestablishentism and others. Though I suppose spoken English tends to be more relaxed at least where I live.
Somerandom wrote: "The endless details of Eddie was a pet peave of mine. It just got repetitive and boring and I felt like she was drilling into my head just how hot Edward was. "See, I liked the repetition of Edward's beauty, because I felt it was spot on with how people feel when they first fall in love. My pet peeve is when people use words like "patronizing" incorrectly or their entire opinion is just a rehash of old information they get second hand.
Somerandom wrote: "Aro, that's the bastard. Knew it was something like that."
I find it odd that you would write his name phonetically. You have read the books, correct? It's a mistake that sort of points to the idea that you haven't.
Somerandom wrote: "There are alot of words that I don't use in normal discourse. Like verboten and antidisestablishentism and others. Though I suppose spoken English tends to be more relaxed at least where I live."
Is there another example of her using the word infinitesimally besides when describing Edward's eyes narrowing in the first book? Because that's not spoken language. It's written language.
Mickey wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "The endless details of Eddie was a pet peave of mine. It just got repetitive and boring and I felt like she was drilling into my head just how hot Edward was. "See, I liked the..."
I just have a really bad memory. I put it down to my terribly short attention span. I have read the books. But only a month ago and I'm afraid I'm forgetting them already. I do remember Edward dazzling her.
If only you could back up your memory like on an external hard drive. Oh well maybe in a couple of decades they'd have figured out a way.
Isn't first person narrative supposed to be written like spoken English?
I admit that when I read Twilight it was being torn apart by everyone and I mean everyone. So I admit that my experience of reading Twilight was possibly influenced by the hype and the subsequent internet war surrounding it. To be honest I really could not care less. It's just a popular book. Books gain popularity. Its just what happens.
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...
Conversely, I think the plot was great, I think she has amazing ideas. It's in the execution that she has trouble.
But you know what? If she is dedicated to writing, and pursues it as a career choice, and brings out more books? Maybe one day, a few years from now, she'll improve on that. Her style of writing would still be there, but the little mistakes she's made won't be so noticeable.
So I think she's not great, but has potential.