Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
I say essentially what Lindsay said. For the genre(s) Meyer writes in and for the target audiences she writes for? No, not really. If one inappropriately compares her to the "literary" authors I read as an English major, then...obviously.
I don't think so. I mean, I'm not a big fan of Twilight or anything, but I'll admit her writing is sort of dream-like and enchanting. Maybe that's why Twilight gained much popularity in the first place. I don't remember the last 3 books, but the first one's writing style was pretty good as far as I can remember.
Tacketttammiebellsouth.net wrote: "Those of you think shes a bad author is wrong she does a good job on her books she never mess up at all and she writes very good books i read all of them so far and they are not boring or bad at all"I like how you say that other people's opinions are wrong.
Also, proper grammar and punctuation never hurt anyone.
I only read the first one, but my impression was that Meyer was not a bad writer but she needed a better editor. I thought the book was too repetitive and would have benefited from judicious cutting. That said, I understand why it took off and gained such a massive following. It clearly struck just the right note for the majority of her readers, and in my opinion, that makes it a good book. NY Review of Books rave review worthy Literature (with a capital L)? No, but I don't think that was her intention.
Judging by the poor spellin and grammar portrayed by some of the people in this discussion, it's not surprising that some of you would not find anything wrong with Meyer's writing. As some have already posted, she has poor word choices in places, she over-describes the most boring of scenes, and she has awkward sentence fragments. Is she the worst author ever? No, but her character development is weak, and the story itself is vastly boring, save to a few heartstruck tween girls that enjoying idolizing about a sparkling vampire and a werewolf fighting over them.
Overall, the story is weak, the characters are boring, and awkward word choices and poor grammar make these novels nothing more than books that were published at exactly the right time to start a vampire craze.
While the argument can be made that Meyer's editors failed her, the amount of mistakes that they allowed to be published clearly displays her lack of literary ability. Also, for those with the argument that her writing is obviously good enough to be published, that is the worst argument I've heard. Even the worst of writers can find an agent and a publishing company willing to sell their work. There are plenty of publishing companies that will publish a novel solely because they believe it will market and sell well, not specifically because they think it is excellently written.
Dan wrote: "While the argument can be made that Meyer's editors failed her, the amount of mistakes that they allowed to be published clearly displays her lack of literary ability. Also, for those with the ar..."
Well, that's kind of the point. There's a market for it. There is also a market for bad theater, horrible movies, crap music, and awful TV. But other people love these things, and they are finding an audience making a buck. So when there is a market for something, it's striking a chord, so it really cannot be "bad." Maybe not what YOU consider good, but clearly enough people loved it to make it a multi-million dollar title. That's why I won't slag it off.
Brilliant writers with spectacular command of the English language who can't sell more than 5,000 books to keep a publishing contract may want to take a look at what Meyer did *right* and apply it to their own work. Because to create something that will actually SELL in an over crowded market is no easy feat, and that alone takes a certain amount of talent. Dumb luck? Perhaps. But I think brushing it off as such is way too simplistic.
And yes, her editors failed her. I've seen plenty of writers turn in barely literate article drafts to places like the NYTimes and Wall Street Journal, and the editors spin those pieces into gold. A good editor makes a huge difference.
I read all four books. I did enjoy reading them, sort-of. What didn't make this series really dazzle me was Meyer's plot choices. You can like characters (Edward and Jacob and Bella's dad--not Bella) as much as you want, because characterization can really carry the reader's interest. Unfortunately, plot-wise, this series should have been condensed into two books. And the build up/hype behind the Volturi should not have been so misleading. Disregarding whatever happened in the movies (didn't see the last two). I wanted all out war at the end of that book, not two groups of pissed off vampires just standing there. When you build up something in a story, you gotta deliver in the end. When you don't it tarnishes everything.I think Meyer has potential if we are talking about pure writing ability. But in the future, tighter plots. And I mean air-tight. I hope the Host was as good as people keep saying, cause I'm gonna read it.
Karen wrote: "Dan wrote: "While the argument can be made that Meyer's editors failed her, the amount of mistakes that they allowed to be published clearly displays her lack of literary ability. Also, for those..."
There's a difference between striking a "chord" with a large audience and having no ability to write effectively. I'm not bashing her because she found something that sold. I'm saying that she sold millions of copies DESPITE her obvious lack of ability. The discussion isn't "Did Meyer only sell because of her topic?" It's "Is Meyer a bad writer?" Yes, she is. Whether she sold millions of copies or not doens't mean she is a good writer. And it's not just my opinion that she is a terrible writer. There are thousands of people. (Just look at this discussion.) My point is that you don't see discussions like this for Hemmingway, Rowling, Tolkien, etc... because they have the ability construct and develop a great story. I would rather be a great writer that can't sell than somebody that just writes what will sell only to make money.
Dan wrote: "Whether she sold millions of copies or not doens't mean she is a good writer. And it's not just my opinion that she is a terrible writer. There are thousands of people. (Just look at this discussion.) My point is that you don't see discussions like this for Hemmingway, Rowling, Tolkien, etc... because they have the ability construct and develop a great story."But there are people that think Hemingway, Rowling, and Tolkien are bad writers. Thinking something is a "great story" is subjective.
I've learned a lot in my Creative Writing class this year. So I guess you can say that I have a little experience in providing an answer to this question.Stephanie Meyer's characters are not believable, or realistic. A lot of times you will read about what her characters do in Twilight and it'll just come off as things that normal people would not do. Often times I read about the decisions Bella has made in her life and I say to myself "well that doesn't make any sense! Who would do something like that!"
And that's the effect that Stephanie wants her reader to have I assume. She doesn't really get into the mind of her characters. She plots out everything, from the name of the character to the last thing they do before they go to bed. And because of that her characters are one dimensional.
Rather than get to know Bella Swan and delve into her head and leave Bella to her own devices to do whatever she wants to do, or responds to whatever however, Ms. Meyer has it all planed out. And that works for her.
But it also prevents her story from having that true life changing depth, that will bring some form of emotion to her audience.
I think Stephanie isn't a bad writer. She just needs to stop planning and simply let the characters do their own thing, leaving her to sit back and relax.
Candy wrote: "Yeah, I actually really enjoyed the Twilight series when I first read them - I think a few found the constant telling of Bella's daily life in the first book a little boring but it's actually one o..."Amen.
Mickey wrote: "Dan wrote: "Whether she sold millions of copies or not doens't mean she is a good writer. And it's not just my opinion that she is a terrible writer. There are thousands of people. (Just look at th..."Tolkien studied the English language and Linguistics his entire life, and taught Anglo-Saxon Literature at Oxford University. There is really no valid argument that he did not understand the English language and was not a great writer. Sure, there are a number of people who might critique Rowling or Tolkien, but it is without a doubt that Tolkien is one of the greatest literary minds of the 20th century. Saying that something is a "great story" simply because I like it is subjective, but the fact still remains that Meyer cannot create deep, developed characters, and her word choice is poor at best. She spent too much time digging through a thesaurus when she should have been brushing up on her grammar.
Mickey wrote: "Dan wrote: "Whether she sold millions of copies or not doens't mean she is a good writer. And it's not just my opinion that she is a terrible writer. There are thousands of people. (Just look at th..."Mickey, that's exactly it. Plenty of people on this thread loved the Twilight books, just like plenty of people hated them. Calling a book "good" or "bad" is subjective. If Tolkien's books were published today, would they be best sellers, universally adored? Lord of the Rings certainly could have used some judicious cutting too, in my opinion.
Bronte is not universally adored. What about Damon Runyon? Bukowski? Some people can't stomach their writing style or their subject matters. They certainly are not assigned in any English lit class I ever took. But they remain two of the most compelling writers I have ever read.
Millions of copies sold means that to many, many people she is indeed a good writer. No amount of marketing in the world will sell a piss poor story, particularly since pop novels in her genre sell by word-of-mouth and not by by critical blessings from a select few reviewers. Connecting on this level with readers meant she did something right when she told that story, regardless of her grasp of the technical aspects of writing. This discussion also isn't "Is Stephanie Meyer proficient in grammar and word usage."
Personally, I didn't like the first book and have no interest in reading the rest of the series, so I am no SM fangirl. But to gain the faithful, often rabid fan following that she did means she should not be dismissed.
To a certain degree, writing style is a personal preference and subjective. A girl in my book club hates anything written from the first perspective. Book subject matter is certainly a personal choice. SM has flaws like all authors, but that doesn't make her a bad writer.
I don't think SM is a bad writer. I think she (like all authors) writes about what she's familiar with and that spurs her imagination. She chose a YA audience and I find her books are in keeping with that fanbase. Has anyone listened to the 13-17 yr old teen? They talk and emote just like her books. I am not a reader that feels its necessary to get out my pen and paper and critique the author. I buy and read various literature based on my mood. Priority for me is being entertained. I was thoroughly entertained by the Twilight series (I have 2 granddaughters in her fanbase age, lol) I found it was exactly what it was presented to be, a YA story. If I read nonfiction, I don't based my satisfaction on fiction guidelines. I really don't understand all the fuss about flaws, style and repetition. It's a piece of entertainment, not a candidate for being placed in with the classics (some of which I would have NEVER chosen to read if they had not been on the mandatory list in school,lol)
So what's the deal? Since we all have freedom of choice to read what we want, what's really grated some people's cheese? That Meyers is such a bad writer? Or that she dared to have such success with books some would not have chosen?
There are so many books on the Best Sellers List that I personally wouldn't line my garbage cans with, but there they are! Do I resent the success of authors I wouldn't read? Nope. I assume that the author appeals to a fan base of fans that enjoys his/her work. I may not be one of them, but that's the diversity of people and their choices and I can't deny their choices without denying my own. :)
Well, Stephanie Meyer, quite frankly, is not a good writer. Her grammar is fine and everything, but her writing style isn't amazing, or eloquent.Her vocab isn't the best. Her books kept me reading only because of the content. I'll give her credit for a great imagination, but she won't be winning any literature awards. The fact that her ideas are so new and edgy gets people to keep reading (let's face it, she restarted the vampire craze) and her books are aimed towards teen readers. Not all teens analyze text or are much interested in writing, so they may not be able to judge Meyer's style. Those that can, need to pick apart the books and realize they're not as great as everyone may think. it takes one or two reads to get it. First time i read the series I loved it, second time, not so much, because i focused less on the excitement and more on the writing.
Alex Day did a really thorough job of explaining why she isn't a good writer. Just Youtube "Alex Day reads Twilight," if you've never heard/seen them.
I don't really think she is a bad writer. I mean, if she really was her books would not have been made into movies. They were because she is a good writer and people enjoyed her books.
Hannah wrote: "I don't really think she is a bad writer. I mean, if she really was her books would not have been made into movies. They were because she is a good writer and people enjoyed her books."You know, popularity has nothing to do with her being good or bad. She just happened to publish Twilight at the right time and the right people just happened to pick it up and spread.
Like Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga (95% of popular music, really), the music they put out is literally shit. But a lot of people still listen to them.
I thought as a whole Stephane's writing was always executed well, not awkward or lacking detail, but I felt her quite boring.
M.R. wrote: "I think most of the problems with Twilight could actually be blamed on bad editing. Most books undergo intensive rewriting AFTER the author has completed the final draft. The editing is supposed to..."Yes!!
no
I dislike her writing. Not hate. Dislike. Mainly because her don't characters develop at all and the storyline is a bit weird, but I think that it was probably reading more complicated and interesting books that made me not LOVE her books as much as I did before. And there were a few characters I loved without realising it (Alice is a fascinating character, ditto Rosalie).
Writing is art, and therefore subjective.I had a professor in college--a belligerent, know-it-all of a woman--who passed out a sheet comparing the same paragraph written in two different styles. One was overly complicated, consisting of perhaps three sentences, but an obscene amount of words and commas. The other was overly simple, very "See Spot Run" with too many sentences to count. According to her, the complex version was correct; I obviously disagree. Style of writing changes based on what the author is trying to convey. So in that respect, SMeyer's writing is neither right nor wrong. However, there IS a technical side, and like a singer can stray off pitch, a writer can fall short in a number of grammatical areas.
One thing you can say for sure, SMeyer has imagination in spades. I would call her a novice writer more than a bad writer, but she's a fairly brilliant story teller. She wouldn't have such a large fan base otherwise. She has a way of enrapturing readers despite the obvious shortcomings of her work.
Dan wrote: "Tolkien studied the English language and Linguistics his entire life, and taught Anglo-Saxon Literature at Oxford University. There is really no valid argument that he did not understand the English language and was not a great writer. "Using a writer's level of education or profession as the main criteria for being a great writer is problematic. Meyer, who has an English degree, would then rate higher than many writers who never went to college. Whether an argument is "valid" or not is subjective. If you are such a fan of Tolkien, you'd naturally have a problem with a person expressing the opinion that Tolkien is not a great writer. It wouldn't seem "valid" to you because you don't share that opinion. I think it might open your eyes if you read reviews of some of your favorite books and see that there are many people that have unfavorable opinions of Tolkien's writing. I think when you refer to whether an argument is "valid" or not, you mean that you don't agree and that's misusing the word.
Dan wrote: "Sure, there are a number of people who might critique Rowling or Tolkien, but it is without a doubt that Tolkien is one of the greatest literary minds of the 20th century. "
These IS doubt that Tolkien is one of the greatest literary minds of the 20th century. I would even call that a minority opinion. I certainly don't rate Tolkien so highly. To say that there is no doubt about that suggests that you travel in circles that have very little variety if you think that everybody universally loves Tolkien.
Dan wrote: "Saying that something is a "great story" simply because I like it is subjective, but the fact still remains that Meyer cannot create deep, developed characters, and her word choice is poor at best. She spent too much time digging through a thesaurus when she should have been brushing up on her grammar."
I think that Bella is actually a deeper, more developed character than many female characters that are praised today. I think portrayal of women have degenerated into one-dimensional, fantasy characters of the BAMF. I think Bella's character is more nuanced and explores more realtistic topics than Rowling's Hermione Granger, for instance.
I like her word choice. I think Meyer does a good job of using words to convey emotion. As far as your problem with her wide vocabulary, there have been people here that have said that her word choice is too simple and that she doesn't use big words. Grammar, particularly in a first person narrative is often less formal. Look at Catcher in the Rye or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I don't find the idea that the grammar is less than perfect or standard to be that big of a deal in the assessment of a piece of fiction. It's all subjective.
Romantizing a serial killer might be pushing it. Even by todays standards.
S.L.J. wrote: "Romantizing a serial killer might be pushing it. Even by todays standards."Quoted for the truth.
Faithless wrote: "Hannah wrote: "I don't really think she is a bad writer. I mean, if she really was her books would not have been made into movies. They were because she is a good writer and people enjoyed her book..."And just like Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga, it's all a matter of opinion. I love Twilight, Bieber and I think Gaga's music is alright. There are going to be people who say Twilight is awesome, Bieber sucks and Gaga shouldn't even exist. There are going to be people who love all three, hate all three. So popularity doesn't have anything to do with any of that. I like certain artists, I'm sure you like certain artists, but do you like them because they are popular? No. You like them because you like their music.
It's the same with books. I like Twilight, not because it's popular, but because my overall personal preference on the series was great. So the overall label of this story isn't going to be unanimous. Not everyone likes the same thing.
Mickey wrote: "I think that Bella is actually a deeper, more developed character than many female characters that are praised today. I think portrayal of women have degenerated into one-dimensional, fantasy characters of the BAMF. I think Bella's character is more nuanced and explores more realtistic topics than Rowling's Hermione Granger, for instance. "You know, I never really thought about it like that before, but I'm inclined to agree. As much as I love Hermione, she's not much different than a large sum of female protagonists. I understand why this is, of course. We, as women, want to be BAMFs. We want to inspire strength, independence, and intelligence. All of this is good, but it's also monotonous.
Bella has a quiet strength to her. She stands up for what she wants, even in the face of opposition and sacrifice (the latter of which she sadly avoids *sigh*). She fights to protect those she loves, even if she's a little stupid sometimes when she does so. She's not in-your-face-I-am-woman-hear-me-roar, but she is a woman with convictions.
Jordan wrote: "I like certain artists, I'm sure you like certain artists, but do you like them because they are popular? No. You like them because you like their music.It's the same with books. I like Twilight, not because it's popular, but..."
I agree with this, but there is something to be said about hype. The people who liked Twilight would probably have still liked it without the hype, and those who disliked it would have been similarly unchanged. What the overwhelming popularity did was create a sort of frenzy. Those who like LOVE and CRAVE and SCREAM. Those who dislike SCORN and SNEER and RANT. (This is not all people, btw, just a crowd generalization). Honestly, I kind of hated Twilight before I read it. It was freaking EVERYWHERE. I couldn't escape it. So, I read it, fully expecting to roll my eyes and underscore my hate. My feelings ended up being reversed, but the intensity was still there. There's something about fanaticism that drives people to the extremes of the emotional spectrum.
My biggest problem with Meyers' writing is her limited set of adjectives. If she'd called Edward "perfect" one more time I was going to scream. Actually, I did scream a couple of times. Way overused!
I personally hated her writing style, or maybe I just hated Twilight..... But either way I seriously hated the series. Bella seemed like an unemotional characterless stupid girl. Her writing lacked any sort of humour and fun. There were also a lot of mistakes in the writing.
She really isn't a good writer. Obviously it would be hard for simple things like grammar and spelling to slip through the net, but instead it's just the nonsensical phrases some of her dialogue and plotlines. I just can't stand her or her writing.
Dorothy wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I like certain artists, I'm sure you like certain artists, but do you like them because they are popular? No. You like them because you like their music.It's the same with books. I..."
Yeah, I guess I understand that. I was one of the readers who had no idea what Twilight was about. I didn't know anything about it until I read it. So the hype was around (because everyone talked about it) But I had a lot of interest. But I would have eventually read it without the hype, because my mom had it in the house before the hype started. (She hadn't read it either, but a friend gave it to us.)
Yes, not going in details
Short answer, yes. Long answer, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees. I wanted to tear my eyes out trying to read this book.
If new is bad, then yes. You have to realize, her success was a zeitgeist phenom. What I mean by that is she (unwittingly) dialed into something that reverberates with every 17 year old, would be 17 year girl or past 17 year old girl. She had a dream. Then wrote a book based on the dream. Writing? What does that have to do with it? She was telling of her wonderful dream. This was all it took. Twilight is not so much bad writing as it is sophomoric. Then that other book of hers...the sci fi one came on the heels of twilight. Well, I predict you won't see anything from Meyers again unless its another Twilight (Lord willing, of course) or she goes back to basics and learns how to write for realsies.
I thought her writing style was so... bland, I guess that would be the word. She isn't the worst writer out there, but she's hanging around mediocrity. I also hated how she would describe EVERYTHING in excessive detail. There was only so much I could handle before my eyes began to skip those parts. Meyers needed a better editor. But I suppose that the relatively simple writing style appeals to a broader audience. Still, her writing probably wouldn't have bothered me that much if the story made up for it and it reaaaaaally didn't. She couldn't have created more annoying stereotypical protagonists with hardly any development.
Yeah. And it succeeded so well. Makes you wonder about all those "rules of writing." I liken it to the equivalent of winning the literary lottery. You just could never plan for it.
No i don't think that she is a bad writer i just think think that her style of writing is not the style that most people favor. All writers have their style and that's hers. Some people really like Twilight, personally i really liked the book when i was in middle school and i guess i just grew out of it over time.
Jordan wrote: "Yeah, I guess I understand that. I was one of the readers who had no idea what Twilight was about. I didn't know anything about it until I read it. So the hype was around (because everyone talked..."I was SUPER into Facebook Flair back when I first read Twilight, and it drove me nuts that there were all these Twilight references I didn't get. Like Renesmee being a spork or 80mph being slow. That was why I gave in, haha. I didn't care if I hated it, as long as I could understand all the jokes. I ended up borrowing it from my friend's mom because the Library queue was something like 250 long.
A. Michael wrote: "Yeah. And it succeeded so well. Makes you wonder about all those "rules of writing." I liken it to the equivalent of winning the literary lottery. You just could never plan for it."I've never been a fan of the "Rules of Writing." Some of my favorite works break those rules so well. There's also the fact that language is fluid, so the rules are constantly changing. I do, however, concede that in order to break the rules effectively, one must first know them inside and out. SMeyer, despite her English degree, did not.
yes indeed. English degrees have little to do with style, as we know. It's the zeitgeist thing, Heinlien talked about it as regards Stranger in a Strange Land
Her writing style was not great for her first two books but the stories were still very interesting. Some authors writing style may just not appealing to some people.
Dorothy wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Yeah, I guess I understand that. I was one of the readers who had no idea what Twilight was about. I didn't know anything about it until I read it. So the hype was around (because ev..."Haha! yeah, everybody knew what it was! I was only 12 at the time, and since my mom hadn't read it, she was't going to let me, just in case it was inappropriate. So we had it in the house for a long time, and I finally understood!
No! I loved the book!
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...
Anyway, I know that if I tried to write part of an adult or children's book, it would suck. I like sticking to teen books :)