Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
message 1801:
by
Morgan
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Sep 22, 2013 11:51AM
I cant stand any of her books
reply
|
flag
Mimi ❤ wrote: "No writer is perfect. She's not bad, but not the best. I personally think she's not bad of an author and I enjoy her style"I agree. She's not the greatest author I've read, but she's not terrible either. She's an in-between.
I'm not going to say she's a bad author but she kind of ruined my faith in Vampires. The books were okay but definitely not for me.
Her writing isn't bad, it's the story that people don't like and that's what causes all the hate for every aspect of twilight, even if some parts aren't that bad
Personally, I think Meyer's writing is the best part of Twilight. The story itself is pretty flat, but I was caught up anyway. Later I have found that the writing was what had me captivated. She has a poetic language, and it was pretty beautiful.
Alisha Rose wrote: "Nope, I don't think she's a particularly bad writer. While each reader has their preferred style of writing, not everyone may like SM's, however I think the big controversy about her being a bad wr..."Exactly! You pretty much summed it all up.
I've read better writers who bore me to tears. In the end it all comes down to concept- either you have it or you don't.
Tacketttammiebellsouth.net wrote: "Morgan wrote: "I cant stand any of her books"have you ever read one?"
ive read all of them
I can think of a few bad writers and SM is not one of them. It's a writers goal to pull you into a fictional world and immerse you in its reality. Stephanie achieved this and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.The angst between Edward and Bella got a tad wearing at times but it held up in the context of the story and the supporting characters were solid, the world building excellently accomplished. Even the sparkly vampires did not seem ludicrous at the time, and I didn't think it silly until the films came out and it turned into such a tremendous rallying point for ridicule.
The films are the downfall of this series - much as the Mortal Instrument films are making a mockery of Cassandra Clare's epic. When the films arrived and the books were so over-hyped on the back of them it became the fashion to heap criticism on SM's writing abilities. The books were rubbished because they became synonymous(sp?) with silly teen fangirls so, if you wanted to be taken seriously, you *had* to be aginst Twilight - my teen daughter adored the books until the films arrived and they turned her rabidly against them. The fact is Stephanie's books are being blamed for the truly awful films that were made on their backs, and shame on her for letting Hollywood get away with it.
The Host is not, by contrast, fodder for fangirl fiction and is a much slower more thought provoking experience. It has none of the epic emotions and teen angst of Twilight but is more of a 'coming of age' story about learning to understand and appreciate the differences of other cultures.
There's really no comparison between the two and, personally, I prefer Host to Twilight if I had to choose between them. But that may be beause I'm no longer a teenager :)
Kathy wrote: "I did not feel Meyer's characters were well developed nor believable. This can partly be due to the genre of young adult fiction and partly be due to her skill. This is escapist supernatural roma..."I disagree her characters were very well developed and very believable. Many people accuse her of writing to much about her character's feelings and what they were doing (so called ramblings) but that is what gave them depth and drew me into the books. I loved the entire series and wish she would write more.
Well, I wouldn't say that she is a bad writer, however, she has some limitations. And I would rather say that it was her luck that Twilight made her famous, but then, she couldn't keep up with the fame like Rowling did with her works. So again, she has limitations.
Lindsay wrote: "I don't think she's a bad writer exactly...But she's writing what is essentially disposable fiction. It isn't high literature and shouldn't be treated as much, nor should her writing be phrased f..."
Agreed! in all senses.
The books were okay. However, once put into movie form, you could see how cheesy it was. And everything went downhill from there.
people dont get ur ego in your way "SM did rock"she did give a best romance novel
Lydia wrote: "She got her book idea from a dream!!!! and bella is pathetic always wining about becomeing a vampire and how edward is evreything to her when in reality shes only 17 when she meets him and she dons..."I agree with all of those points but the question isn't about the story it's about the writing.
Please, I wrote better than this in 10th grade.
No, I do not think that she is a bad writer, it's just the fact that she writes a lot of romance novels, that people don't like. So her plot needs improvement. She wrote the host, and that book wasn't that bad, but it still needs work. For me, when I read books, I hate it when there's a female character who just depends on the guy to do everything. I also hate it when a perfectly good book gets ruined because of a love story.
Emily wrote: "I actually liked Stephanie Meyer's writing until Breaking Dawn. For me, it was really drawn out with way too much foreshadowing. I also thought the ending was completely unrealistic; we get to the ..."How do you figure everyone walked away happy the volturie was not happy and it leaves room for another book which I would love. The volturie's whole point was to get Alice and break up the family that they felt was a threat to them.
Every one has their own opinions. What is good for one person is drivel for the next. The Twilight series is a very good example of that. A lot of people like it, some are obsessed over it, and yet other hate it. It is not always necessarily about the write but more about the way the story makes you feel. Creating emotion and telling a story is what writing is all about. You also have to remember that Twilight is essentially a story written for teens. It is also SM first attempt at writing. Breaking Dawn was written better then Twilight (in my opinion). If you read The Host, it is written more for adults, and her style has improved even more.
If you want to compare 50 Shades to Twilight, well there really is no comparison. E L James has improved a lot by the end of the series as well. I am not sure if that is due to more practice writing or better editors, but the third book was a lot easier to read then the first, however in either case the story still comes through and brings the characters and emotions with it.
I think the better question to ask is "Did you like the book/series?" It doesn't matter what other people think, if you enjoyed the read than SM did her job.
yep i agree every one has their own opinions
What dictates a "good" or "bad" writer? Almost everyone can agree it is not the usage of "big words" or placement (although they do help). Of course, we have all sifted through Wikipedia articles for some pointless information. There are so many big words, that even if you understand them it is uninteresting. It lacks heart, feeling, emotion. People enjoy books they can identify with. Depending on who you are, you may or may not be able to identify with the characters. People also enjoy books that make them feel something special. If they believe they are a part of the story and it is interactive they bond with the work.
Take Harry Potter, for instance. It has all of these elements. (There is really no point in disagreeing here, even if you do not particularly like the books.) It also has literary techniques. Whenever you spot a foreshadow two hundred pages later and you think, "Gah, how did I not see that coming!" Stephenie uses literary techniques like foreshadowing, except they are WAY more obvious.
From my standpoint, I believe Twilight has a decent plot with developed characters but lacks the wonder you get when reading a heartfelt book. However, it was not meant to be written that way. The characters, narration, and plot are the way they are for a reason. It is what works for her series.
Every book has a reason (hopefully) for being written: Most are either to inform or entertain. Twilight is evidently written to entertain its audience. To ask a straight-out question (if someone is a good writer or not) is unfair when everyone has different things that entertain them. The facts are presented, but still you cannot say either way.
In my biased opinion, at the time I engulfed these books I thought they were written well. At the time this sort of plot entertained me. Now it is not appealing. Still, I think Stephenie is a good writer. Her books contain necessary elements. I do not think she is a great writer, but she is definitely a good one.
She's not the best but she's okay.
she's not a bad writer.....Twilight wasn't that great though
She may be slightly better than Christopher Paolini of Eragon fame. Of course I only read the 1st 2 Eragon books and I think he was only 14 when he wrote those. She is far below the talents of John Grisham, Jamees Patterson, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, and other airport terminal schlock writers. Kouta Hirano, who wrote the hilariously over the top "Hellsing" comics, is a far better writer of vampire fiction. To put things in perspective, he's a porn director who has never read a work of classic literature in his life.
She is a very talented author, I understand there are people who don't like her stories and that's fine but not everyone likes Shakespeare either. And no I am not comparing her to the great Shakespeare but everyone has a different preference. I personally think people are too harsh on authors, if you don't like a book than you have a right to express that but when you go out of your way to bash that individual than its totally unnecessary.
I personally loved Twilight but I do understand where people bitch about Bella because half of the time I wanted to throw her as well but to each their own.
I HATE HER.
Flaws:
Bella: Too obsessed with Edward. Edward, Edward, Edward. She has to stop living his life.
Edward: Too perfect. Flawless.
Jasper: Too flawed. Excessively.
Rosalie: I don't even know why Stephanie put her there.
Emmett: He's okay, I guess...
Remarks:
Alice: The only character I find okay and balanced.
Flaws:
Bella: Too obsessed with Edward. Edward, Edward, Edward. She has to stop living his life.
Edward: Too perfect. Flawless.
Jasper: Too flawed. Excessively.
Rosalie: I don't even know why Stephanie put her there.
Emmett: He's okay, I guess...
Remarks:
Alice: The only character I find okay and balanced.
Tinath wrote: "I HATE HER.Flaws:
Bella: Too obsessed with Edward. Edward, Edward, Edward. She has to stop living his life.
Edward: Too perfect. Flawless.
Jasper: Too flawed. Excessively.
Rosalie: I don't even kn..."
I agree with all of those points but the thread isn't a bout the story and characters, it's about the writing
I don't think there has to be a reason to dislike someone's writing style. I think it all comes down to personal preference.
I don't think SM is an awful writer, but she can be sloppy and doesn't always think things through, to make sure they make sense. I think it's more likely that she's a bad researcher. Here's some examples:The baby. SM characterized her vampires as living crystal. Hence the sparkle. And they don't grow or change anymore, hence Alice's eternally short hair.
Her explanation why her male vampires can sire children is just ignorant. Basically she boils it down to women change, and men don't. So because her female vampires' bodies can't change to accommodate a growing fetus they can't carry one to term. But since men's bodies don't change, they still can father children. They just didn't know about it because it never happened before.
This notion is FLAT OUT WRONG. Men's bodies DO change in the reproductive cycle. It just happens at a microscopic level, in the production of sperm cells. And since she eliminated cellular change in her vamps, BOTH male and female are sterile. A high school biology teacher could have explained these concepts to her.
Bella needing to drink blood to feed the baby. There is no direct connection between the mother's digestive system, and the baby's. They are kept separate by the placental barrier. Nutrients and waste can cross but that's all. So what happens if a human drinks blood? It gets digested. No whole blood is going to make it from the mother to the baby. If they give her an IV, that still goes to the mother.
Furthermore, the baby was consuming human food later in the book. That means she didn't HAVE to have blood in utero. They just needed to feed Bella. But that would have removed some more author-forced drama, wouldn't it?
If Meyers was a bad writer, she would NOT be who she is right now... which is: much richer than we are.
Well, she's not the worst writer I've ever read but she's definitely not the best. I think the thing is, she writes to an audience that I am not a part of. It's complete fantasy where the reader is able to put herself in the shoes of the main character since the main character is predominately a blank slate. It borders on erotic fantasy aimed for teens who can't handle full on erotica. Not the best book I've read, not even my favorite book I've read, but I read it to see what the big deal was and all in all, not impressed.
No, I don't think she's a bad writer. Every writer has strong points and weak points and as a reader you have to choose what forms in writing are important to you and what you can afford to overlook in order to enjoy the story, without being overly critical of the author. I think the series is great, although Breaking Dawn was a little...eh.
Martine wrote: "If Meyers was a bad writer, she would NOT be who she is right now... which is: much richer than we are."I'm afraid I don't see how financial success translates into good writing.
Twilight sold 116 million copies worldwide, and is criticized for its literary value. Pride and Prejudice sold only 20 million, yet is considered a classic in the literary world. Are you telling me that Twilight is a better book than Pride and Prejudice?
It's apples and oranges. Financial success just means SM wrote something that was popular.
I think personally she is not terrible or unbearable...a lot of people love her, which must stand for something...The problem is just the flatness of her characters, I found they developed awkwardly and I was not convinced by their motivations. I also just found the plot to be a bit ridiculous and although while reading the book it was fun and I got through them quite fast I was left with a bad taste in my mouth.
You know how some books are slow and hard to get though but after you are finished, sometimes years later you are reminded of a beautiful moment in the book? Well I feel like twilight is the opposite of that, it is like fast-food: really yummy but leaves you feeling gross.
As for her writing technique...as a few other people have pointed out I think it is down to some bad editing more than anything. She certainly isn't horrendous but there is a some awkward sentences. It isn't exactly inspiring, nobel prize winning stuff.
Rel8tivity wrote: "I'm afraid I don't see how financial success translates into good writing."Exactly. I could say the exact same thing with popular music and actual good music.
Marilyn wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "I'm afraid I don't see how financial success translates into good writing."Exactly. I could say the exact same thing with popular music and actual good music."
The fact that you judge it with your own perceptions and subjectivity does not make Meyers (or anyone's for that matter) writing of lesser quality. Even commercial music. It's commercial cos it sells, i.e. it reaches a larger public. Financial success does not translate into good writing. Good writing however, translates in major sells... yes, financial success.
Rel8tivity wrote: "Martine wrote: "If Meyers was a bad writer, she would NOT be who she is right now... which is: much richer than we are."I'm afraid I don't see how financial success translates into good writing.
..."
Maybe Twilight reached a larger public. What Meyers achieved is success with a work of quality. Whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not.
BTW 20 millions sales for a book is huge.... am I saying Twilight is better than Pride and Prejudice? Like you said: why on earth would I compare apples and oranges?! Very different styles, very different eras, very different authors.... Very different marketing was done for both books. But who am I to say one is better than the other?! I can pronounce myself on which I enjoyed best.... but I will never talk trash about someone's hard work. Ever.
Oh no she is awesome, I guess I wouldn't rate her book #1 on my list of top ten but she still is awsome
Martine wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "Martine wrote: "If Meyers was a bad writer, she would NOT be who she is right now... which is: much richer than we are."I'm afraid I don't see how financial success translates ..."
You know...although I appreciate there is a reason Twilight is popular I also think you can not compare it to a book like Pride and Prejudice. Ok, I see that PaP is a bit of a rom com but the character development, along with the plot and writing is impeccable...Meyer's writing can not even stand in its shadow. I am not bashing her, but we need to keep things in perspective. Twilight is fun, but ridiculous.
Bella is not a heroine, she is not somebody to look up because she is flat, and lost with out her boyfriend. She is a damsel in distress...which is why I can't love the books as much as some people.
Kitty (I solemnly swear that I am up to no good) wrote: You know...although I appreciate there is a reason Twilight is popular I also think you can not compare it to a book like Pride and Prejudice. Ok, I see that PaP is a bit of a rom com but the character development, along with the plot and writing is impeccable...Meyer's writing can not even stand in its shadow. I am not bashing her, but we need to keep things in perspective. Twilight is fun, but ridiculous. Bella is not a heroine, she is not somebody to look up because she is flat, and lost with out her boyfriend. She is a damsel in distress...which is why I can't love the books as much as some people.
I happen to think that Pride and Prejudice has better writing also...but not for the some of the same reasons that you mention above. You don't think that Elizabeth and Darcy were "lost" without each other? I think that they most absolutely were. They were fools in love that let pride and prejudices and a huge misunderstanding get in the way of their happiness. That was the whole point of Pride and Prejudice. Yes, they handled it very differently.....but then again, Elizabeth and Darcy were both adults and their very tame courtship is set in Victorian England. They were also not battling against supernatural forces.
It's one thing to compare characters but imo, it isn't a fair comparison if the criticism focuses on a character's reactions to a plot element that wasn't present in both novels. The only reason that Elizabeth Bennet wasn't a "damsel in distress" is because Pride and Prejudice didn't have that type of plot. No one tried to kill her and she was never in any type of danger.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Kitty (I solemnly swear that I am up to no good) wrote: You know...although I appreciate there is a reason Twilight is popular I also think you can not compare it to a book like Pride and Prejudice..."Totally agree with you...tbh I didn't really mean the last part of that comment as a comparison against Elizabeth Bennet, more against all heroines in general...and I only mentioned Pride and Prejudice in reaction to somebody else and would never have done so otherwise, because they are, as you said, incomparable!
It's just that second book...where you turn the pages and it's listing the months and they are literally empty because Edward is away? Well I found that insanely pathetic and boring, as well as lazy writing. I also never really liked the whole selfless sacrifice stuff, like where is the spunk or will to live? But hey, that is personal opinion.
No, Stephenie isn't a "bad" author but she's deffinately not a great author. I mean look at some facts:
-Twilight became the most HATED series by a lot of people because she totally through vampires for a weird twist and personally not a twist that I liked. In a way vampires were meant to scare and be observers of the mortal world...Stephenie took that away and turned them into the average family next door...with benefits.
She's okay but she should come up with more original ideas...kinda like The Host...you don't read about aliens every day.
Martine wrote: "Maybe Twilight reached a larger public. What Meyers achieved is success with a work of quality. Whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not.BTW 20 millions sales for a book is huge.... am I saying Twilight is better than Pride and Prejudice? Like you said: why on earth would I compare apples and oranges?! Very different styles, very different eras, very different authors.... Very different marketing was done for both books. But who am I to say one is better than the other?! I can pronounce myself on which I enjoyed best.... but I will never talk trash about someone's hard work. Ever."
Well, you drew a parallel between financial success and a judgement in quality. By that reasoning, since Twilight made more money than PaP, then it must be a better book. That's the apples and oranges comparison that can't be made. I'm not comparing the two books, but questioning your reasoning for declaring SM a good writer, because there is no direct relation between the two.
The Transformers movie franchise made $2.7 billion over 4 movies. The Jerry Springer Show was watched by millions of viewers, and made Jerry Springer rich. Would you call either of those good? Would you call any of those quality? I don't think so. Popular is one thing. Good is another.
Before you get too excited, let me say that I enjoyed the first three books of Twilight for what they were worth: throw-away, popcorn entertainment. But even popular fiction can have differing degrees of good and bad. And while good and bad can be a subjective judgement, there are certain objective standards that can be applied, especially to the last book, that point to less than stellar writing skills.
Take a look at my review of Breaking Dawn and Bree Tanner. While nobody is perfect, in my opinion, a "good" writer would not allow those kinds of errors to get into print. A good writer would not need to perform retcon in a companion book, to make their writing more plausible. They would do their homework to make sure their concepts make sense, and take the time to catch their mistakes, or work with somebody to catch them. After all, if this is your bread-and-butter, I'm sure you wouldn't like somebody to come along after the fact and say, "Hey, nice story. Too bad you got this, this, and this all wrong!" Better to get it right in the first place.
The Transformers was awesome. So was Jerry Springer. ;)
The Twilight series was ok but The Host (also by Meyers) was amazing! The first few hundred pages were kind of hard to get into, but once I got past that I was hooked. I read that book (a little over 600 pages) in 2 days because I couldn't put it down
Martine wrote: "The Transformers was awesome. So was Jerry Springer. ;)"LOL! Hey, I'm not gonna stand between somebody and their Jerry Springer. If that (or Breaking Dawn) floats yer boat, more power to ya! Just not my cuppa, eh? :)
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...
