Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Authors have been creating their own unique spins on vampire lore for quite a while, though. Stephanie Meyer was not the first to do this. In "I Am Legend", the vampirism was cause by a virus that spread and infected most of the population. I haven't read the series yet, but I understand that the vampires in "The Hollows" series also are infected with a virus. In the Black Dagger Brotherhood series, most of the vampires do not prey on humans at all. They can drink human blood but it does not keep them strong or sustain them for long. They have to drink the blood of another vampire of the opposite sex in order to survive and be at their strongest. A human can also not be "turned" in this series. The only way to become a vampire is that you have to be born one. In the two instances where humans became vampires in this series, they were actually half-breeds that were raised as human. If one wants to take a purist stance on vampire lore, it seems to me that half the paranormal shelves of B&N would be subject to criticism for not following traditional vampire lore.
Mochaspresso wrote: "If one wants to take a purist stance on vampire lore, it seems to me that half the paranormal shelves of B&N would be subject to criticism for not following traditional vampire lore. "And no one is asking for it to be traditional vampire lore because traditional vampire lore would not be the things that vampire are made of in this day and age. They wouldn't be beautiful, seductive creatures after all the women and blood they can get, they'd be pure, hideous monsters.
So I'm not saying I would've liked her to do that but her vampires just don't have any traits that would make a vampire a vampire. It would've been good if she read up on vampires and put her own twist on them but she created her own creature and just called it a vampire, she said as such.
As I said, this series is just not for people who love mythology and vampires and romance, this is for people who don't like vampires but love romance and the thrill of 'forbidden' love with a dangerous person.
Bill wrote: "Dorothy wrote: "And for the love of all that is holy, VAMPIRES DO NOT REALLY EXIST. THEREFORE IT IS NOT A TRAVESTY WHEN SOMEONE CHANGES THEIR MYTHOLOGY. GET OVER IT.
" not disagreeing or agreeing but it's highly published of other vampires surviving off of rodent and animal blood. Case in point Louis, survived on rats til he succumbed.
"Changes" their m..."
Jesse wrote: "And no one is asking for it to be traditional vampire lore because traditional vampire lore would not be the things that vampire are made of in this day and age. They wouldn't be beautiful, seductive creatures after all the women and blood they can get, they'd be pure, hideous monsters."...where the hell do you get that idea from?
I've pushed the living shit out of Dracula countless times in this discussion. READ IT. It's a traditional vampire, and wow... he's considered "seductive." Not a "pure hideous monster"... that's Hollywood bullshit speaking.
If you want to read a real vampire novel, read any goddamned thing I have recommended, then come back and defend Edward as a "real" vampire some more... wait, you couldn't because you would realize what I have been saying all along...
There are. NO. Vampires. In Twilight.
None.
Nada.
Zero.
Nil.
Oh... and as for other counterexamples... just keep in mind that, if it doesn't live on human blood, it is NOT a vampire, regardless of what the author says. Meyers just happens to be the most egregious offender.
I'm never going to defend Stephanie Meyer or the Twilight series, because they alone spawned this 9 year hell that I hope some new emo tweenie bopper series will pop up to bury. But honestly who said you get to write the definition of what makes a vampire? I maintain a vampire is an undead creature that survives on blood as it's main source of substance. you can argue it til your blue in the face because obviously your rankled about this in some weird way, that is really not worth the attention it's receiving especially if it's as lacking as you claim, which I heartily agree.
Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "And no one is asking for it to be traditional vampire lore because traditional vampire lore would not be the things that vampire are made of in this day and age. They wouldn't be beau..."
By hot vampires, I DO NOT mean handsome vampires sparkling in daylight. So, yeah, I agree with you.
By hot vampires, I DO NOT mean handsome vampires sparkling in daylight. So, yeah, I agree with you.
Zoe wrote: "Okay obviously there's a trend in this discussion.
Typically the rare people who rated Twilight with five stars are saying briefly that her writing was off-the-hook-amazing. Well woot woot.
While..."
Her writing is bad. Not that bad. But bad. And it could've been better. MUCH BETTER.
So, I agree, and disagree the same time.
Typically the rare people who rated Twilight with five stars are saying briefly that her writing was off-the-hook-amazing. Well woot woot.
While..."
Her writing is bad. Not that bad. But bad. And it could've been better. MUCH BETTER.
So, I agree, and disagree the same time.
I don't think she is a bad writer. I mean she DID write the Host didn't she? Which, in my case was just pure genius. And i did enjoy some of the Twilight books. She has a great imagination. You just have to expect and accept the craziest things she can think of. But that's just in my opinion.
Stephanie Meyer is a really stupid person who wrote a really stupid book that stupid people like to read. It's stupid but it's a person's stupid prerogative to like a stupid, unconsidered, unresearched spin on vampire mythology which stupidly doesn't engage in any meaningful way with any of the swathes of not-so-stupid vampire literature that has previously been written. Stephanie Meyer stupidly calls her vampires 'vampires' and that's up to her and her stupid fans who neither take the time to read widely or think about literature - or vampire lore - in a broader context. If they did then maybe they'd realise how stupid a book Twilight actually is.It's really quite stupid to continue this stupid argument.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Authors have been creating their own unique spins on vampire lore for quite a while, though. Stephanie Meyer was not the first to do this. In "I Am Legend", the vampirism was cause by a virus tha..."Totally agree with you on this! And sparkling aside, I did actually prefer her take on vampires, at least, to the point where they could hide in plain sight because they didn't match the lore enough. I thought that was actually pretty smart of Meyer, though I suspect it was a fluke ...
Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "And no one is asking for it to be traditional vampire lore because traditional vampire lore would not be the things that vampire are made of in this day and age. They wouldn't be beau..."I'm going to out and out say it - Dracula was crap. Almost as bad as twilight. It was predictable and Jonathan Harker's diary was contradictory, and the ending was rushed and unrealistic.
Siobhan wrote: "I'm going to out and out say it - Dracula was crap. Almost as bad as twilight.Is there a spork site on Dracula? Could you 'put forward clear arguments as to why Stoker's grammar, syntax, characterisation, descriptions, research, plot developments and attitude are so poorly done'. probably not because regardless of your own tastes regarding 'Dracula' it's certainly not as poorly conceived, realised, written or characterised as Twilight and it's definitely notable for being one of the first novels to tackle the vampire mythology. (Varney the Vampire already did it, mind, but Varney the Vampire is, objectively, a crap book, which leaves Carmilla and Polidori as notable predecessors.)
Jesse wrote: "And no one is asking for it to be traditional vampire lore because traditional vampire lore would not be the things that vampire are made of in this day and age. They wouldn't be beautiful, seductive creatures after all the women and blood they can get, they'd be pure, hideous monsters.So I'm not saying I would've liked her to do that but her vampires just don't have any traits that would make a vampire a vampire. It would've been good if she read up on vampires and put her own twist on them but she created her own creature and just called it a vampire, she said as such.
As I said, this series is just not for people who love mythology and vampires and romance, this is for people who don't like vampires but love romance and the thrill of 'forbidden' love with a dangerous person.
They drink blood, are affected in some manner by sunlight and were the natural enemies of werewolves. Why isn't that enough to justify the "vampire" label? Seems to me that drinking blood alone should have been enough to justify it.
Alex wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "I'm going to out and out say it - Dracula was crap. Almost as bad as twilight.Is there a spork site on Dracula? Could you 'put forward clear arguments as to why Stoker's grammar,..."
I'm not going to address your Sporking comment, I just think it's amusing that because I think Dracula is crap, for the reasons I put above, I'm wrong. But you're justified in dismissing another book as crap without any validation. That was a beautiful piece of hypocrisy.
Mocha, I agree with you again! This is rare for us :)
I don't think she's a bad writer. She had interesting characters, although they lacked true depth and any growth, and a decent plot although her ending was as a matter of personal taste, too dull. It built up to this potentially exciting ending and then nothing happens. It was better in the film but still a let-down. That and the second book that was so depressing I wanted to kill Bella off or shake her and tell her to stop moping.I enjoyed her version of vampires at first but they're hardly vampires when you got down to it. Sure they were fast and strong and had a taste for blood, but True Blood and The Vampire Diaries managed to capture perhaps in a truer sense what a vampire is.
Still I cannot say she's a bad writer. I cannot say she's good either because I've encountered books that were written with such grace and a lulling prose that left an incredible lasting impression on me.
I've read worse books too where the writing was just so bad that I discarded it quickly - the Fifty Shades books for instance.
Sad thing is that despite that Stephanie isn't the best writer, she earns more than I probably would in a lifetime.
Siobhan wrote: "I'm not going to address your Sporking comment, I just think it's amusing that because I think Dracula is crap, for the reasons I put above, I'm wrong. But you're justified in dismissing another book as crap without any validation. That was a beautiful piece of hypocrisy.If you like you can read back through this thread and other Twilight mega-threads in which you'll find an absolute wealth of justification, from me for my dismissal of Twilight, since - not to my credit - I've written on the subject at great length.
Even if I hadn't, though, your charge of hypocrisy is utterly ludicrous on its own terms since my attack on your views on Dracula had a clear foundation in the question about sporking which you've just refused to answer.
Alex wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "I'm not going to address your Sporking comment, I just think it's amusing that because I think Dracula is crap, for the reasons I put above, I'm wrong. But you're justified in dismi..."Maybe you should learn to read full stop, because I wasn't talking about twilight, but the book you called 'objectively crap' in your previous post.
If you were reading closely, you'd see that I too, think Twilight is crap, and in fact linked people to read a Sporking page. But I guess if I'm not agreeing with you whole-heartedly then I'm wrong? Let's just face it, the entire vampire genre is crap and never delivers what it promises.
Oh, Varney the Vampire? Yeah, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that's poor quality writing, it's a penny dreadful, it was never meant to be anything else. So, sure, terrible reading comprehension skills I may have, but still not a hypocrite.I know that you think Twilight is crap and that you linked to the sporking. That's why I focussed on the sporking to point out that Dracula was clearly not as badly written as Twilight is.
It's not so much whether you automatically need to agree with me whole-heartedly, it's just that I presume since you post on a message board you are capable and up for "debate" and debate involves people taking different sides of an argument and calling each other "wrong" and stuffs. I find "Let's agree to disagree" and "That's just my opinion" painfully dull conversation, fine in certain social contexts but it doesn't have any meaningful place in online discussion if it's going to be relevant or worthwhile.
Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "And no one is asking for it to be traditional vampire lore because traditional vampire lore would not be the things that vampire are made of in this day and age. They wouldn't be beau..."
Bill, you are my hero.
Bill, you are my hero.
Siobhan wrote: "Mocha, I agree with you again! This is rare for us :) "
Weirdness, huh? There is a blizzard raging outdoors and hell has frozen over! Lol.
I also agree with what you said about Dracula. It's been so long that I might be inclined to revisit it, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "crap". I just remember my impression that it was over rated and over romanticized. (<---most probably because people are actually remembering the movies more than the actual book)
Bill wrote: "I've pushed the living shit out of Dracula countless times in this discussion. READ IT. It's a traditional vampire, and wow... he's considered "seductive." Not a "pure hideous monster"... that's Hollywood bullshit speaking.Read it, thanks. And I wasn't thinking Dracula but Nosferatu.
"If you want to read a real vampire novel, read any goddamned thing I have recommended, then come back and defend Edward as a "real" vampire some more... wait, you couldn't because you would realize what I have been saying all along...
"
You're gonna have to take your bitchy attitude somewhere else because if you didn't bring that to the table and instead a clear head and tolerance then you would've seen that I NEVER defended Edward and said that I found him to be FAE LIKE more than an actual vampire. Check your attitude because I'm not having none of it. Reread my posts and then get back to me.
"Oh... and as for other counterexamples... just keep in mind that, if it doesn't live on human blood, it is NOT a vampire, regardless of what the author says. Meyers just happens to be the most egregious offender. "
Blood is blood and Meyer is not the first author to have their vampires sustain themselves on animal blood, where have you been? Just because they (general they as in vampires depicted as drinking animal blood) drink animal blood instead of human blood doesn't make them any less of a vampire.
Mochaspresso wrote: "They drink blood, are affected in some manner by sunlight and were the natural enemies of werewolves. Why isn't that enough to justify the "vampire" label? Seems to me that drinking blood alone should have been enough to justify it. "Because if just drinking blood was the only qualifier then every mythological creature that drinks blood would be a vampire. The chupacabra would be considered a vampire then, but it's not. And Meyer's vampire aren't really effected by the sun, more so just inconvenienced by it and only inconvenienced when she wants them to be. I would've preferred her to have done anything; research, I dunno, just anything better than creating a creature and labeled it a vampire because it was easier than making up a creature or picking another one. Her vampires might be fine to you but as I said, for someone like me who likes mythology and vampires, her vampires didn't impress me and I don't like calling them vampires because that's the last thing they are.
Also, werewolves were not always the enemy of vampires and I believe that's just something Hollywood writers and directors have threaded in for reasons. If I remember correctly Dracula used to own the werewolves.
Purple prose, characters underdeveloped, choppy transitions; most of her mistakes are those standard to beginning writers without particular literary skill/would be highlighted by an intro writing course. Yeah, she's not very good, but she's also never claimed to be a goddess of the page.
Michelle wrote: "Purple prose, characters underdeveloped, choppy transitions; most of her mistakes are those standard to beginning writers without particular literary skill/would be highlighted by an intro writing ..."
There is that, at least.
There is that, at least.
Brooke wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Purple prose, characters underdeveloped, choppy transitions; most of her mistakes are those standard to beginning writers without particular literary skill/would be highlighted by ...";-) I revile "Twilight" and think it's awful for young people (abstinence porn, indeed), but still have more respect for Meyer than, say, Nicholas Sparks, who thinks he's the reincarnation of Cicero. Poor writing can be forgiven; bombastic self-congratulations, never.
Jesse wrote: "Because if just drinking blood was the only qualifier then every mythological creature that drinks blood would be a vampire. The chupacabra would be considered a vampire then, but it's not. And Meyer's vampire aren't really effected by the sun, more so just inconvenienced by it and only inconvenienced when she wants them to be. I would've preferred her to have done anything; research, I dunno, just anything better than creating a creature and labeled it a vampire because it was easier than making up a creature or picking another one. Her vampires might be fine to you but as I said, for someone like me who likes mythology and vampires, her vampires didn't impress me and I don't like calling them vampires because that's the last thing they are.Also, werewolves were not always the enemy of vampires and I believe that's just something Hollywood writers and directors have threaded in for reasons. If I remember correctly Dracula used to own the werewolves.
"
The point wasn't whether the vampire/werewolf rivalry was "accurate" as per the strictest interpretations of traditional lore. I realize that it isn't. The point is that the existence of such a rivalry is actually very well known, regardless of whether it is technically "accurate". It's not just Hollywood perpetuating it, btw. Comic books have been doing that too. My point is that Stephanie Meyer, in crafting her own unique vampire lore, didn't really do anything that countless other books, movies and comics haven't already done. You say that you like vampire mythology and lore.....well, along those same lines, I like paranormal themes in books and I've read several that deviated in various ways from traditional lore. The very thing that you are criticizing Stephanie Meyer for, countless others have already done and are still doing. Laura K. Hamilton's Anita Blake mythological lore is nicknamed, "The Anitaverse".
Personally, I think it is quite an accomplishment for an author to create a series of books where their worlds becomes it's own distinctive unique brand and the lore that they created becomes a part of the overall vampire mythology.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Because if just drinking blood was the only qualifier then every mythological creature that drinks blood would be a vampire. The chupacabra would be considered a vampire then, but it'..."The difference is that they did their research and wrote about what they knew, Meyer didn't. That is what I'm criticizing her on. They also put a twist on vampires, built on what they knew of vampires and created their own version, Meyer didn't. She made what she thought vampires to be which is her own creature because she didn't like vampires as they actually are.
Jesse wrote: "The difference is that they did their research and wrote about what they knew, Meyer didn't. That is what I'm criticizing her on. They also put a twist on vampires, built on what they knew of vampires and created their own version, Meyer didn't. She made what she thought vampires to be which is her own creature because she didn't like vampires as they actually are. "
"Vampires as they actually are"?
They are fictional creatures, are they not? They've also been depicted in a multitude of ways. I've encountered so many different versions of these FICTIONAL creatures in my lifetime, that I honestly don't pay attention to which ones are supposedly "the right ones" from a purist standpoint.
Perhaps I should insist on being a zombie purist and declare that real zombies don't eat brains. (btw, I liked the spin that Warm Bodies put on the whole eating brains thing. I actually thought that was cool.)
Mochaspresso wrote: ""Vampires as they actually are"?They are fictional creatures, are they not? They've also been depicted in a multitude of ways. I've encountered so many different versions of these FICTIONAL creatures in my lifetime, that I honestly don't pay attention to which ones are supposedly "the right ones" from a purist standpoint.
Perhaps I should insist on being a zombie purist and declare that real zombies don't eat brains. (btw, I liked the spin that Warm Bodies put on the whole eating brains thing. I actually thought that was cool.) "
When I said that I mean that vampires are more than just a creature that drinks blood. And that is all Meyer knew them to be as.
Even fictional creatures have rules and descriptors that people can point out and say, "Alright, this creatures is ___." Without them they're just a watered down version of what they are, which is what Meyer did. And if you don't see a problem with that then fine, but I didn't like it.
And I liked that too. It was very weird, but I liked how the author made it so eating the brains of a person made the zombie know everything about the person. It was very well done.
for every book there will be someone to hate on it.In fact in my opinion the bigger and more famous the book the more people are going to read it and the more good and bad reviews you get.I dont think there is anything wrong with stephanie meyer's works other than the things she lets her characters get away with for example we have heard from her on her website and even in the books that she likes the jacob of her book but why? what is there to like about a guy that cant take no i only want to be friends as a answer? what is there to like about a boy who forces kisses on a girl who is clearly saying no and also clearly says she has a boyfriend..idk i just dont like some of the things she romantizes if that makes sense but i dont think she is a bad writer i was able to understand and like the books enough to finish them..so..yeah
I read the saga when I was a teenager, and I enjoyed it at the time. Although I find that I'm a much harsher critic now than I was at 16, so I really should re-read the books before giving my honest opinion.I've also read The Host, which I thought was a good book. I don't think Stephenie Meyer is a bad writer, though. She's not the best, as someone pointed out, and she's by no means the worst. Honestly, the worst published writer I've ever come across is E.L. James. Then again, the 50 Shades trilogy is just Twilight fanfiction with the names changed.
Jesse wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: ""Vampires as they actually are"?They are fictional creatures, are they not? They've also been depicted in a multitude of ways. I've encountered so many different versions of..."
i dont think so.in stephanie meyers version her vampires were humans frozen in ther state they were changed in coupled with a vampric lust for blood i enjoyed the thought of her vampires being crystal a very very hard crystal"cue the sparkle" anyway i dont think there is anything wrong with her version nor do i think hers is better or worse than others its simply was tring to become its own little miny genre
Chanin wrote: "i dont think so.in stephanie meyers version her vampires were humans frozen in ther state they were changed in coupled with a vampric lust for blood i enjoyed the thought of her vampires being crystal a very very hard crystal"cue the sparkle" anyway i dont think there is anything wrong with her version nor do i think hers is better or worse than others its simply was tring to become its own little miny genre"This aspect of them that you like makes it scientifically impossible for them to move. Just saying.
Jesse wrote: "When I said that I mean that vampires are more than just a creature that drinks blood. And that is all Meyer knew them to be as.Even fictional creatures have rules and descriptors that people can point out and say, "Alright, this creatures is ___." Without them they're just a watered down version of what they are, which is what Meyer did. And if you don't see a problem with that then fine, but I didn't like it.
And I liked that too. It was very weird, but I liked how the author made it so eating the brains of a person made the zombie know everything about the person. It was very well done.
"
Twilight is a paranormal romance, which technically falls under the fantasy umbrella. I don't think these supposed rules that you are speaking of necessarily have to be adhered to within that genre. I think the author builds a fantasy world and sets forth the rules for that world that they've created within their story. You don't like what she did with the world that she built within the Twilight novels. I can understand that. I just don't agree that she did anything wrong by deciding to deviate from "the rules" that supposedly exist for vampires. I'm also not entirely convinced that a lot of these rules actually exist except for in your own mind because so many other authors have already broken these so called rules many many times.
Mochaspresso wrote: " I just don't agree that she did anything wrong by deciding to deviate from "the rules" that supposedly exist for vampires. I'm also not entirely convinced that a lot of these rules actually exist except for in your own mind because so many other authors have already broken these so called rules many many times. "It doesn't only exist in my mind as many others see it the same way.
What I'm saying I see as her wrongdoing is her lack of research on vampires, that drinking blood isn't what makes a creature a vampire, that's all. It's not what she did with the world, but the vampires themselves. I don't see it as her deviating from these rules but as her making her own for an already existing creature.
I already said that the difference between the countless other authors who put their own twist on vampires and Meyer is that they had an understanding of vampires, they looked into them to understand them to be able to make vampire characters and that Meyer made her own rules for vampires and broke them. I dunno what else you want me to say or how else you want me to extrapolate on my dislike of it, *shrugs*.
Jesse wrote: "I wasn't thinking Dracula but Nosferatu. "Nosferatu is Dracula... all the screenwriter did was change the names (not very well, either: Stoker's estate sued the ever-lovin' shit out of the studio, and forced them to burn all existing copies of the film. Look how well that turned out).
On top of that, Orlok's appearance in the film was not "traditional" at all. He was made up to look like a monster, because he is, in fact, a monster. It was the silent film era, and the 1920's to boot, so monsters had to look like monsters (unlike today, where monsters can look like choir boys, and no one will bat an eye). There was no dialogue to establish who was a villain or not... they had to literally look the part.
"Blood is blood..."
...and here's where science says "no." If blood was universal, blood banks wouldn't be perpetually short of blood and in desperate need of donors. We could simply siphon from stray cats, dogs, etc. and never run into trouble.
That's how authors like Whitley Streiber justify human-only predation by their vampires: if the blood isn;t human, it doesn't metabolize properly, and the leech starves to death.
If you use the supernatural origin of vampires, and make blood-drinking an act of taking part of a person's life force (like Anne Rice did, for the first few of her novels), then animal blood is merely used to bring them back to strength after a long hibernation. Human blood is needed to actually nourish them.
Meyers' version: "It's a vampire that needs to sparkle to satisfy my dream. I'll just make shit up until it looks kinda like it might almost work, sort of."
As to the middle section... that was just a general comment, and I apologize if it looked like it was directed at you specifically. I tend to just let my arguments flow, and direct them to anyone who feels like reading them. No offense was meant.
Bill wrote: ".and here's where science says "no." If blood was universal, blood banks wouldn't be perpetually short of blood and in desperate need of donors. We could simply siphon from stray cats, dogs, etc. and never run into trouble."What do you see wrong with vampires drinking animal blood? In countless forms of media that involve vampires the vampires who drink animal blood are shown as having to still control their hunger because animal blood is not as filling, as nourishing as human blood, and I like that. It shows the struggle of vampires who want to do good and what they go through to achieve it.
You seem to go both ways on this, and it's confusing. You say if it's not drinking human blood it's not a vampire but then seem to imply that you have an interest in animal blood being used as a substitute but the human blood is what's actually needed.
Jesse wrote: "It shows the struggle of vampires who want to do good and what they go through to achieve it."...and there's the whole problem in a nutshell: vampires were created to be the villains (or, at best, anti-heroes).
Vampires represent the seduction away from innocence. One who succumbs willingly to a vampire becomes more powerful, but loses their soul in the process. Unwilling victims become slaves, both to the master leech and to their own newly awakened hunger for blood, and can only be set free by a stake to the heart (or, if you play by Hollywood rules, daylight).
The struggle between the base nature/animal need to kill and the human/rational? That's werewolves. All of those movies and TV shows that have leeches struggling with their thirst are usurping the role of the werewolf in horror literature. I've grudgingly accepted it, but in no way do I like it.
I don't try to take "both ways" in this. For me, there's one right interpretation: to be a vampire, you MUST feed from humans only. Nothing else works. If you can subsist on animal blood without feeding on a human, you are not a "true" vampire. That probably makes me a purist, but I've read so many horror novels at this point that if I wasn't a purist, I'd be amazed.
Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "It shows the struggle of vampires who want to do good and what they go through to achieve it."...and there's the whole problem in a nutshell: vampires were created to be the villain..."
You obviously don't like many of today's cherished vampires then. And it seems that you're one of the people I've mentioned as someone whom this book wouldn't be for. I'm curious, how come you read it?
Jesse wrote: "I'm curious, how come you read it? "The person who recommended it to me sold it as a vampire novel. I fell for it. When I told her that it didn't have any vampires in it, and that it "sucked harder than a black hole," she stopped speaking to me.
Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "I wasn't thinking Dracula but Nosferatu. "Nosferatu is Dracula... all the screenwriter did was change the names (not very well, either: Stoker's estate sued the ever-lovin' shit out..."
Arguably, blood ingested in any form cannot be broken down, and blood typing only matters when given intravenously. Trust me, I've had a shit-load of transfusions and puked up blood to boot. Which probably why I dislike the vampire genre so much (plus, they had to make an incision in my neck to put a tube in for a lot of the transfusions, so I have a neck wound and a tonne of other people's blood. I should be all about vampires, since technically I am one).
Siobhan wrote: "Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "I wasn't thinking Dracula but Nosferatu. "Nosferatu is Dracula... all the screenwriter did was change the names (not very well, either: Stoker's estate sued the ever-lo..."
but it depends on what vampire/what author you refer to. Some authors have their vampires able to break down the blood, that their new species changed their body to accommodate to their new diet. And of course, in others it's either implied this is happening or left up to the audience's imagination.
But with Meyer's vampires they don't have a reason to drink blood because nothing is happening to the blood. They cannot undergo any changes so their digestive system doesn't work anymore. They are just walking containers of blood.
Jesse wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "I wasn't thinking Dracula but Nosferatu. "Nosferatu is Dracula... all the screenwriter did was change the names (not very well, either: Stoker's estate ..."
Perhaps, but because some people here wanted to take the most literal route, I did also. In actuality, blood cannot be broken down by stomach acid, it gives you a stomach ache if you even accidentally ingest a little. Writers take it upon themselves to divert from the norm to explain the supernatural. Fine. But if other writers can imply what's happening, or leave it to the reader's imagination … why is it so bad that Stephenie does the same?
Don't get me wrong, I disliked the books intensely, and I've made the standard fairy jokes in reference to the sparkling (although I think if you implied that to someone who was into Fae, you'd be pretty much slaughtered. Fae don't sparkle) but I honestly don't see how Stephenie's vampires diverting from the standard lore is such a crime. Like I said before, it was a stroke of accidental genius on her part, allowing the vampires to hide in plain sight because the lore gives mere mortals the wrong clues about vampires.
If you really wanted to base your arguments on that angle, I would say more that she's inconsistent with it. In Twilight, all the lore is unfounded, but by Eclipse, they're researching succubus and incubus etc for opposing vampires? How do they know their research is correct if the lore is a cover?
Siobhan wrote: " But if other writers can imply what's happening, or leave it to the reader's imagination … why is it so bad that Stephenie does the same?"The answer you seek goes along the literal route as well. Meyer tried to use science and those who had it implied, explained it in whatever way, or left it up to the audience's imagination didn't try to use science to explain their vampires. Meyer used science and as such people who care to look at it scientifically and because of this it is wrong. Her vampires literally have no reason to drink blood because their bodies can't do anything with it. Her vampires are very much unlike the authors who actually diverted/put a twist on the lore and made it so their vampires can use the blood but because Meyer wanted to be so scientifically with her vampires she has made it so they can't do anything with blood and thus have no need for it since it's not doing anything for them.
"but I honestly don't see how Stephenie's vampires diverting from the standard lore is such a crime."
As I said to Mocha, it's not that she diverted, she made rules for an already existing creature who has rules and then she broke her own rules.
Stephenie is not bad but her writing skills are different from other authors
If you try reading it out loud, you can clearly see(or hear) the mistakes. I didn't notice when I first read the books, and I had a discussion with one of my friends about this. We both hate the series, mostly because of Bella and sparkle boy, but I didn't think she was that bad of a writer. My friend told to me to read it out loud, and I noticed a heap of mistakes just in the first chapter.
Siobhan wrote: "In actuality, blood cannot be broken down by stomach acid, it gives you a stomach ache if you even accidentally ingest a little."That's the human body. We're talking about vampires, and there are several explanations for what the vampire does with the blood it drinks.
Rice's vampires use it in place of their own blood, in a way I never really got, but it's supernatural, so there's that. In one scene, Lestat mentions that he is so hot under the stage lights that he's actually sweating blood.
Streiber's vampires in The Hunger feed human blood to their own blood, where specialized cells break it down and create new hemophagic cells.
Leeches in Vampire: The Masquerade use blood to power their special abilities.
The point is, going by what the human body can do isn't helpful in understanding how vampires work. It's apples and slightly less apple-y apples.
I'm okay with her re-imagining the vampire and werewolf myths. It made for a creative look at the genre, and a nice change of pace.What I'm not okay with is her sloppy world-building, and that she was willing to present a hurried, half-done work as a finished product.
I mean the minute she made her vampires into beings who don't change because their tissues are crystallized, she wrote babies out of the universe. She should at least try to make the story make sense. Major re-write was needed. And the fact that there are more numerous errors in the last book point to what a rushed job she did of it.
That's not just a bad writer, that's an unprofessional one.
What makes me believe she isn't the best writer, one reason was for her grammar issues which I found horrid. But otherwise ruining the image of a vampire for me.
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...
No. For the simple fact that the emotions wouldn't be there because I have not experienced that emot..."
It's fine. It's just one of the things I hate about the series. She didn't even try and it kills me when people say that she can just do whatever she wants when she can't. There are limits, you have to do research and the worst thing you can do as a writers aspiring to be published is write about what you don't know. So for me, this book was a big no go because I like my vampires to have a bit more unf, more going for them in the way of vampirism than just drinking blood.