Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 151-200 of 2,281

[Angie Elle]

And vampires don't sparkle, they're scary.

This statement (and others like it) always cracks me up. If you want to get technical, vampires don't do anything because they don't exist!

That's one of the things that makes reading books with supernatural characters fun. You get to see what kind of a spin the author is going to put on them.

[Erin]

I must say, Mickey is rather making me hate the book and the fans. She doesn't care what anyone has to say, only what she has to say. Every single thread I have seen her on she is trying to start an argument of some sort. If anyone needs to learn how to respect other people's views and act civil it is her. It makes me not even like this site which I find rather disappointing. Sigh.

[Cecilia]

TheFeelsAreOnTheFloor wrote: "50 shades was based off of Twilight so...."

in what way??

[Angie Elle]

Cecilia wrote: "TheFeelsAreOnTheFloor wrote: "50 shades was based off of Twilight so...."

in what way??"

She posted it on fanfiction dot net and it was originally an Edward and Bella story. After she gained quite a following of SM's audience, the book was published.

Edited to add: It was originally posted with the title 'Master of the Universe.'

[Mochaspresso]

Angie wrote: "Cecilia wrote: "TheFeelsAreOnTheFloor wrote: "50 shades was based off of Twilight so...."

in what way??"

She posted it on fanfiction dot net and it was originally an Edward and Bella story. After..."

This is true. The author has admitted this many times in interviews. She readily admits that she was a "Twihard" fan and that 50 Shades was originally a Twilight fan-fiction story.

[[deleted user]]

I don't like Twilight, but I have to say that if there's anything I really liked about it, it's the prose.

The first book was awfully written. Then as the series progressed, I actually thought Meyer's prose was beautiful and fluid. It lost a lot of its repetitiveness and purple prose as the story went on.

But the weird thing about it is that while I think it's beautiful and fluid, it's not very good. Meyer's the first writer I've come upon whose writing I liked but deemed to be sub-par.

So I'll just say this: I like Meyer's prose, but from a literary standpoint it's not all that great. She has trouble trimming excess adjectives and adverbs, and sometimes there will be chapters that are complete and utter filler and do nothing but add padding to a book that's already way too long for what actually happens in it. It's not horrible either, though.

But like some people said, it's actually more of bad editing than bad writing. It's more of the editor's fault.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "A lot of the flak that Twilight gets is just old misogynistic thinking that tales of romance (being seen as women's concerns) are somehow inferior to other types of stories."

Not true.

I don't think it's fair to immediately assume that people hate Twilight's writing for no reason, or for lame reasons. It's unfair to generalize people's reasons like that.

[[deleted user]]

Well, about the Mary Sue thing....

I always think of Mary Sues as wish fulfillment. I consider an author who repeatedly beats the reader over the head with a character's incredible perfection to be a Mary Sue author.

A lot of times, Mary Sues will have certain traits that have little to no relevance to either 1) the plot, and 2) their characterization, and only exist for no reason, or for lame reasons. That's a huge red flag of a Sue. Since Edward's beauty is the number one trait emphasized more than any other, I'm going to say that it is his most important trait.

Does beauty have anything to do with the plot? Well, if you count the fact that it's pretty much the only reason Bella falls in "love" with him, I guess....but otherwise, no.

Does beauty have anything to do with his characterization? Does it have anything to do with Edward's ultimate development? Not as far as I can see.

Edward is also presented as an ideal. I remember a sentence right off the top of my head in Eclipse when Bella says, "...not just because I was holding hands with the most perfect person on the planet." One could say that maybe in Bella's eyes, Edward is perfect, but Meyer herself doesn't view Edward that way, but honestly, I kinda doubt it. If this was written in third person, I can still imagine Meyer smacking us over the head with Edward's godlike perfection.

Also, in the end of Eclipse, two people who formerly hated Edward--Charlie, and Jacob--admit to Edward's pure amazingness/selflessness blah blah blah. This is a HUGE red flag of a Sue. A lot of Sues, in the end, will have everyone who hated them before grow to like/respect them.

If you really want to get technical (Mickey, you'll like this, seeing as you made up a test in another thread to measure the degree of hatred for "haters") I entered Edward into the Mary Sue Litmus Test. I ignored all the personal questions, such as "do you get offended when someone says they don't like your character," etc.

Here are the standards:

-0-16 Points
Most likely Not-Sue. Characters at this level could probably take a little spicing up without hurting them any.

17-21
Fanfiction characters can go either way at this point depending on the writer. For an MMO/RPG or original fiction character, however, you're most likely perfectly fine.

22-29
Original fiction and MMO/RPG characters can go either way at this point depending on the writer. Fanfiction characters may need some adjustment, however.

30-35
Fanfiction authors beware - Mary's on the loose. There's still a chance you can save this character with some TLC, though. Role-players and original fiction writers, you should also consider tweaking your character.

36+
Fanfiction authors, you might just want to start over. Role-players and original fiction authors, at this point your characters are likely to provoke eye-rolling and exclaimations of "yeah, right!" from your readers. (Well, at least from me.) Immediate workover is probably in order.

50+
It's probably a lost cause either way, or you didn't read instructions properly (some people don't do this, which causes freakishly high scores). If it's the latter case, read the instructions and take the test again.

Edward scores a whopping 153.

I'm not implying that simply he scored so high he is a Mary Sue, this is just if you want to get technical.

[Angie Elle]

Jocelyn wrote: "Well, about the Mary Sue thing....

I always think of Mary Sues as wish fulfillment. I consider an author who repeatedly beats the reader over the head with a character's incredible perfection to b..."

Does a Mary Sue character make a bad writer, though?

From a business standpoint when you are targeting a YA audience, Mary Sue characters are what sell. That's part of what makes a fantasy story engaging...being able to put yourself in the story. I remember when I was younger, I could put myself right in the story and imagine it happening around me; it was enthralling. I still can, but only to a certain degree depending on what I'm reading.

I think it's good business sense if you are targeting a YA audience, but that's JMO.

[Amanda]

The example people give me most for not liking Twilight is because she made the vampires sparkle in the sun. I liked how Edward still had his morals from when we was originally born.

[[deleted user]]

That's true, but business has nothing to do with literary value, IMO. It can be good business sense, but not good "literary" sense. The fact that Twilight's YA isn't really an excuse for bad writing.

I don't think a Mary Sue character can be the sole reason a writer is bad...I don't think I ever said that. Just my thoughts on the Mary Sue side discussion.

For me personally, I can't put myself in a Mary Sue mold. They're just too "Special." Like their "Specialness" actually defines who they are...without it, if you strip it away, you find nothing. That's what I find with Edward. If you strip away his beauty, his angst, and tragic past, you'll find nothing. That's what I thought while reading.

I usually relate better to characters that are more normal. Have you read 11/22/63 by Stephen King? The main character I could relate to right off the bat, and he's not a Mary Sue at all. I can imagine the story happening around me. Eh, I guess it's different for everyone.

[Angie Elle]

Jocelyn wrote: "That's true, but business has nothing to do with literary value, IMO. It can be good business sense, but not good "literary" sense. The fact that Twilight's YA isn't really an excuse for bad writin..."

I never said that because Twilight was YA that it was an excuse for bad writing. I don't think it was badly written.

Edward's beauty actually did have to do with the plot. The way he looked as a vampire (in this case, his attractiveness) was to draw humans to him. Did it need to be mentioned as much as it was? No. But it was essential to the plot.

No, I've never read 11/22/63. I've tried to read a few Stephen King novels, but I find his endless description boring.

[Angie Elle]

Amanda wrote: "The example people give me most for not liking Twilight is because she made the vampires sparkle in the sun. I liked how Edward still had his morals from when we was originally born."

I liked that, too. It made him solid in who he was, and he wasn't ashamed of that.

ETA: His morals, I mean. I thought the sparkling was a bit odd and did not translate well at all to screen.

[[deleted user]]

TBH I have to agree with you on the sparkling. I've always wondered what was wrong with sparkling. Maybe it's the fact that I've never had a thing for vampires? Or maybe people are annoyed that it's simply silly or that Edward has no physical weaknesses? *shrug*

I haven't seen the movies though, so maybe it looks really stupid on the movie screen or something.

[Cecilia]

Jocelyn wrote: "That's true, but business has nothing to do with literary value, IMO. It can be good business sense, but not good "literary" sense. The fact that Twilight's YA isn't really an excuse for bad writin..."

What about his inner beauty? The fact that he is gentleman. He is kind and caring not only to bella but his mother and sisters even to angela. He is also brave, smart and has a beautiful taste in music. Even without your mentioned he is still a peaceful beautiful person.

I believe Carlisle saved him for a reason his, birth mother knew that he was a kind soul.

I think even if edward had remained human he would have been beautiful.

[Angie Elle]

Cecilia wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "That's true, but business has nothing to do with literary value, IMO. It can be good business sense, but not good "literary" sense. The fact that Twilight's YA isn't really an excus..."

I agree. He was more than just 'dazzling.'

[[deleted user]]

Cecilia wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "That's true, but business has nothing to do with literary value, IMO. It can be good business sense, but not good "literary" sense. The fact that Twilight's YA isn't really an excus..."

His inner beauty, IMO, does not make him any less of a Sue. He is totally perfect even by vampire standards. He has an amazing power, his beauty exceeds that of most other vampires, etc., for no other reason except to have Bella drool over him.

If anything his inner beauty makes him more of a Sue, because he's so modest he refuses to acknowledge it...which is another sign of a Sue.

[Krystal]

How can anyone be a "bad writer"? Just like regular people everyone has their own style. I think her writing is more based on the teen fiction phenomenon that has engaged society. Not saying that those books aren't good, or shouldn't be around; I personally love those kinds of books. But what I'm saying is that, sometimes, some people just read too much of that type of book and than they try to make that happen in their own lives. They don't use the books as a way, to escape reality, they use it as way to create a better one. It's not like what it used to be where you'd read a book for fun, and just enjoy it.

[Angie Elle]

Jocelyn wrote:That's what I find with Edward. If you strip away his beauty, his angst, and tragic past, you'll find nothing. That's what I thought while reading.

I think that this was what she was addressing. There are more aspects to Edward than the things you mentioned. They were just things you may not have picked up on or decided they weren't an important enough part of the book (like Bella doing something to help her situation) and disregarded it.

I think that last part may have sounded like a dig, but it wasn't meant to be.

[[deleted user]]

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing it out, I DID disregard it.

I think, though, that his "inner beauty" can also be grouped together with his angst. That's just my 2 cents. Then I contradicted myself by saying that his inner beauty made him more of a Sue.

So I take that back; I'm grouping his inner beauty with his angst (which was included in my list of Sue-ish traits.)

[[deleted user]]

Krystal wrote: "How can anyone be a "bad writer"? Just like regular people everyone has their own style. I think her writing is more based on the teen fiction phenomenon that has engaged society. Not saying that t..."

If bad writing can just be dismissed by "it's just their style," then pretty much everyone would be considered literary geniuses, and the literary world would be a mess. IMO.

[Alex]

Krystal wrote: "How can anyone be a "bad writer"? Just like regular people everyone has their own style."

There are broadly two types of good writing. Good writing that sells, and good writing that critics and academics would consider good.

Anyone can be a good writer within the first category because you don't have to be considered good by connoisseurs to sell books, you just have to sell books.

Stephanie Meyer is *never* going to make it into the second bracket. Why? Because she has to stand up to comparison with other writers who are, by some kind of consensus, considered to write well. She'd have to impress that consensus (i.e Academia) and make her own case that she's worth studying and paying close attention to. I don't know anyone in Academia who is a Meyer "fan" funnily enough.

Otherwise, yes, I agree it's all subjective. If a writing style strikes you as good then it's good. i wonder what kowledge and passion for writing Meyer fans are really using as their point of comparison, though.

[Angie Elle]

Alex wrote: i wonder what kowledge and passion for writing Meyer fans are really using as their point of comparison, though.

At the risk of my reply being torn to shreds...

I can only speak for myself, but I don't read with the intention of comparing a book to anything. I'm an accountant. I spend all day making figures match and if they don't, I have to research and find out why until they do match.

The last thing I want to do when I get home is tear apart the grammar inside of a book. I read for fun...to get lost in a story. All I want is something that is going to grab my attention and keep it. Twilight did that for me. You're right; it's not a literary masterpiece. But it was one hell of an entertaining read!

[[deleted user]]

The last thing I want to do when I get home is tear apart the grammar inside of a book. I read for fun...to get lost in a story. All I want is something that is going to grab my attention and keep it. Twilight did that for me. You're right; it's not a literary masterpiece. But it was one hell of an entertaining read!

That's true, actually. When I first open a book, I don't give anything to the grammar or technical flaws in it, I just want something page-turning and fun.

I think sometimes, though, the flaws can be so big they distract the reader (not you, obviously, but some people, me included), or it just doesn't hold up to the kind of standards one might expect after all the hype.

Or it's simply a case of plain bad writing, whether it's entertaining or not. The kind of thing a critic or editor might pick on. Something that doesn't affect the story or the enjoyment of the story as a whole, but rather something that doesn't hold by certain writing standards (certain things like show, don't tell, cut out unnecessary details, etc. etc.)

*shrug*

[Alex]

Angie wrote: "The last thing I want to do when I get home is tear apart the grammar inside of a book. I read for fun...to get lost in a story. All I want is something that is going to grab my attention and keep it. Twilight did that for me. You're right; it's not a literary masterpiece. But it was one hell of an entertaining read!


That's great. Stephanie meyer fills a void for you. That's why she sells books. You're not interested in thinking too hard whether a better book might fill that void better, you just want to grab a book that everyone's reading and read it without having to think.

That's fine. That's my point. I don't think people that see Meyer as a bad writer read like that. I think of reading as a hobby and it's something that I enjoy a lot and I enjoy picking books apart and thinking about them. For me ... Meyer can't write.

[Angie Elle]

Jocelyn wrote: "The last thing I want to do when I get home is tear apart the grammar inside of a book. I read for fun...to get lost in a story. All I want is something that is going to grab my attention and keep ..."

Some of that is subjective, though. As I was reading, I felt like she did show me. It would have been hard for me to get lost in the story otherwise.

[Angie Elle]

Alex wrote: "Angie wrote: "The last thing I want to do when I get home is tear apart the grammar inside of a book. I read for fun...to get lost in a story. All I want is something that is going to grab my atten..."

I didn't say I didn't want to think, Alex. These books did make me think; my imagination was in overdrive as I was reading them which is part of the reason I enjoyed them so much. I simply don't enjoy diagraming sentences in my spare time.

As for reading what everyone else is reading, rarely do I read what's 'hot' at the moment. Most of the time I find it incredibly overrated and unenjoyable. I feel about The Hunger Games they way many people feel about Twilight. One man's trash and all that.

[Alex]

Angie wrote: "I didn't say I didn't want to think, Alex. These books did make me think; my imagination was in overdrive as I was reading them which is part of the reason I enjoyed them so much. I simply don't enjoy diagraming sentences in my spare time.


You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You want the pleasure of saying "I don't care about quality literature, I just enjoy books to switch off my brain" "but also you want to say that you do think and have good taste in literature". I honstly don't get you - which is it?

If you want to think about whether Meyer writes well that's cool. If you don't, that's fine. But I don't think you can successfully say "I don't like to think about whether Meyer is a good writer ... but I have an opinion on whether Meyer is a good writer" that's just silly.

[Angie Elle]

Alex wrote: "Angie wrote: "I didn't say I didn't want to think, Alex. These books did make me think; my imagination was in overdrive as I was reading them which is part of the reason I enjoyed them so much. I s..."

That's fine, Alex. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm tired of defending mine. You're trying to make this issue black and white when it's quite gray. So much of it is subjective, and you're trying to hold people to your standards. Your call.

As for silly...well, you're a grown man who is spending hours discussing a book that he claims not to like. A book that is aimed at young girls. I'm inclined to think that that is just silly.

[S.L.J.]

I think SM's writing style is actually quite good even if she does over use the Thesaurus.

The problem is the story itself. The charcters, the plot, the development etc. It's just bad story telling.

[Zoran]

Krystal wrote: "How can anyone be a "bad writer"?

Can someone be a "bad singer"? Say "no" and I'll force you to listen to me. :-)))

[[deleted user]]

Angie wrote: "I feel about The Hunger Games they way many people feel about Twilight. One man's trash and all that."

Oh, good. I despised that book with a passion. Glad I'm not the only one who's not a huge fan. :)

(actually, thats a bit of an exaggeration...but I still disliked it. )

[Alex]

Angie wrote: "As for silly...well, you're a grown man who is spending hours discussing a book that he claims not to like. A book that is aimed at young girls. I'm inclined to think that that is just silly.


As I said, literature has pretty much been my major hobby for most of my life (though sometimes I switch to film - narrative, storytelling, basically) I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to talk about it a lot online. Probabaly more legitimate for me than for you, really - I don't see this as timewasting since I'm all the time learning how other people understand and approach books, even when I'm being antagonistic!

Why are you suggesting that I shouldn't read a book aimed at a particular demographic? I wonder how many adults have read Harry Potter - enough to make it worth reprinting with an "adult" cover I reckon. Should they not have?

[Angie Elle]

Jocelyn wrote: " Angie wrote: "I feel about The Hunger Games they way many people feel about Twilight. One man's trash and all that."

Oh, good. I despised that book with a passion. Glad I'm not the only one who's..."

No. You are definitely not the only one!

[Mickey]

Jocelyn wrote: "Mickey, please stop being a dick. Zoran did nothing wrong. He was civil. He was honest. Telling someone to "listen instead of talk" is, IMO, incredibly rude, arrogant, condescending, and patronizing in every respect. You're not the only one with a legitimate opinion, you know. Just because he disagrees doesn't mean he has to shut up.

And Zoran said that "the only satisfaction the reader could possibly get from it, is dreaming of Prince Charming." He's not speaking for fans, he's speaking for himself."

Jocelyn,

You need to reread the first page because you are completely wrong. He insulted fans, so he was not "speaking about himself". What is this white knight complex with trying to defend grown men from their insulting behavior? Get over it, and mind your own business.

As for me trying to get him to shut up, on the contrary, I was asking him for some analysis on his statements. That would be the opposite of telling someone to shut up.

[Mickey]

Angie wrote: "I didn't say I didn't want to think, Alex. These books did make me think; my imagination was in overdrive as I was reading them which is part of the reason I enjoyed them so much. I simply don't enjoy diagraming sentences in my spare time."

I would question anyone who claims to be a book lover and thinks good writing consists of perfect grammar. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn does not have perfect grammar. Neither does Their Eyes Were Watching God, Catcher in the Rye or Adam Bede. The writer who wrote Where the Red Fern Grows apparently had horrible grammar problems. He even incorrectly cited a source that I caught when I was ten or so. Anne Fadiman wrote an essay about sending a letter to Nabokov when she was a teenager about mistakes in one of his books.

Good writing consists of more than an absence of grammar mistakes and it's absolutely subjective. What speaks to one person may not speak to another. Because something doesn't speak to you does not mean it's bad. I didn't necessarily like Catcher in the Rye, but you don't see me trolling those threads and complaining about it or claiming that it's bad or making assumptions about the fans of Salinger. It's simply not for me.

[Angie Elle]

Mickey wrote: "Angie wrote: "I didn't say I didn't want to think, Alex. These books did make me think; my imagination was in overdrive as I was reading them which is part of the reason I enjoyed them so much. I s..."

Agreed. Which is why I have gone into ignore mode for the haters. (Not to be confused with people who simply don't like the book.)

If someone wants to spend hours obsessing over something they don't even like (or at least claim they don't like,) then their mind is already set. They're not looking for conversation or even a debate. They're looking to bait people who have enjoyed the book.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "I would question anyone who claims to be a book lover and thinks good writing consists of perfect grammar. "

Who said that? That would be a silly thing to say. We have lectors for grammar. And sometimes you WANT gramar to be wrong. If you are writing about teens (for example), their dialogs would be full of wrong grammar, because that's how they talk.

It's silly if they aren't wrong.

Grammar doesn't make a writer.

But complex, multi dimensional characters, innovative usage of language, original and well used concepts, new and unpredictable plots and twists... that does. ;-)

If you have Mary Sue characters, from the middle of first book you can guess the end of series, and sentences are repetitive and filled with cliches... well, that's bad writing, and that's not "absolutely subjective". ;-)

[Mickey]

Angie wrote: "Agreed. Which is why I have gone into ignore mode for the haters. (Not to be confused with people who simply don't like the book.)"

You're completely right. They're not interested in anything but baiting. I was hoping that one would actually make a case for their assertions, that at least would be a novel experience, but they really don't do anything other than repeat complaints and insult fans. It's not interesting.

I think there's been an assumption that writing a book that can captivate readers is somehow easy and does not show any skill or talent. I think this is wrong. Not many writers manage to do this. I read a lot of books. Twilight was one of those ones that stayed with me in between reading sessions, which doesn't always happen. There's something special about her writing that drew me in and it's something that I hope she continues to nurture. I didn't like The Host much. I loved Bree Tanner. I really hope she doesn't stop writing.

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "If you have Mary Sue characters"

There aren't any Mary Sue characters in Twilight.

[Alex]

Mickey wrote: "I would question anyone who claims to be a book lover and thinks good writing consists of perfect grammar. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn does not have perfect grammar. "

I would question anyone who contunually argues almost entirely in straw men. Echoing Zoran a litle, I'd say it's Meyer's uninspired, dull use of language, her obsession with repeating the same stupid phrases/ideas and her inability to tell a story in a compelling, meaningful voice.

Since you mention grammar though and you said that George Eliot doesn't use it in Adam Bede can you point out to me where/how this is the case? I've read that book twice and everything else of Eliot's and I don't remember suspect grammar being part of her style. I could be wrong, but I always saw her as quite the perfectionist when it came to language. A quick look at the opening paragraphs of Adam Bede suggest that to me. It's been a while since I read them, I confess.

"With a single drop of ink for a mirror, the Egyptian sorcerer undertakes to reveal to any chance comer far-reaching visions of the past. This is what I undertake to do for you, reader. With this drop of ink at the end of my pen, I will show you the roomy workshop of Mr. Jonathan Burge, carpenter and builder, in the village of Hayslope, as it appeared on the eighteenth of June, in the year of our Lord 1799.

The afternoon sun was warm on the five workmen there, busy upon doors and window-frames and wainscoting. A scent of pine-wood from a tentlike pile of planks outside the open door mingled itself with the scent of the elder-bushes which were spreading their summer snow close to the open window opposite; the slanting sunbeams shone through the transparent shavings that flew before the steady plane, and lit up the fine grain of the oak panelling which stood propped against the wall. On a heap of those soft shavings a rough, grey shepherd dog had made himself a pleasant bed, and was lying with his nose between his fore-paws, occasionally wrinkling his brows to cast a glance at the tallest of the five workmen, who was carving a shield in the centre of a wooden mantelpiece. It was to this workman that the strong barytone belonged which was heard above the sound of plane and hammer singing—"

[Alex]

Peace wrote: "just wondering what does, this story that here has got to do with SM?"

It's an example of bad grammar which we are all clear Stephanie Meyer does not have but even if she did it wouldn't matter.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "Zoran wrote: "If you have Mary Sue characters"

There aren't any Mary Sue characters in Twilight."

Mary Sue is a character that doesn't have major flaws. Edward has no major flaws. He is Mary Sue character.

What could Edward do to NOT be a Mary Sue character?

(random examples)
- be a white supremacist or anti semite
- be a terrorist
- be happy about 9/11 because he hates New York
- kill innocent people (he IS a vampire, after all)
- kill some Bella's beloved pet, cover it up and lie about it
- cheat on Bella (guys do that sometimes)
- bully some geeky kid in highschool
- be unable to sexually perform
- be stupid
- have a habit of secretly sucking Bella's used tampons (he IS a vampire)
- steal something he doesn't need, and somebody else will miss
- steal blood from hospital, when there is lack of it, and some patients might die
- be needlesly very rude to some girl who has a crush on him
- vandalize graveyard
- spie on some girl (maybe Bella, or one of her friends) and mastrubate while doing it
- be addicted to some weird porn
- do something bad, and lie to his folks about it
- let someone else be blamed for his mistakes

And so on. He doesn't have to do all of it. Just something. So that we know that he isn't OMG! OMG! PERFECT!

[Mickey]

Not convincing, Zoran. One flaw that Bella complained about was his overprotectiveness. It caused their separation in New Moon, so it's not something that had no effect on the story. There are other manifestations (Edward not wanting her to see a new werewolf, Edward not wanting to turn her to a vampire.) (Note how I can use examples from the book. Keep this in mind...)

Another flaw in their relationship was that they were two fundamentally different people who had to talk over their perceptions to understand the other. They didn't readily understand each other. She had more of that connection with Jacob. Edward acknowledges this in his conversation with Jacob about convincing Bella to give up the baby. I think if Edward were a case of simply being "the perfect man" and it being the fantasy of "the perfect relationship", she wouldn't have written it like that.

Try again, though.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote: "Not convincing, Zoran. One flaw that Bella complained about was his overprotectiveness. It caused their separation in New Moon, so it's not something that had no effect on the story. There are othe..."

LOL

Not convincing, Mickey. You are stating minor flaws, not major ones.

We need something serious. Edward beating on Bella because of his jealousy, that would be something.

We need to see him doing something that we all know is wrong, and can't be justified by him "loving her oh so much".

Try again, though. ;-)

[S.L.J.]

Take it from someone that has woken up and found a 220 pound guy with a sawn-off in his room...u do not want that. I was 12 when that happened, I'm more than capable of defending myself now.

Anyone that sneaks into my room to watch me sleep that I didn't invite in will get a knife in the face.

[[deleted user]]

There is no such thing as perfection, no one is perfect; therefore no author is perfect. Shephanie Meyer isn't a bad author, infact her writing style is quite good if you read her other books, it's just Twilight is just a bad story with a pointless plot and it's well, jut plain dumb. Since Twilight is so dumb, it gives off the illusion that the author is bad at writing, she just needs more work on creating interesting plots, other then that, I will look forward to reading a book by her that has a legit purpose and plot.

[Zoran]

S.L.J. wrote: "Take it from someone that has woken up and found a 220 pound guy with a sawn-off in his room...u do not want that. I was 12 when that happened, I'm more than capable of defending myself now.

Anyon..."

That would be a good card if SM played it right. But all of the things that sane-minded people see as sick behavior, she made to look like very romantic and an atribute of love. I guess she has a weird concept of love.

Describing how Bella freeks out and doesn't want to see him again because he is a weird maniac would be something else.

But here, we don't see it as crazy, it is described as a sign of love.

[[deleted user]]

I would question anyone who claims to be a book lover and thinks good writing consists of perfect grammar.

Thanks for generalizing people you don't know personally. I'm sure we all appreciate it.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn does not have perfect grammar. Neither does Their Eyes Were Watching God, Catcher in the Rye or Adam Bede. The writer who wrote Where the Red Fern Grows apparently had horrible grammar problems. He even incorrectly cited a source that I caught when I was ten or so. Anne Fadiman wrote an essay about sending a letter to Nabokov when she was a teenager about mistakes in one of his books.

Admittedly, I have not read a single one of those books. But honestly, when people break grammar rules, they have a reason for breaking them. Everything must have a purpose, otherwise you should just go by normal grammar rules. Stephenie Meyer breaks grammar rules, and she doesn't have a reason, AT ALL, for breaking them. And it's more than simply bad grammar we don't like Meyer's writing. WAY more than that. Inconsistency in narration and POV, tense, etc.

I remember one instance in my head when she switches from past tense to present tense for no damn reason:

"...the birds were quiet, too, the drops increasing in frequency, so it must be raining above."

Must HAVE BEEN raining above. Not must be. Jeez Meyer, where TF was your editor?

Good writing consists of more than an absence of grammar mistakes and it's absolutely subjective.

I don't remember anyone on this thread saying otherwise.

What speaks to one person may not speak to another. Because something doesn't speak to you does not mean it's bad.

Honestly Mickey, I have no idea why you keep generalizing and making random assumptions. We don't find Meyer's writing to be bad because it's boring, we find it bad because it's actually bad. I found the Chronicles of Narnia to be kind of dull, yet I could tell they're well written. They didn't speak to me, but they were still well written.

I didn't necessarily like Catcher in the Rye, but you don't see me trolling those threads and complaining about it or claiming that it's bad or making assumptions about the fans of Salinger. It's simply not for me.

Again...we don't dislike Meyer's writing because it's boring or because it doesn't speak to us, we dislike it because it's actually bad. This is a huge assumption to make. Your opinion is not the only one that counts.

[S.L.J.]

My opinion of love is that it's like crack.

You get a taste and then you want more and before you know it you're doing very surprising things to get even more.

Twilight proves my point.