Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 1,951-2,000 of 2,281

[Katie]

Haley wrote: "I hear a lot of people criticizing Stephenie's writing style (I don't know if they are talking about her grammar, her technique, her editing, or if Twilight is just a stupid book) and I just want t..."

http://arts-literature.blurtit.com/17...

but I think the objections of some critics are thin plot, characters who fail to evolve and a whole lot of fan service.

[Abéy]

M.R. wrote: "I think most of the problems with Twilight could actually be blamed on bad editing. Most books undergo intensive rewriting AFTER the author has completed the final draft. The editing is supposed to..." preach

[J.]

Well, you have to understand that by percentage, most believe she is a good writer. And by percentage, few people think she is a bad writer.

However, since she's sold like 200 Million books, if 90% like her work and 10% hate it, she has 20 million haters.

See, most writers don't even have a fraction of the readers as she has haters.

She also has more ratings than most authors have readers. For having 2,006,589 rating here on GoodReads for Twilight, a 3.57 rating is really good. Why? Because they aren't all genre only reviews by people that love her genre.

It is funny, that most people point at her characters as why her writing is poor, but really, it is the characters that sold her millions books.

J. Abram Barneck
Fire Light

[Bill]

J. wrote: "Well, you have to understand that by percentage, most believe she is a good writer."

Great... you've proven that 90% of her readers are semi-literate monkeys who wouldn't know a good book if it walked up and kicked them in the junk.

The whole "popular = good" argument was already debunked back near the beginning of the topic. McDonald's sells billions of burgers each year, but when you compare them to a real burger, they fall short in taste, volume, quality, etc. People buy them because they're cheap and filling, not because they are "the best burgers EVER!!!" That's why they are not Michelin-starred restaurants.

[Siobhan]

J. wrote: "Well, you have to understand that by percentage, most believe she is a good writer. And by percentage, few people think she is a bad writer.

However, since she's sold like 200 Million books, if 90..."

Brilliant statistics, but I've heard that 32% of the positive reviews came from Robert Pattinson fans, 24% from Taylor Launter fans, 0.02% from Kristen Stewarts mum, 24.98% from barely literate monkeys and 9% from people who actually tolerate the book. So statistically, the only people rating it highly are fapping.

Jesse, thank you for what you said about my post earlier, cannot fault a comeback like that :) you're right, Stephenie was sloppy in her approach to science, no wonder we're all scratching our heads over whatever the fuck she wrote.

And Bill, I was using that as an example against an argument, although it does still baffle me that you're stuck on one ideal of a vampire. You know, when I was a kid, I heard a vampire story that predates Dracula (a friend had bought a book of early Victorian horror stories from Osbourne House on a trip to the Isle of Wight) and not only was it better in content and narration, but actually, sorry, it supports Stephenie's ideology. A village accidentally opened a crypt, and noticed the foxes around the village dying, then their dogs, then their sheep ... then their kids. The animal blood gave the vampire enough strength to go after and attack humans.

[Somerandom]

Siobhan wrote: "J. wrote: "Well, you have to understand that by percentage, most believe she is a good writer. And by percentage, few people think she is a bad writer.

However, since she's sold like 200 Million b..."

Heck, the Vampire Diaries books contain vampires sustaining themselves on animal blood, mate. That's from like the 90s. Meyer's animal blood drinking vamps aren't new in the slightest. I think even the sparkling thing has been done before SMeyer, somewhere in the mythology. lol

[Siobhan]

Somerandom wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "J. wrote: "Well, you have to understand that by percentage, most believe she is a good writer. And by percentage, few people think she is a bad writer.

However, since she's sold li..."

Yes, your vampire diaries predates the Victorian era, which ended in the early twentieth century. Thank you … I think you were trying to make a point to contradict me? When in actuality you're supporting my point so … I'm confused.

[Somerandom]

Siobhan wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "J. wrote: "Well, you have to understand that by percentage, most believe she is a good writer. And by percentage, few people think she is a bad writer.

However, ..."

No, I was supporting you. Aussie speak usually carries a very sarcastic and joking tone. So maybe that's why you thought I was contradicting you?

[J.]

The whole "popular = good" argument was already debunked back near the beginning of the topic.

Nobody is making an argument that popular equals good. I was just showing a point of view using percentage and statistics.

Good is subjective. It is subject to each individual's point of view.

Due to Stephenie's popularity, we have extremely high statistics of individual points of views. More so than for almost any other author, though stay tuned for a comparison to a couple of authors who are as popular.

It is statistically proven that those with very bad experience are more likely to leave feedback. I am looking for the source of this statement now.

Statistically, with a 3.57 rating, Stephenie is considered a good writer by the majority.

Popularity = number of people who read a book.
Rating = method to track people's opinion of her work.

The combination of the two is what makes an Author good.

Let's look at the stats:

Note: GoodReads did have a bug which skewed the stats a little. GoodReads actually only has 1,913,937 ratings (as they have a bug where a person who gives no ratings sometimes show up as a having given a rating)

Stars People's rating Percentage
1 233364 12.19%
2 213112 11.13%
3 368344 19.25%
4 424684 22.19%
5 674433 35.24%
total 1913937 100%

So 76.67% give Twilight 3 stars or more.

There are those that say movie fans have influenced the stats, but given that statistically those who have negative experiences are more likely to comment, I would say those even out.

So 76.6 percent liked Twilight.
Her numbers improve for each book, except breaking dawn which is equal to Eclipse.

The Host has 86.06% who gave it 3 stars or more.

However, if you look at another popular book, Hunger Games, you will see the statistics are higher for her:

Stars People's rating Percentage
1 7629 0.70%
2 18623 1.72%
3 90272 8.31%
4 300103 27.64%
5 669247 61.63%
total 1085874 100%

97.5% of people liked Hunger Games. Unfortunately, Collin's stats, unlike Stephenie's, go down with each book, not up. However, they are still all rated higher than Stephenie's.

For Harry Potter (Book 1) here are the stats.

Stars People's rating Percentage
1 24406 1.50%
2 44287 2.72%
3 201022 12.35%
4 438818 26.95%
5 919574 56.48%
total 1628107 100%

95.7% liked J.K. Rowlings book.

So statistically, 76% to 86% liked Stephenie's books as the opinion of her books improves with later work.

However, other Authors with similar popularity (Suzanne Collins and J.K. Rowling) have much approval rates as much as 10% higher.

So have fun with this Statistical point of view.

J. Abram Barneck
Fire Light

[Siobhan]

You know J, no rating is still a rating, because it's so godawful it doesn't even deserve one. I've done that with a book before. so your 'bug' has just discounted a lot of negative opinion. And goodreads is one site, and not all who are on here put all books they have read, so your statistics are bunkum. Don't forget that a lot of copies of Breaking Dawn were returned to bookstores because fans were unhappy with the storyline, which at the time was unprecedented. Likewise, there's a mountain of copies of 50 shades of grey that are unwanted because it failed to deliver. Statistics aren't everything. The majority are made up on the spot.

And sorry, Somerandom, it did not come across that way. And I was in an arsey mood full stop. Not a validation for my reaction, just an explanation.

[Lauren]

Stephanie Meyer is a good modern writer. She puts in a lot of details in her novels, and has a sense of humor that I like and was completely left out in the movies.

[J.]

Siobhan wrote: "You know J, no rating is still a rating, because it's so godawful it doesn't even deserve one...."

Actually that is incorrect on both this site, GoodReads, and on Amazon. There is no 0 rating.

The belief that "not rating" means zero is completely inaccurate. It is estimated that barely 1% of people provide feedback on products. Which seems about accurate. Twiglight is estimated to have been read about 200 million times and has about 2 million ratings.

Again, people who have a negative experience are more likely to provide feedback. So based on this general statistic, it is more likely that were all people who read her books and didn't rate, to go on and subsequently rate her books, her books would actually improve in rating (probably not a statistically significant amount though).

J. Abram Barneck
Fire Light

[Jessica]

J. wrote: "The whole "popular = good" argument was already debunked back near the beginning of the topic.

Nobody is making an argument that popular equals good. I was just showing a point of view using perce..."

Raitings and popularity still don't make a author good or their writing good, it just maks them popular. You say that's not what you're saying or implying or trying to show but that is still what you're saying. Just because many with a GoodReads account rated it doesn't mean that her writing is good or that she as an author is good.

Meyer's whole rating on average for all official published books of the Twilight series is 3.64. That is not a good rating for a author whose ability as a author is based on ratings. If Twilight were a show it would've been cancelled before it was finished. Popularity a good author does not make. If that were so then based on ratings JK is a better author, Lauren Kate is a better author, Susanne Collins is a better author.

It is their handle of the English language, their characters, their ability to world build, how they handle the situations they chose to write about, so much more than their ability to judge what the public likes and their ability to market it.

The movies series rating on average is 4.9, just fyi. Still not considered good.

[Siobhan]

J. wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "You know J, no rating is still a rating, because it's so godawful it doesn't even deserve one...."

Actually that is incorrect on both this site, GoodReads, and on Amazon. There is ..."

Actually, I think you'll find that goodreads includes it as a negative because these people review and give zero stars. Again, I've done this with a book I've read before, called Rocked Under or something? Would have made a good short story, but it was at least 70k in length. Don't ask me what 50k of that was about, because I'm pretty sure it was the same scene repeated five times. In fact, I'll help you with my point by providing a link to the review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Your rationale is flawed, but since you want to cling to your statistics … enjoy the 3.6, I guess?

[J.]

Jesse wrote: Ratings and popularity still don't make a author good or their writing good ...The Twilight series is 3.64. That is not a good rating for a author whose ability as a author is based on ratings."

Actually whether an author is good is exactly one of the components that ratings is trying to measure.

What do you think star ratings are trying to measure?

Total read or purchased measures popularity.
Number of star ratings measures popularity.

Value of a star rating measures an individuals opinion.
Average value of star rating measures the public opinion.

Star value of ratings measure "how good a book is based on public opinion" and Author's writing is the primary component of this measurement.

Stephenie's books range from 3.5 to 3.8.

1 - extremely disliked/bad
2 - did not like/not good
3 - OK/above average (mathematically 2.5 is average)
4 - liked/Good
5 - loved/Great

So actually Star ratings do measure Stephenie's writing. Stephenie is more than 1 star above average. Stephenie's writing is between "OK/Above Average" and "Liked/Good", but closer to "Liked/Good".

Her writing is considered "loved/great" by %35 of people and considered "extremely disliked/bad" by 12% of people.

People who love Stephenie should not try to force their views on those who dislike her, and vice versa. (Unfortunately from reading this post, many are actually trying to force their views on others).

[Siobhan]

Well, playing by those rules … most people agree that on a scale of one to ten, anything below 7 is insulting. Making the comparison and rounding up, anything less than 4 indicates a poor product.

And as I specified above, number of copies sold doesn't equate to popularity, because you can bet the returned copies weren't factored into those counts. Likewise, there are people stuck with copies of books they don't want because they suck, that no one else wants to take off their hands.

And furthermore, number of copies sold has no reflection on substance or merit. Otherwise, EL James is the most awe-inspiring author to walk this planet.

And then I wish I was Arthur Dent, because I would want off this planet if them's the breaks.

[Chanin]

Siobhan wrote: "Well, playing by those rules … most people agree that on a scale of one to ten, anything below 7 is insulting. Making the comparison and rounding up, anything less than 4 indicates a poor product.
..."
I have no problem with your opinon however a 3/5 does not indicate a poor rating it indicates an ok, a average reading if it was a low 3 or even a 2 that would be a poor rating however a 3.6 is actually passing if we are looking at things on a 5 star ratio

[Siobhan]

Chanin wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Well, playing by those rules … most people agree that on a scale of one to ten, anything below 7 is insulting. Making the comparison and rounding up, anything less than 4 indicates ..."

I admit, that opinion is formed by multiple episodes of Come Dine With Me, where people give a 7 going 'eh, it was alright, but only because it won't be shoved down my throat again any time soon.' and also by a seven year stretch in a school where I was a dunce if I got anything less than a 90% in a test. Wish I was joking about that one.

[Jessica]

J. wrote: "Actually whether an author is good is exactly one of the components that ratings is trying to measure."

And her average is 3.64. That is not a good average. That average shows that she's not a good author.

"What do you think star ratings are trying to measure?"

The level of people's enjoyment, obviously. The rating system on this site isn't meant to show how good of an author they are but for how well/badly they were perceived by their readers. It is the reviews from that audience that shows how good or bad of an author someone is. Because going just by average ratings people would be disheartened to read it. Thus why there are multiple ratings for the book because the ratings don't matter when it comes to the enjoyment a person got from this book/series.

"Star value of ratings measure "how good a book is based on public opinion" and Author's writing is the primary component of this measurement."

The rating system on GoodReads doesn't measure the author's writing or reflects the author's writing. The ratings reflect people's opinion on a level of one to five of how much they enjoyed it. The ratings don't automatically tell you the author's writing abilities, it just tells you how well perceived it was by all the people you rated it.

And in the end, it's whole average is still not rated good. So if we're going off of ratings alone then Meyer still isn't a good author, it means she's an average author with nothing special about her. And if we're looking at ratings alone and nothing else, Fallen beats her with a 4.0 average for the whole series yet you can bet your ass people will shout out their dislike of that series.

[Siobhan]

Jesse wrote: "J. wrote: "Actually whether an author is good is exactly one of the components that ratings is trying to measure."

And her average is 3.64. That is not a good average. That average shows that she'..."

And at the end of the day, is my 3 star the same as yours? The same as J's? I hate the phrasing, shoot me in the face now, but that is completely subjective. I'm a hard marker, others are free and easy about their fives. I don't give 5, or 1 (or zero) easily. Others are enthusiastic and dramatic over their ratings.

So once again, the stars tell nothing, except about 2m people have clicked on stars. That's why the reviews and the message boards exist, for the explanation and validation of those little stars.

And like you said, average is not good. Average, I was brought up to believe, is worse than failure. At least when you suck, you know you tried and failed.

[Jessica]

Siobhan wrote: " So once again, the stars tell nothing, except about 2m people have clicked on stars. That's why the reviews and the message boards exist, for the explanation and validation of those little stars.

And like you said, average is not good. Average, I was brought up to believe, is worse than failure. At least when you suck, you know you tried and failed. "

Exactly, which is why I don't look at the average rating and instead look at everything else about the book to determine whether or not the author is a good one. What makes a author a good or bad one is so much more than the ratings they get. It's what they write and how they write it.

[Siobhan]

Jesse wrote: "Siobhan wrote: " So once again, the stars tell nothing, except about 2m people have clicked on stars. That's why the reviews and the message boards exist, for the explanation and validation of thos..."

Sometimes, it's not even that, but if the book they've written is the book they've intended it to be. A few poorly chosen words can change the entire intent behind a novel, can make your characters seem weak and selfish, can make your plot seem redundant. And sometimes, you just ride on how many people don't realise they're being taken in by tell-don't-show.

[Chanin]

Siobhan wrote: "Chanin wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Well, playing by those rules … most people agree that on a scale of one to ten, anything below 7 is insulting. Making the comparison and rounding up, anything less th..."

I suppose now that i think about it that everyone grades things differently to me when i give a 3 im saying well i finished it and i might read another and if i give it a 4 im saying i loved this book but i have a couple issues and i rarely give anything a 5 on the opposite end of the spectrum when i give something a 2 it was a i finished it but im so angry and disgusted with spelling or plot or grammer that it gets a two.A one star is a DNF for me though i have never or if i have rarely given a 1 star. So thats why to me a 3.6 which is almost but not quite a 4 gets my defense.

[J.]

Siobhan wrote: Actually, I think you'll find that GoodReads includes it as a negative because these people review and give zero stars

Again, you are mistaken. Zero is not used as a negative. You cannot give Zero stars on GoodReads.

Zero means no rating.

Please read the API.
https://www.goodreads.com/api

Your review is just adding a text review. Your rating is counted as "No rating".

[Siobhan]

J. wrote: "Siobhan wrote: Actually, I think you'll find that GoodReads includes it as a negative because these people review and give zero stars

Again, you are mistaken. Zero is not used as a negative. You c..."

Well, shit, I gave that book a no star rating, I must have broken the system that day!

/sarcasm.

It baffles me as to why you're so stuck on this star-rating issue, when this thread exists to talk about how much Stephenie Meyer does or does not suck. If you want to go nuts with talk of ratings, maybe go on GR's feedback forums?

[J.]

Jesse wrote: "J. wrote: "What do you think star ratings are trying to measure?"

The level of people's enjoyment, obviously."

Jesse, what is people are reading that determines their level of enjoyment?

Could it be the writing?

By determining the level of enjoyment of a reader (who is reading the Author's writing) then, whether you can comprehend it or not, the star rating helps determine whether the writing is good or not.

On a new note, did anybody read this article today?
Will Your Novel Be a Best Seller? Ask This Super Accurate Algorithm
http://gizmodo.com/will-your-novel-be...

I wonder if the authors of this paper could tell us if Stephenie Meyer's books were hits or misses?

[Siobhan]

J. wrote: "Jesse wrote: "J. wrote: "What do you think star ratings are trying to measure?"

The level of people's enjoyment, obviously."

Jesse, what is people are reading that determines their level of enjoy..."

I prefer speaking to people about their tastes than relying on algorithms. Thanks for once again ducking the actual issue!

[J.]

Siobhan wrote: "I prefer speaking to people about their tastes than relying on algorithms.

Siobhan, I apologize. I read my post and I was a little cold in the way I said you were mistaken. Sorry, Sometimes quick comments end up sound more "curt" than intended.

I apologize if you thought I was dodging the issue. I was just having fun providing a different perspective. Please forgive me for geeking out on math.

I gave Twilight a 4. New Moon 4, Eclipse 4, Breaking Dawn 3 (let down ending).
I gave The Host 5.

I think that her writing could have been improved by:
1. A little more action.
2. Being willing to have the final battle at the end.

I also think that she did some things really well. Other Authors should study what she did well. For example, crossing romance and paranormal genre. Her characters created a craze among fans, even creating the Edward vs. Jacob controversy (which started long before the movies were released) because of how much most readers cared about Stephenie's characters. She was writing a romance, which is by default predictable: girl and guy get together. Yet, I found her book unpredictable. I didn't expect shiny vampires. I didn't expect Bella to ride on his back through the forest. I didn't expect the Cullins to play baseball. Etc. Some of the ideas might have been thought of before (let's face it, very little is ever new) but the way she put it all together felt new.

If she wrote another book, I would read it.

[Siobhan]

J. wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "I prefer speaking to people about their tastes than relying on algorithms.

Siobhan, I apologize. I read my post and I was a little cold in the way I said you were mistaken. Sorry,..."

I geek out on math regularly, but I don't quite see how the ratings system is math?

Anyway, just one small point in what you wrote, but I think it's strange you think it's an achievement that Stephenie made a paranormal romance. If only because, in my mind, romance is a sneaky bugger of a genre. It has it's own genre, it's own niche, and yet whatever other genre you're writing - distopian, futuristic, historical, crime, horror, children's, fantasy - romance is there somewhere. No matter what else is written down, there is always love involved. It wasn't an achievement, it was just more noticeable than most books.

[Jessica]

J. wrote: "Jesse, what is people are reading that determines their level of enjoyment?"

I don't understand what you're asking, your sentence doesn't make sense.

"By determining the level of enjoyment of a reader (who is reading the Author's writing) then, whether you can comprehend it or not, the star rating helps determine whether the writing is good or not."

And again, the rating system doesn't determine how good a author's writing is, just how well liked they are. And even so Meyer is still average and not good.

[Jessica]

J. wrote: "Other Authors should study what she did well. "



What has Meyer done so exceptionally well that other seasoned, better authors -authors, mind you, that are in the same genre as her- could learn from her?

"For example, crossing romance and paranormal genre. "

Yawn. It's been done well before her and her time. Really? Take a look around, you'll be amazed at the paranormal/romance genre on here that dates to before 2008.

Yet, I found her book unpredictable. I didn't expect shiny vampires. I didn't expect Bella to ride on his back through the forest. I didn't expect the Cullins to play baseball. Etc. Some of the ideas might have been thought of before (let's face it, very little is ever new) but the way she put it all together felt new.

If she wrote another book, I would read it. "

And these are all opinions and you hold the opinion that she is a good author, which are still well and good but she just isn't. For her first time book she knew what was marketable and what would sell, but her stories are predictable, her characters one dimensional and often bleed into each other with how alike they are, there's no suspense, her story is bland and melancholy, she needs a better editor, and she needs to take more risks with her characters, to stop having favorites that she just can't make herself harm.

she's average, she's not good and in my opinion she's bad. But statistically speaking, she's just average.

[Taylor]

I seriously disliked the Twilight series. I read the first 3 in hopes it would get better and I could understand why people were going so crazy about them. I found them so predictable and the characters one dimensional. There didn't seem to be any evolution at all. Not to mention I hated how Bella was so incredibly meek and reliant on Edward. It just made her seem really pathetic in my opinion. I dislike people who rely so heavily on one person for their own happiness. Don't like them in real life and I certainly don't like them in novels. Probably the only books that I've ever thrown out. Those and 50 Shades of Grey.

[Rel8tivity]

Siobhan wrote: "And furthermore, number of copies sold has no reflection on substance or merit. Otherwise, EL James is the most awe-inspiring author to walk this planet.

And then I wish I was Arthur Dent, because I would want off this planet if them's the breaks. "

Laughing my a** off, SO MUCH!! :D

[Samira]

no ones answering the question: Stephanie is no doubt a bad writer and twilight was shit. I think the original Dracuala was a much more fun read, Especially the couple chapters when johnathen was with Dracula in his castle. I have the very first published version of the book, which means its in old english. but i liked it.

[Naura]

You know what,it doesn't matter how good or bad she is.
Her books were quite interesting and made good reads! That's all that matters :)
Of course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.So,there!

[Paganalexandria]

I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up too much time describing insignificant details that end up having nothing to do with the story. Like if a writer spends a couple of paragraphs describing the color and texture of a sweater, that sweater better come back later, and end up being a crucial component to the conclusion.

[Siobhan]

Samira wrote: "no ones answering the question: Stephanie is no doubt a bad writer and twilight was shit. I think the original Dracuala was a much more fun read, Especially the couple chapters when johnathen was w..."

the first couple of chapters where Jonathan was like 'oh, Dracula is so interesting and has many wonderful stories and is so knowledgeable about Geography and History and British politics and despite not eating the meals he provides, he has a wonderful variation of fresh and familiar dishes. I'm so scared I'm going to die!'

Yes, those entries are probably the best part, even though there's no justification for Harker's fear.

And people were answering the question. Most people agreed with the sentiment you expressed ;)

[Molly]

I dont think she's a bad writer, but I think the problem is with the story and/or her characters. No writers are without their faults, and I think the main issue is not with that, but with the fact that Bella is an incredibly boring, weak protagonist, and it was almost painful to her the story from her point of view! Aside from that, I actually think the books were well written. They just didn't have the full package: good writing, a gripping plot and interesting characters. They only had one of the above.

[Cherene]

I think part of the reason this story was so popular was not her writing talent, but the stuff she put in that related with young women.

1) Insert two men.
2) One of them is a "bad boy" and one is a "good boy."
3) Both of them are dangerous.
4) Both of them are gorgeous
5) Both of them like Bella.
6) Bella is a plain looking girl - which most teenage girls feel they are.
7) Both characters provided an escape from mundane life and an adventurous life
8) Both characters offered Bella a family that would accept and protect her - a huge part of a teenagers life, to feel accepted and loved.

With Stephanie Meyer offering a world which covered all the insecurities that many female girls felt, it didn't need a lot of well written content to attract masses. I cannot tell you the number of teenage girls I hear say, "You are my Edward."

It makes me kind of sick, to be honest. Only because I wish teenage girls would have role models that didn't need a man to feel whole - or spend 6 months in life-sucking depression if they lose that man.

[Jessica]

Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up too much time describing insignificant details that end up having nothing to do wit..."

And that was exactly her problem, which I hated. She put too much detail on unimportant things and not enough on the more important. Like that whole chapter where Bella was makin sandwiches and was talking to Jacob. The whole time I was just thinkin how they better be the best sandwiches ever and they come up later, even in passing, but for something that got such intricate detail it never came up again. Like, what's the point??

[Naura]

Jesse wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up too much time describing in..."

Well lets say it's some sort of technique..you know it kind of builds up impatience in the reader to get to the more important parts of the chapter..so it makes the reader more curious to know what actually happens once the sandwiches are made..! :P
You get it..it's a little weird but I hope you got my point

I'm not defending her..just saying that she must've had her reasons for writing the way she did :)

[Cherene]

Martin wrote: "Naura wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up..."

Jeez, and William Faulkner only used metaphors, imagery, similes, hyperbole, etc.

If only he had known about this technique.

[Bill]

Cherene wrote: "With Stephanie Meyer offering a world which covered all the insecurities that many female girls felt..."

What about the male girls? Why is she discriminating against them?

(...I'm so sorry, but I had to do that.)

[Siobhan]

Bill wrote: "Cherene wrote: "With Stephanie Meyer offering a world which covered all the insecurities that many female girls felt..."

What about the male girls? Why is she discriminating against them?

(...I'm..."

Male girls don't enter into Meyer's head, otherwise she'd realise Edward was one.

[Cherene]

Bill wrote: "Cherene wrote: "With Stephanie Meyer offering a world which covered all the insecurities that many female girls felt..."

What about the male girls? Why is she discriminating against them?

(...I'm..."

Damn it. I'm sexist! I am going to believe that 80% of the "loved it" population was female.

PS Well played.

[LoveVickyHolt]

Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up too much time describing insignificant details that end up having nothing to do wit..."

I love it...that sweater better come back! "The best time to wear a striped sweater, is any time!" Spongebob.

[Siobhan]

V.L. wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up too much time describing in..."

I would love for there to be a spitefic where someone wrote a relevant conclusion for the dinners, the sandwich, the magnets ... all the intricate details unnecessarily included.

[Chanin]

Siobhan wrote: "V.L. wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "I don't think her writing is bad, but found it personally too wordy for my tastes. I hate it when writers take up too much time ..."
The end result was the diner that charlie went to blew up and the sandwich had a cure for vampyrism that someone was going to give to rosalie but they forgot and as for the magnets well they just couldnt connect with each other

[Chanin]

by the way does anyone else think charlie is a bad father.For these reasons:
1.Seventeen year old daughter who he never contacted until now because he was always in forks doing either
1.fishing
2.watching the game
3.being a police chief
Do any of these things really make life so busy that you dont know anything about your only daughter and still even dressed her room, like she was five was it(not really sure of her age when she last spent time with her father)?

Also there is the whole you know
1.favoring jacob over his daughter
2.trying to push the two together than pouting when it didnt work
3.being unagreeable
I know this is off-topic and im sorry i just see no threads and I didnt feel like making a new one..Am i the only one who thinks this

[Chanin]

Martin wrote: "Chanin wrote: "by the way does anyone else think charlie is a bda father.
1.Seventeen year old daughter who he never contacted until now because he was always in forks doing either
1.fishing
2.watc..."
ok good glad im not the only one its feel like no one ever speaks about him