Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Chanin wrote: "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.w..."
I think he was a half-assed father, sure, but she lies to him and manipulates him from the start. He's just not firm with her, because Meyer's dad was clearly firm with her, so she's written the dad she really wanted and, well, look at what happened to Bella. No wonder she preferred living with Daddy, her Mom was too up in her business.
Siobhan wrote: "Chanin wrote: "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 eithe..."
Rel8tivity wrote: "Chanin wrote: "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 eithe..."
She lies to him because she has no reason to tell him anything though dont you think i mean what exactly was she supposed to say?Hi dad i had a really weird day today met some strange boy who looks like he wants to eat me?How was your day btw?
Rel8tivity wrote: "Chanin wrote: "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 eithe..."
true and then there is the whole guilting thing if you were a good girl you would forgive jacob the poor boy is so sad your not there
Chanin wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Chanin wrote: "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 f..."
Since he was the police chief, shouldn't she have gone to him with concerns? No one better placed in town to make a difference. She lied and put herself in danger because she was a wilful, spoilt child. And yes, you can be spoilt with no money. She had crappy parents, because Stephenie apparently can't recognise when her own parents were doing her good. It's a saga of wish-fulfilment.
I was in a doctor's waiting room and looked up to see four people reading from both genders, both young and old reading Twilight books. How exciting to be able to encourage reading like this. With the success of the series and the worldwide fans of a BOOK, the question if she is a "good" writer is ridiculous.
Meredith wrote: "I was in a doctor's waiting room and looked up to see four people reading from both genders, both young and old reading Twilight books. How exciting to be able to encourage reading like this. With..."A lot of people read The 120 Days of Sodom too and that was full of sexual assault in the most perturbed way you can imagine.
Popularity doesn't necessarily equal well written, or even positive, material.
Olivia wrote: "Cherene wrote: "Meredith wrote: "I was in a doctor's waiting room and looked up to see four people reading from both genders, both young and old reading Twilight books. How exciting to be able to..."I would never judge someone for liking a novel or someone's writing. Many people like that book and that's awesome. My main problem with it is I think teenage girls took it way too personally and Bella isn't exactly what I would hope my daughter to become.
Then again, we didn't see a strong female character in Disney until Frozen. So, maybe the damsel in distress is something that will continue to make young girls swoon and I should just let them have this stage before they grow up.
Except that, recently, a young girl told me that true love was dying because you couldn't live with someone else. It makes me wonder what this sort of pop culture does to women. On top of that, what unrealistic expectations we put on men - kind of shocking that most people believe it's just Hustler ruining our romantic idealism's.
She has her flaws but ofcourse she is not a bad writer. I have read all the twilight books a couple of times and I really enjoyed them, infact I still read them and I think there could have been more.. I want to read more about Jacob and Renesme. Also more about Alice.
Nashville wrote: "You aren't okey people xD Write a better one then and be a better writer. I will wait for your ,,better'' story."Fair enough, follow the link to my blog on my profile and you'll find my first draft. I encourage people to rip it to shreds, I want to be good. I want criticism - constructive criticism, sure - because a good writer would.
I look forward to your feedback.
Nashville wrote: "You aren't okey people xD Write a better one then and be a better writer. I will wait for your ,,better'' story."Wow, flashback to 2009. This is totally an original and valid counterargument that debunks the 50 pages previous talking of how she's not that good of an author.
Really? You're still stuck in this mindset? That's so uncool.
Nashville wrote: "Sweety,it's a long time that i've read it,but the difference between me and you is that i almost never forget books,which i do truely liked in the past and i never say bad things about them,just be..."a) never forget books either.
b)if I truly like a book, I will be just as vocal about that. Those books stick with me. I recently bought a necklace someone had made with a Narnian theme, and I first read that when I was 4.
c)Fashion? With books? Are you kidding me? Some of us are well read enough that we can notice poor traits in others writing. I'm actually increasingly finding myself disappointed with books because the standards seem to be dropping. I don't think it's me, because I don't expect everyone to be Proust or Milton. I think it's that editors are having to protect egos more than story lines, and ebooks make it harder for traditional publishers who can take 2 years to release a story. The quality of grammar is going downhill, and yes, we need more people to be vocal about that. You cannot ride on a fluke of a semi-interesting story without having some modicum of talent to back it up, and that's why peoples hackles are raised over the success of people like Meyer and James.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the anti's, you know.
Nashville wrote: "Sweety,it's a long time that i've read it,but the difference between me and you is that i almost never forget books,which i do truely liked in the past and i never say bad things about them,just be..."Well said :D
I must agree with you! Every writer has her/his style....And I say..As long you enjoyed a book,that's good enough! You don't have to debate on a writers style..thats how they write-either you like it or you don't...just as simple..right??
Naura wrote: "Nashville wrote: "Sweety,it's a long time that i've read it,but the difference between me and you is that i almost never forget books,which i do truely liked in the past and i never say bad things ..."Not that simple. If her language was changed, and she listened to her characters and not just the sound of her own tapping, the book that this could have been would have been immense. It would have been validated in so many ways if she'd had the balls to write the story Twilight wanted to be instead of the alternate reality she wished she lived in.
WOAH! Alright...chill!
She wrote what she wanted to,and we've all read it...it's served the purpose of her writing-to get people to read it :D
Come on,now..it's pointless talking about the ifs and what ifs ...you're saying you didnt like her book..fair enough! everyone can have an opinion of their own right!:)
Nashville wrote: "Sweety,it's a long time that i've read it,but the difference between me and you is that i almost never forget books,which i do truely liked in the past and i never say bad things about them,just because some of them are not in,,fashion'' anymore (just like a lot of you guys here do)Sorry but it's a big bullshit for me.That's so uncool;) "
Calling someone sweetie in a condescending matter just because you don't like their differing opinion is still condescending~, which is uncool.
I don't forget books either...? I don't understand why this is a thing you felt the need to bring up.
It's called criticism, you should get acquainted with it. It's so 2009 to say that people are speaking their opinions just because of a trend or fashion or what have you. I don't care how much of a trend you think it is to hate Twilight, but I just don't like the series and I will always speak my mind about it, whether it's in or out of 'trend' to talk about it. Come to 2014, where people have actual reasons to not like it besides peer pressure telling them to not like it.
Now, are you going to continue this hissy fit because you don't like our opinions -that I highly doubt you read- or do you actually want to discuss a topic?
Cherene wrote: "Then again, we didn't see a strong female character in Disney until Frozen. So, maybe the damsel in distress is something that will continue to make young girls swoon and I should just let them have this stage before they grow up. "Excuse me Cherene, Mulan told me to tell you that she was a mighty fierce bitch. ;)
Naura wrote: "WOAH! Alright...chill!
She wrote what she wanted to,and we've all read it...it's served the purpose of her writing-to get people to read it :D
Come on,now..it's pointless talking about the ifs and..."
But that is, in fact, the very purpose of this particular thread, and most discussion boards in general, so I don't now understand why you're joining the debate? Or are you trying to shut me down because my opinion differs from yours? In which case, let me give you more of the standard responses:
-It's subjective!
-It's only fiction!
-Don't like, don't read.
*shudders* they all make me feel dirty.
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Cherene wrote: "Then again, we didn't see a strong female character in Disney until Frozen. So, maybe the damsel in distress is something that will continue to make young girls swoon and I should j..."Rapunzel seemed sweet and innocent, but don't forget what she could do with a frying pan. She pwned Mother Gothel in the end!
yeah..all you had to do was say if you thought she was bad or not!just for the record,I'm not trying to shut anyone down
!
All I mean to say is..i see people forcing their opinions on the others here..which isnt fair!That's all..I'm not here to bite another's head off alright!!!
And sorry to've got you so mad! :O
Naura wrote: "yeah..all you had to do was say if you thought she was bad or not!just for the record,I'm not trying to shut anyone down
!
All I mean to say is..i see people forcing their opinions on the others h..."
Mad? No, I'm not mad, just tired of there being no real debate. You say we're forcing opinions, but isn't the very point of a debate to make a statement and to see how people analyse it and counter it? The depressing thing is, there do not seem to be any fans of the series who have a good rebuttal to the counters. So yes, it seems like an anti- filled thread because we seem to be the only people making valid arguments for our stance, and the lack of substance coming back does seem to underline the fact that the pro- people have very weak ground to stand on. It may seem like a vitriol-filled argument to you, but it's a very unsatisfying debate to me.
And just FYI, I'm replying because I've given myself the task of scrutinising every episode of Supernatural for my blog. I started the pilot a few days ago, and I'm on the second episode now. As Dean and Sam discuss what a Wendigo is to the people they're trying to help, I can't help but think that Bill had a point. Bella and the Cullens seem to fit the trait of Wendigo better than Vampire. Imortality, eating human flesh, super speed and agility, ability to go for prolonged periods without feeding, connection to Indian tribal lore … definitely a book about Wendigo ;) and still poorly done. But yeah, I need a break from giving myself a headache and organising where I discuss the action, or where I give background comments.
Naura wrote: "All I mean to say is..i see people forcing their opinions on the others here..which isnt fair!That's all..I'm not here to bite another's head off alright!!!"How are we trying to force our opinions on others? I'm confused.
yeah..I see what you mean..the debate's going in all crazy directions!:P:)And I haven't gotten around to watching supernatural yet :P so sorry I can't say anything on that!
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Cherene wrote: "Then again, we didn't see a strong female character in Disney until Frozen. So, maybe the damsel in distress is something that will continue to make young girls swoon and I should j..."Tiana had some spunk, also.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Cherene wrote: "Then again, we didn't see a strong female character in Disney until Frozen. So, maybe the damsel in distress is something tha..."Is that film any good? I've heard bad things ...
Siobhan wrote: "Rapunzel seemed sweet and innocent, but don't forget what she could do with a frying pan. She pwned Mother Gothel in the end! "Exactly, there have been some Disney girls with more to offer. And quite frankly, why is okay to have kids believe in the fantasy of a kindly stranger that breaks into your home to leave presents, but it's a sin against female kind for little girls to idolize the Little Mermaid?
I absolutely loved "The Princess and the Frog". Whoever said bad things lied.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I absolutely loved "The Princess and the Frog". Whoever said bad things lied."Yeah I loved that movie too, I actually cried the first time seeing it. I think some people found the voodoo parts controversial. Which is weird since most Disney films have an element of magic or witchcraft.
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I absolutely loved "The Princess and the Frog". Whoever said bad things lied."Yeah I loved that movie too, I actually cried the first time seeing it. I think some people fo..."
Mainly, the complaints I've heard are that Tiana wasn't a Princess for long enough, or something? That it was sold as a Princess film but she's a frog for most of it.
And voodoo parts are controversial? Did people get antsy like that over Ursula or Malificent?
Siobhan wrote: Mainly, the complaints I've heard are that Tiana wasn't a Princess for long enough, or something? That it was sold as a Princess film but she's a frog for most of it.And voodoo parts are controversial? Did people get antsy like that over Ursula or Malificent?
That's one of the things that I liked about the movie. Tiana never wanted to be a princess and didn't care about becoming one at all. Her childhood friend was the one who had dreams of marrying a Prince. Tiana wanted to own her own restaurant. She becomes a princess at the very end of the movie and even then, she continues to pursue her lifelong dream that she always had of opening her restaurant. In the movie, she and her prince do all of the work necessary to restore the building themselves.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Siobhan wrote: Mainly, the complaints I've heard are that Tiana wasn't a Princess for long enough, or something? That it was sold as a Princess film but she's a frog for most of it.And voodoo par..."
Good point Mocha, that movie did a good job of changing expectations for your HEA. That's also why I loved Mulan because of it's girl power message flipped the script.
Meredith wrote: "I was in a doctor's waiting room and looked up to see four people reading from both genders, both young and old reading Twilight books. How exciting to be able to encourage reading like this. With the success of the series and the worldwide fans of a BOOK, the question if she is a "good" writer is ridiculous."If we're talking about encouraging people to read, then questioning whether SM is a bad writer (or puts out bad writing) is a completely legitimate discussion.
If you're trying to encourage reading, wouldn't you prefer people to read quality work, rather than dreck? Isn't that why schools require reading books like To Kill a Mockingbird and the works of Shakespeare, rather than Fifty Shades of Gray?
I know the argument is going to be something like, "well at least they're reading something and not on their GameBoy." I suppose it's better than nothing. But whether they know it or not, kids learn about writing from what they read. And if they read something full of errors and poor logic, unless they get exposed to better material, that becomes the norm. It teaches them that they don't have to be good at something to succeed. You just have to be popular.
And this isn't just a subjective question of like-it/hate-it. There are concrete examples of bad writing in the books. That's why people continue to harp on the issue.
Rel8tivity wrote: "If we're talking about encouraging people to read, then questioning whether SM is a bad writer (or puts out bad writing) is a completely legitimate discussion.If you're trying to encourage reading, wouldn't you prefer people to read quality work, rather than dreck? Isn't that why schools require reading books like To Kill a Mockingbird and the works of Shakespeare, rather than Fifty Shades of Gray?
I know the argument is going to be something like, "well at least they're reading something and not on their GameBoy." I suppose it's better than nothing. But whether they know it or not, kids learn about writing from what they read. And if they read something full of errors and poor logic, unless they get exposed to better material, that becomes the norm. It teaches them that they don't have to be good at something to succeed. You just have to be popular.
And this isn't just a subjective question of like-it/hate-it. There are concrete examples of bad writing in the books. That's why people continue to harp on the issue.
The only problem that I have with this logic is that I believe that schools also need to focus on ways of encouraging kids to love reading and writing....not just on how to do it "well". There is a very big difference between those two things and for some people the same types of literature don't always work for both. You don't want to kill their love in your quest to teach them what you think "quality" is.
You don't teach a child quality writing, you teach a child critical thinking and English comprehension - or your language of choice. And then you let them decide for themselves. Meanwhile, I stand corrected. Evidently there has been more than one female that stood past the Disney cliche. Frozen was good in my opinion. It had as much singing as the older Disney's did. My five year old son liked it too, which (as their general targeted audience) means it did okay to me.
In the case of the Santa discussion:
1) I usually don't bring this up because it's a tiresome discussion, but I do NOT believe in teaching my kids about Santa.
2) Even if we do, at least we end up telling them at about 8 that it's just a magical story. Many parents forget to tell their daughters that Cinderella is just a story too.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "If we're talking about encouraging people to read, then questioning whether SM is a bad writer (or puts out bad writing) is a completely legitimate discussion.If you're trying ..."
I agree, well written books should make up a substantial amount of the curriculum, wherever you are in the world. But even books that aren't grammatically correct could be beneficial if they contain other messages. For example, A Clockwork Orange would be a good book to include, or even books that reflect our society. But I'm not really sure Twilight fits anywhere in any topic as a learning curve. And besides, I've learned more from trying to write and talking with authors than I ever managed to absorb at school. Practice makes perfect and all that ;)
Mochaspresso wrote: "The only problem that I have with this logic is that I believe that schools also need to focus on ways of encouraging kids to love reading and writing....not just on how to do it "well". There is a very big difference between those two things and for some people the same types of literature don't always work for both. You don't want to kill their love in your quest to teach them what you think "quality" is. "Well, I think that is too broad of a challenge because children-teens react to the material differently. I know I loved all the books from my required reading list, books like 1984, To Kill A MockingBird, various poems by Edgar Allen Poe and Shakespeare and Bronte, all that good stuff. It's the taste that individual students have that show whether they like reading or just plain don't like reading. Plus it has to deal with what the book contains, its morals and story. Schools can't just assign any ol' book for the students to read, that's what the library is for. They assign these books that average students would find dull and boring because they obviously want them to discuss on them and what they think the story was about/meant to show because of their meaning. Plus they are of course great examples of writing.
Cherene wrote: "You don't teach a child quality writing, you teach a child critical thinking and English comprehension"...Why not? And aren't these the same? What is the point of teaching them if you don't teach them quality writing?
Rel8tivity wrote: "If we're talking about encouraging people to read, then questioning whether SM is a bad writer (or puts out bad writing) is a completely legitimate discussion.If you're trying to encourage reading, wouldn't you prefer people to read quality work, rather than dreck? Isn't that why schools require reading books like To Kill a Mockingbird and the works of Shakespeare, rather than Fifty Shades of Gray?
I know the argument is going to be something like, "well at least they're reading something and not on their GameBoy." I suppose it's better than nothing. But whether they know it or not, kids learn about writing from what they read. And if they read something full of errors and poor logic, unless they get exposed to better material, that becomes the norm. It teaches them that they don't have to be good at something to succeed. You just have to be popular.
And this isn't just a subjective question of like-it/hate-it. There are concrete examples of bad writing in the books. That's why people continue to harp on the issue. "
Rel8tivity, this qualifies as a fun read, not literature. I fall completely in the "happy they are reading something (age appropriate of course)" camp when it comes to free time reading. If my kid wants to read about dinosaurs, I'm not going to inspect the book to make sure it meets some grand literary standard. Instead, I'm happy they are interested enough in a subject past a Wikipedia search. Same goes for romantic vampires. I personally am not into this book, but am also too old for YA. I will not read Harry Potter, but was happy and proud when my eight year old requested it because "she wanted a big book instead of the little ones she always gets." For me it's more important to encourage people to look for books to give them instant entertainment, knowledge, or escape. Once a person has a love for books in general they are more likely to explore the classics in their free time also, instead of only suffering through them because of a dreaded assignment.
I don't think Twilight was intended to be a book that teaches lessons or literary elements. I really do believe that it was written purely for entertainment purposes and that should be fine. To me, it's not so much that Twilight can't be used to teach anything. You could use it to teach about basic things like genre, setting and the first person pov and probably some other things if you really wanted to. There is also definitely imagery and allegory in Twilight. It's just that there are also much better books out there to teach those things. I also don't want to go so far as to say that just because "The Great Gatsby" is a better book for teaching certain literary devices because of Fitzgerald's writing style doesn't automatically make Twilight "bad".
Cherene wrote: "Olivia wrote: "Cherene wrote: "Meredith wrote: "I was in a doctor's waiting room and looked up to see four people reading from both genders, both young and old reading Twilight books. How excitin..."I have four daughters. Two which are teens. I think it is silly to expect authors to have expectations of their characters to be "role models". Do we hold Fitzgerald to this for his character of Daisy or Mitchell to this for Scarlett. If a teen can not distinguish their life from a Vampire book then they have other issues.
Jesse wrote: "Cherene wrote: "You don't teach a child quality writing, you teach a child critical thinking and English comprehension"...Why not? And aren't these the same? What is the point of teaching them if..."
Quality does not mean critical thinking or comprehension. Quality is, strictly, how good or bad something is. Something that is not black and white in literature. As we can tell from these 51 pages.
Critical thinking, on the other hand, is teaching children to let them decide for themselves if something seems factual, partially true, or false.
Comprehension gives them the strength to understand the meaning - if any - behind what they are reading and take it to a whole new level.
And that leads back to, we cannot teach a child what they see as quality writing. Does quality mean proper punctuation? Does it mean popularity? Does it mean tone? Does it mean character development?
Sure, we can teach our children the standards of well delivered novels - setting, characters, plot, purpose - but they will still argue among themselves about how effective the characters really are.
Hence, we teach them how to think for themselves and how to understand what they are reading. And then, we hope for the best.
Meredith wrote: "If a teen can not distinguish their life from a Vampire book then they have other issues."
And yet, most teens don't. lol
I understand that you're saying that an author is not morally responsible for a perfect role model just because the reader is a teen and may wish that they could be her.
I even agree with you.
I don't think Stephanie Meyer is evil or corrupt for writing a character that isn't perfect. I just think that it is true she wrote a horrible teen character and it is true that teens are seeing love in a negative light because of this. Just because it wasn't her responsibility to encourage them to have positive relationships doesn't mean we need to encourage more young teens to think like this.
Also, that being said Fitzgerald wrote his characters knowing that they were not good role models. SM seemed to see nothing wrong with a teenage girl that was boyfriend centered.
Cherene wrote: "Quality does not mean critical thinking or comprehension. Quality is, strictly, how good or bad something is"But quality writing has always been a standard when in school. Students have always been taught to spot quality writing, as is what English classes and Writing classes are for, one would presume.
"And that leads back to, we cannot teach a child what they see as quality writing. "
Just because you say that we cannot doesn't mean that it hasn't already been done and will continue to be done. In my eyes, that is always what has happened and is the norm. As we grow older and wiser we continue to mold what we believe to be quality writing based on what we've been taught in school. That because of that we can identify what is quality and what is not. Of course our opinions and biases interject in there and there would be differing terms of quality, that is where people who are specialized in this come in and turn subjective views into objective ones.
You know what the best method is of getting teenagers to appreciate quality literature? The real secret? Reading to your kids, as soon as possible,I've read every night to my son since he was about 6 months. The best way to get him to stop playing and start getting ready for bed was to threaten to cull the number of books I was reading - three picture books and a chapter from a chapter book is our standard - he's six now, and together we've read Harry Potter, the Chronicles of Narnia (well, I edited HP and we're halfway through the Last Battle now), we've got most Julia Donaldson books, he loves Doctor Suess. He's six and already tells me to shhh, he's reading about Aslan tonight. He tells me about the times his grandparents read to him, and they're going through Roald Dahl.
Yes, I forced it on him, but he loves books, and reading, and I know that won't go now. He might waver in the face of being seen as cool with his friends, but they won't see him reading at night. He'll probably be like my brother who has a wall of fantasy books that surprise me every time I see them.
And because he's been exposed to so many books, in so many styles already, I know he's going to start analysing why he likes the books soon, especially since he initialises the talk afterwards about what was funny or scary. He's going to have a decent taste, because these books all have good morals and a wonderful flow in the narrative, and he can already ascertain what does and doesn't work, what they should have done.
Picture books only take minutes. A chapter can take half an hour. I love our nighttime reading hour.
Jesse wrote: Well, I think that is too broad of a challenge because children-teens react to the material differently. I know I loved all the books from my required reading list, books like 1984, To Kill A MockingBird, various poems by Edgar Allen Poe and Shakespeare and Bronte, all that good stuff. It's the taste that individual students have that show whether they like reading or just plain don't like reading. Plus it has to deal with what the book contains, its morals and story. Schools can't just assign any ol' book for the students to read, that's what the library is for. They assign these books that average students would find dull and boring because they obviously want them to discuss on them and what they think the story was about/meant to show because of their meaning. Plus they are of course great examples of writing. I agree with you about schools not being able to assign just any old book. That's not where I was going with this. I understand and agree with why certain books are assigned. I just didn't like how it's gotten to the point where people are under the impression that just because one book happens to be excellent for teaching a particular literary element and has traditionally been used for that purpose, that no other book can possibly compare. That's the direction this discussion seemed to be going, imo. People were implying that because Twilight was poorly written (from a purely canonical standpoint....which I agree that it was but enjoyed the story anyway), It can't possibly be used to teach anything. That, I don't agree with. Yes, there are much better books out there to teach.....but I also think that it's important to know the likes and dislikes of your intended student audience. If they happen to be reluctant readers and this series, or any other popular one, is the one that seems to be grabbing them, I think it's okay because in the long run, it is much easier to teach the technical things about what constitutes "quality" writing when the student already has a passion for reading and writing. I think having that passion is far more important than what book creates it.
Siobhan wrote: "You know what the best method is of getting teenagers to appreciate quality literature? The real secret? Reading to your kids, as soon as possible,I've read every night to my son since he was abo..."
I guess because I love trashy reads, it's not a concern for me. I started sneaking my mom's bodice rippers and never looked back. Though I'm the queen of the run on sentence, obviously, in my casual writing. My love non-classics has never prevented me from being able to write an A paper when needed. I think just being an avid reader period unconciosly fills your head with trivia and facts. I know in my case, some of those historical romances helped me pass a couple of history tests never studied for. And casually reading thousands of books and magazines over the years is the reason people sitting next to me are amazed how many of my Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire answers are correct. They don't know that random information came from a Judith Krantz or Stephen King novel.
I personally get annoyed by the book police (not directed at you Siobhan) who look down their noses because my shelf is mostly filled with romance. I read romance because of the guaranteed happy endings. Life is hard, my entertainment shouldn't have to be.
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "You know what the best method is of getting teenagers to appreciate quality literature? The real secret? Reading to your kids, as soon as possible,I've read every night to my son ..."
I don't judge by genre, or age-appropriateness. I was reading books to make 50 blush when I was fourteen, some of my son's picture books are favourites of mine. The issue for me, isn't with content, or genre, or storyline, but in the way it's told, the correct style. My writing is full of run-on sentences and fragments, but it's narrated by two people in first person, and I think there's a major licence in doing so in first person. I want my characters to sound like teenagers without using words that date them, like too many slang words. And some of my favourites are the same. For me, personally, one of the biggest problems in twilight is that it didn't know what voice was meant to come through. We were meant to be living as Bella, but there was too much written as third-person. The narration, when it did seem first-person, had a horrible tendency to sound like a thesaurus, but then was punctuated by words like 'ugh'. Seriously, you can sum up the narration as ' "Ugh, I feel chagrined." I, thought, as Bella climbs the stairs.'
Then there's the fact the story didn't flow well. Again, you can find some books, or series, where things may get forgotten by the wayside - Chamber of Secrets stuck out horribly for me in the Harry Potter series until Half-Blood Prince came along - but are usually brought back to the fore sooner or later. I don't just mean the sandwiches or jumpers that were brought up earlier, I mean that Bella could be laughing with someone in one sentence, and then that person is angry with her the next, and halfway down the page, they're happy again.
I didn't think it was directed at me, per ce, but I realised I might not have been clear by what I mean. I'm still not … I just think quality doesn't always have to refer to high-brow classics, just a well-written book for its genre.
Mochaspresso wrote: "That's the direction this discussion seemed to be going, imo. People were implying that because Twilight was poorly written (from a purely canonical standpoint....which I agree that it was but enjoyed the story anyway), It can't possibly be used to teach anything. "Oh I never disagreed with that, sorry if it seemed like i was implying I was. I agree that it can teach you a few things. Just off the top of my head I know that in the right editorial/teacher hands one could point out to students what is wrong. It can teach you how to spot bad grammar and word usage. I wouldn't say it could teach you words, we pick up new words everyday so I wouldn't say Twilight is special in that aspect. It could be material in feminism classes, mythological classes maybe. A whole lot of things. But could it teach you something positive, like if it were an example of good writing/story telling/characterization/etc.? No. It could teach you how to do better in those aspects though.
Sadly, I have read to my children since day one and recently my 5 year old told me, "I don't like reading books with you Mom, I just want to stay up later."Sigh.
On a good note, he was the one that explained to me that, although lightening travels polarity wise both from the sky downwards and the ground upwards, the actual charge of lightening we see comes from the ground upwards.
And who am I to complain when he knows that? :)
Still, I hope my daughter loves books more. lol
Jesse wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "That's the direction this discussion seemed to be going, imo. People were implying that because Twilight was poorly written (from a purely canonical standpoint....which I agre..."Out of curiosity, why don't you think Twilight could be used to teach story-telling and characterization? I understand that you don't think that SM handled those things well and that you don't particularly like her story or characters......but imo that not really a criteria for whether a book could or could not be used to teach it.
Perhaps, I am projecting a bit, but I keep going back to my school days when I was assigned Ethan Frome and A Separate Peace. Two books that I despised because I thought they were boring reads and couldn't bring myself to finish them. I just fluffed my way through the assignments and whatever lessons the teacher was trying to teach me about those books were completely lost on me. I did not get the message. I wasn't alone either. There were a lot of us in the same boat. This is what I am getting at. As excellent as those books may have been to teach whatever it was that the teacher wanted to teach, the lessons were lost. Imo, is it more important that they learn about characterization or is it more important that they learn it from a pre-determined specific book with no room for deviation?
Btw, I'm not advocating that Twilight should be used in the classroom. I'm just not so rigid and inflexible enough to definitively say that it can't be used at all under any circumstances.
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...
1.Seventeen year old daughter who he never contacted until now because he was always in forks doing either
1.fishing
2.w..."
I thought that SM got Charlie's character wrong. He's supposedly a concerned parent (he disconnects her battery cables when he think she's going to sneak out). Yet when a boy kisses his daughter against her will, and she breaks her hand on his face rebuking him, Charlie says "Good for you, kid" to the boy? WRONG!
If any boy kissed my daughter against her will, family friend or not, no way in hell would I be encouraging him. I think SM got Charlie's character twisted around while she was trying to push Jacob at Bella.
Another point in the bad writer column: writing your own characters out-of-character.