Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Bill wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "LOL. The Volturi giving tours? Really?"Sure... because putting an ad in the paper ("VICTIMS WANTED: Must be clean shaven, have no blood diseases, and be over 18. Drug addict..."
That's not what I meant, nor what I was responding to. I know that the tour was used to lure in victims. When I said that Bella knew this also and specifically tells us so in the book, I was told that Bella has no way of knowing this. For all she knew, the tour could have been real and her knowing anything different is SM cheating at narrations and making Bella omniscient.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Why are you trusting Bella's narration enough in regards to her mother (whom you also claimed that she doesn't care for as much as she does Edward)? "Because there's no one else to believe? She's unreliable and omniscient at times but again, she is the only narrator until the last book. To not believe a single thing would mean there's absolutely no point in reading the books. She is unreliable because she's omniscient at times.
"Why did you trust Bella's narrations enough to determine that she cares for Edward more than her parents? Or that she is a shitty friend? or that Jessica tried to be a good friend? If she is unreliable and not to be trusted as a narrator because she's omniscient and biased, how are you deciding what to believe and what not to believe? "
For the first one this is absolute that she cares for him more than her parents. She can't be unreliable or omniscient when it comes to this because there's no way she could. We are in her head, it is clear how much she cares for Edward that it overshadows her care for her parents, and same with her human friends versus the Cullens and why that makes her a shitty friend. As I said, Some things you ask like these questions don't go under the label of omniscience or her being unreliable in narration because not once did I say that she was omniscient all the time or her narration was completely unreliable. I most likely didn't extrapolate on that and it could come off as that, but I never explicitly stated that she's 100% unreliable and omniscient all the time. The two examples I gave you doesn't mean that I found her to be omniscient all the time, just at certain times because Meyer had no other way of furthering the story without giving Bella information she wouldn't have gotten any other way.
"Even though I understand what you're saying about omniscient, I don't agree with it and I did move on from that topic"
If you say you understand and can see where I'm coming from, why continue to say my view of the story is skewed and that I'm interpreting it wrong based on x,y, and z? That contradicts one another. Either understand or don't and find my view to be skewed, even for one who dislikes the book and is opinionated about it.
Technically she's pretty bad. Subject-wise, well no one wants to sit here and listen to all the reasons she's awful in that way too. There's a Tumblr bog, Reasoning with Vampires, that breaks down the grammatical and technical writing flaws though if anyone's curious.Part of why it rubs me the wrong way is that I read it when I was 18, slightly before it became huge, and loved it. It's wasn't until later that I began to see how abusive the main relationship was and the other things that bug me. I know it's not just fools who get pulled in. It's like the going opinion that Romeo and Juliette is the epitome of romance and not an account of adolescent love gone amok.
Jessy wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Why are you trusting Bella's narration enough in regards to her mother (whom you also claimed that she doesn't care for as much as she does Edward)? "Because there's no one ..."
I don't have to agree with you to understand you. It doesn't have to be that rigid of an either/or thing. The point of discussion is to hear different sides. You don't have to agree with them and it is possible to understand why someone feels the way they do even though you don't agree.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I don't have to agree with you to understand you. It doesn't have to be that rigid of an either/or thing. The point of discussion is to hear different sides. You don't have to agree with them and it is possible to understand why someone feels the way they do even though you don't agree. "I know that and didn't say that. But understanding and seeing where I'm coming from with my opinion is contradicted by you saying how it is very skewed and biased. It makes me confused.
I loved the series and have reread it five times. I think that sometimes people are trying so hard to over analyse everything that they totally miss the point. The movies were good but not as fantastic as the books. Yet, if you hadn't read the books then you would miss out on all the background information that explains certain events. My husband is not a reader so I found we paused the movies on many occasion so I could explain some of the background so he could get the point of certain events, he enjoyed the movies nevertheless. None of us are perfect, I could sit and find fault in every book I have read if I felt inclined to do so. If you didn't enjoy the first book, put it aside and read something else. Don't read the entire series and then complain about it. Move on!
Zoran wrote: "LOL is Pope a catholic?"If you don't realise that the pope is catholic then you are seriously behind the times.
Olivia wrote: "i think somone did have point, up there about SM is not that bad of writer."Yet you took the time to read these books when this was your opinion? Doesn't say much about you. Most "normal" people would move on and find a genre they like. Just for your information, I am an avid reader and not all Stephanie Meyer fans are just supernatural addicts. There isn't a genre that I don't like.
I think you have an issue that you need to work through.
Tracy wrote: "Olivia wrote: "i think somone did have point, up there about SM is not that bad of writer."Yet you took the time to read these books when this was your opinion? Doesn't say much about you. Most..."
You're being awfully condescending and quarrelsome here. First of all "is the pope Catholic" is an expression essentially translating to "obviously". No one was actually asking.
Secondly, some people (myself included) did enjoy the series on first read, others may have read it because it was popular and they were curious or wanted to be able to form an informed opinion about it. Others don't like giving up on a book or a series until they've finished. Most "normal people" actually would probably read whatever they felt like and then voice their criticisms if they had some. That's what forums like these are for - discussion and differing opinions. If you only want to hear people praise Ms Myer and write about how the sun shines out of her sparkly ass, find a fan club somewhere or start your own.
Has anyone noticed that the tone of this discussion has become a bit...mean.Lets be nice everyone and state our opinions and debate with others about their own?
Chanin wrote: "Has anyone noticed that the tone of this discussion has become a bit...mean.Lets be nice everyone and state our opinions and debate with others about their own?"This is tame compared to about the halfway point of the thread.
She's not necessarily a bad writer, but she's not a good writer, either. Okay, I know that doesn't make sense on the surface. But bear with me …She's not a bad writer because she was able to create somewhat relatable characters and situations that appealed to her target audience. She created a story that tapped into a certain psyche and gave it a fantasy element that made it safe because it wasn't too real and dangerous because it was slightly titillating to younger fangirls who stare dreamily at pop culture posters.
But she's not a good writer because, well, her writing isn't all that good. It's serviceable. The biggest problem I have with her writing isn't the writing itself, but her story structure. It was hard for me to accept that Bella was fully aware that her feelings for Edward were probably a complete manipulation on his part simply because he's a vampire. And what made him dangerous? The fact that he might turn Bella into a vampire? Stephanie takes that away immediately. None of the Cullens target people. But other vampires do. But we don't meet those other vampires until near the end of the first book. Bella's in no real danger. Her only dilemma is choosing a boyfriend -- Jacob or Edward. And Stephanie makes it pretty obvious she's going to go with Edward, which only makes Jacob a distraction. Then there are the plot conveniences of Bella getting lost in the city, cornered by the bullies, and Edward saving her at the last minute. Just so many questions about this whole sequence and it comes across as Stephanie just wanted an Edward saves Bella scene and didn't bother to come up with a plausible circumstance to have it happen. And then when Bella is in legitimate danger, Stephanie puts her in hiding for two chapters. No joke. The story is told from Bella's perspective and two chapters are spent with Bella on the phone talking to Edward who is letting her know what's happening. PUT BELLA IN THE ACTION! This is just laziness on Stephanie's part where she tells and doesn't show. And then the shimmering skin. And don't get me started on the whole vampire baseball thing. Just convenience, convenience, convenience. And not even clever. Sigh.
I didn't like Twilight, but I really enjoyed The Host.
Karis wrote: "Each and every writer has a different style and not everyone will like it. I personally liked Twilight better than the other books. Of course, not everyone will like it and no author should expect ..."Don't you think by the second book, after the success of her first, she would have hired a better editor? Seems to me that she and her publishers could care less because they expected the readers to be too stupid to notice. I'm no expert at all, I have serious writing problems and am learning how to write in English, but with the amount of money she makes, you would think making sure her books were the best they could be before hitting the shelves would be a priority.
So using the editor is a poor excuse. I don't think she is a horrible writer, I've read some atrocious books. These are not books I would reread every year. So that makes her just okay.
Content is debatable, I don't think you can tell people what to like because people believe different things. I don't think having your life revolve around a boy, getting pregnant as a teen, and having no interests is interesting. But that's because my teenage years were busy ones. I had boyfriends but I also had volleyball and volunteering while I worked to get into college. So I really do dislike Bella from the start because she isn't relatable. Not to me anyways, maybe other girls think Bella speaks to them because they area all about guys.
Karis wrote: "Of course, not everyone will like it and no author should expect everyone to love it, but I didn't notice much mistakes. Maybe a few, but they are not really the authors faults but the editor's. It is there fault if they didn't notice a misplaced comma"I notice a lot of folks excuse SM for the errors, and place the blame on the editors. But wasn't it SM who put the errors there in the first place? Doesn't she share the majority of the blame?
What about the errors in logic? SM eliminated vampire babies from her universe, but she put one in anyway. It would take more than a better editor to fix that. It would take a writer who gives a damn that her world makes sense, and was willing to do a wholesale re-write.
Karis wrote: "Each and every writer has a different style and not everyone will like it. I personally liked Twilight better than the other books. Of course, not everyone will like it and no author should expect ..."Uhm, well.......
No, not really. A good author will of course value a good editor. An editor is there to iron out the crinks, not write the goddamed book for them! Stephenie Meyer made the mistakes in the first place, she either had a crappy editor (does not excuse her totally in any case) or she ignored them completely. After all, an author doesn't have to do what an editor says. And it should have improved by at least the second book. I mean you either hire someone better or what's the point of editing in the first place?
I admittedly don't know much about the publishing industry, but I do have a question. Where does sales potential factor into the editing process? Actually, does sales potential factor into the editing process at all?I understand the process of editing for technical issues in the writing like grammar/spelling mistakes and continuity mistakes. I actually read a book in a popular series where the main character's own mother called her by the wrong name during a conversation. That was a glaring technical error that an editor should have caught.
But, does an editor also edit for sales potential? In "The Best Man Holiday" (movie), one of the main characters has a conversation with his agent over his newest book and the agent tells him that he can't sell it. He tells him that it's boring and that no one will buy it because that's not what's selling at the moment. I've been following this thread for a while now and sorry to say this, but some of the story structure and plot issues that people have taken issue with, had they been changed to their liking.....it probably would have also made the book seem a little boring to me.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I admittedly don't know much about the publishing industry, but I do have a question. Where does sales potential factor into the editing process? Actually, does sales potential factor into the ed..."I think sales potential is more up to the publisher, than the editor. The editor is just there to iron out kinks not tell the author how to write a story nor put it out there for people to read.
That's more to do with a publisher or maybe a sales/marketing agent. I mean an author doesn't even have to follow the advice of the editor anyway. But the publisher decides what is marketable, because they're the ones who choose which story they want to give to the public, so to speak. Some get it wrong obviously. I think Harry Potter got rejected by like 11 or 12 publishers, for example.
And you can bypass the publishing process altogether and go all "indie."
But that's just speculation on my part, I won't pretend I know much about the publishing world.
The Pope is a what? Oh, that explains quite a lot actually. What's Stephanie Meyer though? ... maybe we could interpret her books through her religious beliefs? Maybe.
Alex wrote: "The Pope is a what? Oh, that explains quite a lot actually. What's Stephanie Meyer though? ... maybe we could interpret her books through her religious beliefs? Maybe."Stephanie Meyer is Mormon I believe.
Alex wrote: "The Pope is a what? Oh, that explains quite a lot actually. What's Stephanie Meyer though? ... maybe we could interpret her books through her religious beliefs? Maybe."I know it's against Mormon beliefs to drink caffeine, but I'm unclear on their policy with regards to blood, so that may not work properly.
Apart from being too wordy, using words inappropriately, and awkward phrasing, Stephanie Meyers isn't bad. Where she succeeds like gang busters is when she creates dynamic tension between the characters.
I think she's and alright writer, she has talent and given enough time (I mean, as bad as the twilight books are it's not for her writing (in my opinion at least) she did improve through the series) to explore more than the confines she set within the book. also to me, she's one of those authors who is good but you know of so many greater authors who deserve the level of fame she got. but that's just me, I haven't read any of her other work. I didn't like Twilight for the story and just little things here and there (and maybe it's cuz I'm a guy who knows) but I will suck it up and say that she has talent in writing
no i just hate twillight with a burning passion
In my personal opinion. She is terrible writer. I thought her writing style was choppy, didn't flow very easily, the characters were very boring as they had no personality and paragraph upon paragraph about Edward's eyes or how gorgeous he was became very annoying after awhile. Edward kinda reminded me of my crazy ex boyfriend. NOT A GOOD THING!.Everybody is entitled to thier opinions and I guess SM must be talented to some people hence why the Twilight series got major popularity. Sorry guys, I don't have a problem with people liking Twilight (acceptation are the Twihards) I just didn't like the book or the style of writing in it.
I agree with Lizzie Millin. Her writings okay (to me) but didn't deserve any of the popularity she got when there is so much better out there. Like me Lol jk gotta add humor :)
I don't think I would be a better writer tbh. I never even publish a book lol.I just like to add at least she doesn't attack people on amazon or goodreads if they give her book a negative review like the author of Crimson Rose did.
Lizzie wrote: "I don't think I would be a better writer tbh. I never even publish a book lol.I just like to add at least she doesn't attack people on amazon or goodreads if they give her book a negative review ..."
didn't she kinda become a shut in though? or am I thinking of someone else?
either way I heard say that her brother/brother-in-law someone of close relations is pretty rude when it comes to such questions from fans and such. but I don't know for sure so don't go taking my word for it lol
Did Stephanie Meyer become a shut in? I don't think so. Last I heard, she was producing the austenland movie.
Perhaps i did get the author mixed up with another
About her books in regards to them she wrote on her website stephaniemeyer.com a lot of her explanations and why she wrote things a certain way.Not that i agree with them or anything
Chanin wrote: "About her books in regards to them she wrote on her website stephaniemeyer.com a lot of her explanations and why she wrote things a certain way.Not that i agree with them or anything"She does put up some explanations, but I found that they still fall short of giving an explanation that resolves her biggest plot hole - the impossibaby. I give her credit for making an effort, but an "F" for logic and reasoning.
I also find one of her comments to be quite laughable. She states that if she had it all to do over again, she'd write it exactly the same way...but the writing would be better because practice makes perfect. HA! She has no clue that her biggest problem is logic, consistency, and research. She would need a major re-write in order to make the baby plausible.
Whether or not someone is a "bad" writer is largely subjective. Meyer certainly commits grievous grammatical errors and writes plots with more holes than swiss cheese, but fangirls will still defend her because they liked the feel of the story. Comic artists like Stan Lee and Akira Toriyama also create plots with many holes, but fanboys will defend them to the death, because the stories are satisfying on an emotional level. As a male, I HATE Stephanie Meyers, but I can understand a tween girl liking her the same way I loved Dragonball Z and X-men growing up. I am trying my best to have some empathy and understand why Twilight fans feel the way they do, rather than simply lashing out at them and saying how much Twilight sucks. After all, literary discussions should be kept civil.
Don't get me started on Twihards. I have no problem with people liking Twilight and enjoy reading the book, each to their own. I just have a major issue with Twihards who are quick to attacking people to the point of personal insults just because somebody writes a negative review or say they don't like Twilight.Stephanie Meyer is a little odd to me lol.
Rel8tivity wrote: "Chanin wrote: "About her books in regards to them she wrote on her website stephaniemeyer.com a lot of her explanations and why she wrote things a certain way.Not that i agree with them or anything..."I have a question when in the books did she ever say they were an aimpossiblity because to be honest i cant seem to remember.I remember them saying that it would be impossible to be together that way and them having rosalie be a witch on account of that fact and others but i dont remember the books mentioning anything about a guys ability to reproduce?Maybe i missed it?
SM is a great writer, IMHO; what made SM "Twilight" such a hit for me is that she gave the vampires a different persona; instead of being night stalkers and sleeping during the day in a creepy coffin, her vampires are awake, all the time...they don't sleep...they can walk around in the daytime, just not in the direct sunlight which is why they live in overcast areas...they don't kill humans for blood, even though there are those amongst them who do...there is a vampire heirarchy, etc, etc, etc...it was *new* and "different" and the love story was exciting and a lot of us could relate to that "wow, I am so into him/her" feeling you get when you first see "the one". I also think the movies mucked the books up a bit...they truncated the novels (which is what movies do) but all in all, SM is not a bad writer. Now 50-shades of stupid, that is bad writing...I gave 50-shades a negative 10; it is a terrible storyline, terrible sex scenes, just terrible in 50-shades terrible; but that is another topic. :)
Laura wrote: "SM is a great writer, IMHO; what made SM "Twilight" such a hit for me is that she gave the vampires a different persona; instead of being night stalkers and sleeping during the day in a creepy coff..."see, this I can understand. though my opinion differs, I understand it. I didn't even have a problem with how she made the vampires different, a lil on the off side sure but it was new and nice. as for the hierarchy, I can't say it was different since Anne Rice kinda did that but I haven't read her in forever so I'm not too sure.
what killed it for me (and it may be, that I'm just a guy so it harder to like, who knows) was I couldn't really connect with the characters. i was in Bella's situation and so the way she reacted when he left, to me at least, was really annoying. again that's all me.
i do agree that the movies screwed the books over completely. the books were good in their own rights, didn't deserve the praise or critical acclaim it got, but it was good/okay book. a nice read for a boing day type of book. the movies made it harder to like the books.
As for 50 Shades of Grey, never read it don't really want to read it, might one day read it lol
Chanin wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "Chanin wrote: "About her books in regards to them she wrote on her website stephaniemeyer.com a lot of her explanations and why she wrote things a certain way.Not that i agree wi..."It is stated that vampires can't get pregnant. They are in a stasis, which means that nothing about them can change. If they cut their hair it can't grow back, that requires change, just for example. Meyer seems to be of the notion that males go through no change or that sperm can survive in cold temperatures, so she basically shot her own self in the foot.
Laura wrote: "SM is a great writer, IMHO; what made SM "Twilight" such a hit for me is that she gave the vampires a different persona; instead of being night stalkers and sleeping during the day in a creepy coff..."At least we can all agree 50 Shades of Shit sucked! It is not literature in any fashion. It is literally 4th rate erotic fan fiction that should have stayed buried in a dark corner of the internet!
Ian wrote: "Laura wrote: "SM is a great writer, IMHO; what made SM "Twilight" such a hit for me is that she gave the vampires a different persona; instead of being night stalkers and sleeping during the day in..."
You mean it's worse than Twilight?
You mean it's worse than Twilight?
Jessy wrote: "Chanin wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "Chanin wrote: "About her books in regards to them she wrote on her website stephaniemeyer.com a lot of her explanations and why she wrote things a certain way.Not ..."oh ok I was wondering about that i mean i get the in stasis thing beleive me i was just wondering about the prego thing must have slipped me mind
Brooke wrote: "Ian wrote: "Laura wrote: "SM is a great writer, IMHO; what made SM "Twilight" such a hit for me is that she gave the vampires a different persona; instead of being night stalkers and sleeping durin..."Well considering it originated as a twilight fanfiction where the author decided she was doing so well she would just take out the twilight names and put new ones and wala 50 shades
About fan fiction..why do twilight fanfiction writers make all the characters human?
Sorry I'm a reader and i just think if they are going to make everyone human why even call it a twilight fanfic why not just change the names and make it a original fic
Chanin wrote: "I have a question when in the books did she ever say they were an aimpossiblity because to be honest i cant seem to remember.I remember them saying that it would be impossible to be together that way and them having rosalie be a witch on account of that fact and others but i dont remember the books mentioning anything about a guys ability to reproduce?Maybe i missed it? "In the books she doesn't come right out and say that vampire babies are impossible, so you won't find it. It's the combination of SM's characterizations, and her other writings on vampire physiology that eliminate vampire babies, with or without humans.
So I don't clutter this discussion with repeat info, I say way too much on the subject here, here, and here.
Basically, if SM wanted babies, she shouldn't have portrayed her vampires as living rock, who can't change or grow. She did that so she could have sparkly vamps, but you reap what you sow.
Chanin wrote: "About fan fiction..why do twilight fanfiction writers make all the characters human?
Sorry I'm a reader and i just think if they are going to make everyone human why even call it a twilight fanfic..."
Well my friend, welcome to the wide world of Fanfic! You should get well acquainted as it's vast and amazing! There are AUs, canon diversions, 'fix it' fic, mpreg, you name it! And to answer your question, it's apart of the AUs, a alternate universe where they're all humans. Just because they're no longer vampires doesn't mean that it's not Twilight anymore. It stopped being canonically correct once a person decided to write fanfic, that's kinda the point.
You want me to expand? Ok. I'm a voracious reader. I just finished my 9th book since 1/1/14.
And I'm not a book snob. I'll read anything that can hold my interest.
And I love a good vampire story.
And I like series.
And I started reading Twilight as a way to make friends with new co-workers.
The conditions were perfect for me to like this.
But I couldn't get past the 4th or 5th chapter of Twilight.
It was excruciating.
It was terrible.
And it is the first book in 13 years I didn't finish. I can count on one hand the number of books I haven't finished. This was the last one. Since trying to read Twilight 5 years ago, I've read hundreds of books, not all of them amazing, perfect, 5-star experiences. Still, I finished them all.
So, in my well-read, egalitarian, open-minded opinion, she is a bad writer.
To compare & contrast: I don't like Patricia Cornwell's books; I don't think she's a "good" writer. However, if I open up one of her books, I WILL finish it. Because while she's formulaic and has little imagination and no talent for working with prose, she's still good enough to get me invested enough to finish. I was COMMITTED to reading Meyer's Twilight, and could not bring myself to do it.
You can find tons of reviews that will technically explain why she is a bad writer if you want that. (I saw them before I tried reading her, & didn't let them deter me - I was sure that I would like Twilight just fine - what's not to love about a vampire story?) Either way, the answer stands: Yes, Stephenie Meyer is a bad writer.
I enjoyed the Twilight books up to when she wrote Breaking Dawn. However, at that point, I thought she was a terrible writer. Then I read The Host, and I thought it was amazing. I couldn't believe it was the same writer. However, she wrote a dystopian book and refuses to write a second one in fear to kill her favourite characters. I'm not overly a fan of her anymore. Twilight was bad. But every writer can improve and do well.
Melodic_May wrote: "Well my friend, welcome to the wide world of Fanfic! You should get well acquainted as it's vast and amazing! There are AUs, canon diversions, 'fix it' fic, mpreg, you name it!"I hated Breaking Dawn so much, I wrote a 'fix it' fic. It's called Cygnus Rising and you can read it on FFn. *shameless plug*
:)
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...
Not quite yet. Even though I understand what you're saying about omniscient, I don't agree with it and I did move on from that topic. You said that Bella's mother would have been better at helping her heal. You were very definitive on the matter. Why are you trusting Bella's narration enough in regards to her mother (whom you also claimed that she doesn't care for as much as she does Edward)?
Why did you trust Bella's narrations enough to determine that she cares for Edward more than her parents? Or that she is a shitty friend? or that Jessica tried to be a good friend? If she is unreliable and not to be trusted as a narrator because she's omniscient and biased, how are you deciding what to believe and what not to believe?