Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 2,251-2,281 of 2,281

[Michael]

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 ..."
I know for a fact I wouldn't either haha I mean she caught the eyes of an actual publisher so she has the talent,
I'm so far just a wanna be lol but it's always fun to add a lil innocent humor teeheee :D

[Jessica]

Rel8tivity wrote: "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'll be sure to read it when I finish the Twilight rewrites of Tprinces C:.

[Chantel]

Her writing isn't bad..just needs a little improvement. She needs more..depth in her ideas. Her books need more "growth."

I personally think "The Host" was really good...Twilight wasn't really my thing, though.

[Chanin]

Rel8tivity wrote: "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!"..."
oh i read that its in my absolute favs i didnt relize you were that person im a huge fan

[Breanda]

Yes. Terrible.

[Rel8tivity]

Chanin wrote: "oh i read that its in my absolute favs i didnt relize you were that person im a huge fan "

LOL! Well, pleased to meetcha! So glad you enjoyed it! Hope I haven't put you off with my outspoken commentary here. But I guess you can see where my motivation to re-write Breaking Dawn came from! :)

[Rel8tivity]

I don't know if this falls under the 'bad writer' category, but I do think it's sloppy.

In February 2007 - before Eclipse was published - SM had a Q&A at the BYU Midwinter Symposium on Books for Young Readers. One of the Q&A caught my eye:

Q: How did werewolves end up in the Twilight series? Was that planned from the beginning?
A: Stephenie said that she didn’t know Jacob was a werewolf in the first book. Even when Bella had that dream with Jacob morphing into a werewolf, he still wasn’t a werewolf—that was just Bella’s mind twisting all the things she had learned that day. But then she was thinking later, “What if ALL the Quileute legends were true?” And BAM! Jacob was a werewolf. She also said that to her, vampires are like science and werewolves are like magic.

At that point in the writing of the Saga, the Quileutes were werewolves. Not shape-shifters who happen to turn into wolves. Just flat out werewolves because of Quileute magic. And as far as the story went, that was fine. She was busy re-imagining vampires as beings of living stone, so why not magical werewolves who belong to a particular bloodline?

But then as Eclipse unfolds, subtle changes are introduced. Taha Aki is a spirit walker, not a werewolf. In the middle of his fight with Victoria, Edward asks, "Is he so much like the monster James tracked across Siberia?" Very slight hints, but the intent is plain - to change the Quileutes from werewolves to shape-shifters.

Why? So the Volturi don't have a reason to attack the Quileutes. Suddenly, in order to negate conflict, there are "real" werewolves out there, but Jacob and his friends aren't them. Never mind all the previous references to werewolves. Personally, I think this was still a cop-out by SM. If Caius hated werewolves as much as he was purported to, and he's sadistic and corrupt, he'd say, "Looks like a werewolf, smells like a werewolf. Kill 'em all!" He wouldn't need a "legitimate" excuse to kill them, especially since werewolves and vampires are supposed to be natural enemies.

Anyway, my point about this screed is this: SM's canon shifts. No wonder things come up that are implausible according to previous characterization; the universe changes at whim as SM needs to move the story line forward. I don't know how other readers feel about that, but I don't like it. If you can't count on the rules of the fictional universe to stand still, how can the story ever make sense within itself?

[Srikari]

no one can be a bad writer in my opinion . but in the same way no writer is perfect either...... Stephanie is a good writer though i didnt like her books one bit..... its not her writing but its her character creation ... this book would have had a very nice response if her characters were much more upbeat..... For example look at the Hunger Games or the Vampire Academy for instance they are very attractive to the readers due to their Characters....... Stephanie had a beautiful story but she just couldnt execute it in a better way and saying this does not make her a bad writer!!!!

[Rel8tivity]

Alicia wrote: "lets face it if she was a bad writer this series wouldn't have been made into a major movie or sold tons of copies so everyones arguments are invalid. danka bye."

This is the fallacy that popularity equals quality. Lots of people watch the Kardashians and they make lots of money for producing nothing of value at all. Are you telling me that they have a quality show? No. It's marketable to some people, but not quality.

We're talking about quantifiable things here. SM leaves many errors and lapses in logic in her work. I can point out to you things that, if she had worked with an editor, she could have fixed. She writes a major plot twist that breaks her own story. Look at my previous post. She changes the rules of her universe on the fly. That's not the mark of a skilled writer to me.

[Alicia]

Srikari wrote: "no one can be a bad writer in my opinion . but in the same way no writer is perfect either...... Stephanie is a good writer though i didnt like her books one bit..... its not her writing but its he..." i see your point but in my opinion the book isn't meant to be absolutely perfect to be honest because the main character Bella is just an average girl and the book is from her perspective so its her account really so if you wrote an account would you use masses of words that to a teenager would mean nothing. You see to adults this book is nothing because the audience is aimed at younger people because adults would prefer books that are more well advanced

[Somerandom]

Alicia wrote: "Srikari wrote: "no one can be a bad writer in my opinion . but in the same way no writer is perfect either...... Stephanie is a good writer though i didnt like her books one bit..... its not her wr..."

As a teenager I would have preferred a book that was more advanced than Twilight. I read the first book when I was about 16 and I remember thinking to myself that it read like a 10th grader did an assignment and it got published.
No offense to fans.

I suppose it isn't a bad popcorn read, much like the Hunger Games which used very simplistic English. But at least the pacing in that was damn good (at least in the first book.)

Adults often like to read Children's books. Books that can gain praise from both experienced readers and the intended audience would show a great skill in the author. I haven't heard much praise for Stephenie Meyer's writing ability (although, many people do like her story. So Yay for SMeyer.) Conversely I've heard nothing but praise for Roald Dahl's writing. And he wrote for 6 year olds. In fact, there are a lot of books out there intended for very young children that garner praise from adults for being intelligent and well written.
So don't sell your age bracket (young teenage) short, books in your age range can and do often garner praise from adults.
I'm not saying every book has to, of course. Enjoy what you enjoy. Just saying that it's possible for a book which is not "very advanced" to be intelligent and well written.

Although, there are a lot of adults who do enjoy Twilight. (Some of those Twilight Mums kind of creep me out though.=( )

[Bill]

IT'S THE THREAD THAT NEVER DIES. FUTURE COMMENTERS: FLEE, LEST YOUR SANITY BE CRUSHED, AS IT WOULD BE CRUSHED BENEATH THE GAZE OF CTHULHU HIMSELF.

[[deleted user]]

Who's Cthulhu?

[Bill]

Brooke wrote: "Who's Cthulhu?"

Cthulhu is a Great Old One, the race created humanity to be their food, and who's dead corpse sleeps in the ancient city of Rl'yeh, waiting to awaken in stranger aeons when Death itself no longer holds sway over the living an old drinking buddy from college.

[Michael]

Brooke wrote: "Who's Cthulhu?"

Cthulhu is one of the most popular creations created by one of the most popular horror writers of all time H.P Lovecraft. if there is a cliché done in horror writing it's probably because of him, at least from the ones I've read. he's one of the reasons for horror evolving into what it is now. and Cthulhu? that's just one of his masterpieces, one of many

[Rel8tivity]

Bill wrote: "IT'S THE THREAD THAT NEVER DIES. FUTURE COMMENTERS: FLEE, LEST YOUR SANITY BE CRUSHED, AS IT WOULD BE CRUSHED BENEATH THE GAZE OF CTHULHU HIMSELF."

Sorry for bumping the discussion up. :) Didn't know where else to put my post.

[Bill]

Rel8tivity wrote: "Bill wrote: "IT'S THE THREAD THAT NEVER DIES. FUTURE COMMENTERS: FLEE, LEST YOUR SANITY BE CRUSHED, AS IT WOULD BE CRUSHED BENEATH THE GAZE OF CTHULHU HIMSELF."

Sorry for bumping the discussion up..."

Eh... I do believe that I stopped taking this thread seriously a very long time ago. I'm just replying on autopilot at this point.

[Kage]

Brooke wrote: "Who's Cthulhu?"

our god

[Bill]

Kage wrote: "Brooke wrote: "Who's Cthulhu?"

our god"

According to my coursework in Miskatonic University, it's more appropriate to pay homage to Azathoth, or Nyarlathotep, or even Shub-Niggurath, than Cthulhu. Unless you're a degenerate Eskimo.

[Merry]

Lindsay wrote: "I don't think she's a bad writer exactly...

But she's writing what is essentially disposable fiction. It isn't high literature and shouldn't be treated as much, nor should her writing be phrased f..."

I see where you're coming from and I agree with some parts of it. I don't think she's a bad writer. And you are right, it is not high literature, and I really doubt someone would treat it that way. But I have to admit that I am kind of amazed by twilight. Because SM took this thing that has been around forever and basically turned into something new. And that's amazing. I don't know if I'm the only one, but I never saw any other book that describes vampires in a different light than in, say, Anne Rice's work. And the fact that it caused such a reaction, good or bad, should speak volumes about it.
I just think she should've put more thought into her character development, because that was the real problem for me.

[Jessica]

Deborah wrote: " I don't know if I'm the only one, but I never saw any other book that describes vampires in a different light than in, say, Anne Rice's work. "

Meyer hasn't done anything new, really. Rice's vampires are traditional vampires, but Meyer isn't the only one who has made her vampires more human. There are shows/books like True Blood and The Vampire Diaries. I don't think Meyer has done anything new besides made her vampires sparkles. And it isn't a good change to a good many.

[Merry]

Melodic_May wrote: "Deborah wrote: " I don't know if I'm the only one, but I never saw any other book that describes vampires in a different light than in, say, Anne Rice's work. "

Meyer hasn't done anything new, rea..."

No, I wasn't talking about the humanity on her vampires. I was talking about the abilities as well and all the stuff we expect from vampires, like burning in the sun and all that.
Yes, they sparkle. But that's not the only different thing they do. One thing that I liked about them is the fact that they have other gifts and abilities and it is said to come from their personalities as humans. So when they become vampires, they don't loose themselves completely. Their humanity and the people they were are there still.
Well, if we are going to talk about vampire with feelings, only, then Dracula was just as human. So was Louis. That's a recurring theme. No, I was talking about the fact she took these creatures that already had their characteristics set and wasn't afraid to change them. Some people didn't like it, but that doesn't make it less valid, I guess.
What do you think?

[Bill]

Melodic_May wrote: "Rice's vampires are traditional vampires..."

Where the hell did you get that idea from? Traditional leeches can walk in sunlight, while Rice's burn... and that's just the smallest of their differences.

[Kay]

I think she writes very true to life. Stephenie Meyers mixes the modern day world with the dark and mysterious plot that goes on in the Twilight saga

[Jamila]

She's not a //bad// writer, she's just not that great, twilight was a very overrated book, It was like reading a fan fiction that is made by a 12 year old, the story is not that bad and she's not that bad of a writer, it's the fact that the book is really not made to be read, it was better to watch it in the movies than actually read it, And I wish she could've done a better job of revising her story, it would've been so much better if she did revise it.

[Jessica]

Bill wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Rice's vampires are traditional vampires..."

Where the hell did you get that idea from? Traditional leeches can walk in sunlight, while Rice's burn... and that's just the small..."

Traditional as in when people believed the dead to be vampires, when Christianity was tied in with vampires, Hollywood's version which is based off that. That type of traditional.

[Jessica]

Deborah wrote: "No, I wasn't talking about the humanity on her vampires. I was talking about the abilities as well and all the stuff we expect from vampires, like burning in the sun and all that."

Yeeeeeah, no. Sorry, that's not anything new she's brought to the table either. Plenty of authors using vampires has given them these types of powers and made them be able to walk in the sunlight. If I remember correctly, these types of powers, persuasion, mind reading, super strength/speed, are all things that came along with vampires, that it's their power set.

"One thing that I liked about them is the fact that they have other gifts and abilities and it is said to come from their personalities as humans. So when they become vampires, they don't loose themselves completely. Their humanity and the people they were are there still.
Well, if we are going to talk about vampire with feelings, only, then Dracula was just as human. So was Louis. That's a recurring theme. No, I was talking about the fact she took these creatures that already had their characteristics set and wasn't afraid to change them. Some people didn't like it, but that doesn't make it less valid, I guess."

She hasn't done anything different than make them sparkle in sunlight. I don't see how she did anything else different. Then again I guess it's because I've read/watched more things with vampires?? Maybe.

[Merry]

Melodic_May wrote: "Deborah wrote: "No, I wasn't talking about the humanity on her vampires. I was talking about the abilities as well and all the stuff we expect from vampires, like burning in the sun and all that."
..."

Is that so? Were there many others similar to hers? I never heard of them, so I guess you must be right. But hey, thank you for your time. I'll look more into it.

[Bill]

Melodic_May wrote: "Bill wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Rice's vampires are traditional vampires..."

Where the hell did you get that idea from? Traditional leeches can walk in sunlight, while Rice's burn... and that's j..."

Ah, I see. It's just that "traditional" and "Anne Rice" are two concepts that just don't link in my mind. Dracula is what jumps to mind, with everything that comes after as variations on that theme.

[Jessica]

Bill wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Bill wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Rice's vampires are traditional vampires..."

Where the hell did you get that idea from? Traditional leeches can walk in sunlight, while Rice's ..."
The reason I associate traditional with Ann Rice is because that's what I knew first, Dracula came much later, as did the mythological 'facts' on vampires.

[Bill]

Melodic_May wrote: "The reason I associate traditional with Ann Rice is because that's what I knew first, Dracula came much later, as did the mythological 'facts' on vampires. "

Ah...

There's an ongoing debate in this mega-thread about Meyers' "right" to (ab)use the vampire lore as she sees fit. You should check out the parts where "Nosferatu" are brought up... it will change your perspective of "traditional" and how Hollywood misinterpreted said traditions.