Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Wasn't Kubla Khan inspired by an opium dream. I hope Mickey isn't suggesting that's a good thing, what with 13yr olds posting in this forum n'all. Are they allowed to know about drugs? Saying they inspire good literature could almost count as a recommendation!
Emma wrote: "SM somehow managed to tap in to a collective fantasy that we didn't know we had and would have denied if asked. Once in a while, a little piece of magic is born that captivates and enthralls for no apparent reason, and against reason we lap it up, love it, and desperately scrabble around in the dirt when it is gone, searching for a replacement. "I think that this is one of the nicest defenses of Twilight that I've read.
Emma wrote: But how many of them provoke such feeling and discussion in their readers?
Haha, true! Twilight is one of the most controversial series ever written, I think. I mean, if you compare it to a novel like the Lord of the Rings...mostly it's fans gushing about how awesome it is (me included), or people dropping by and saying "eh, it was okay." Probably it's mostly of how honestly and openly Meyer portrays her story and characters, it leaves a much more open space for attack as well as defense. She didn't have a real purpose in writing her novel except as entertainment and wish fulfillment.
Haha, true! Twilight is one of the most controversial series ever written, I think. I mean, if you compare it to a novel like the Lord of the Rings...mostly it's fans gushing about how awesome it is (me included), or people dropping by and saying "eh, it was okay." Probably it's mostly of how honestly and openly Meyer portrays her story and characters, it leaves a much more open space for attack as well as defense. She didn't have a real purpose in writing her novel except as entertainment and wish fulfillment.
I think liking a writers sytle is different for everyone. Just because someone isn't an amazing writer, doesn't mean people don't love their style. They could be a great writer and maybe no one likes them. It all comes down to personal preference and the novel's plot. This obviously is only tru for fiction books.
Mickey wrote: "Diane wrote: "I've seen plenty of anti-fans come and go, a lot of them try to make the fans feel bad or stupid for liking twilight. And hardly anyone bats an eyelash anymore, may it be rudeness or..."Yes! I remember that. I kept excusing his rudeness thinking "oh he's just trying to understand better" or things like that. But he didn't want to understand the fans better. He didn't even want to listen, so I'm not sure why majority (even me) tried to cater to him. Come to think of it, this happens a lot.
The fans have been way too nice in the past. It's weird to see you be 1/4 as harsh as some antis and get called out on it; but antis get a free pass at saying mean stuff, it's ridic.
I do think fans need to carve out space for themselves and to shake themselves from this stupor they're in as far as accepting the status quo.
Yes, I agree.
Peace wrote: "just a thought. what the LOTR have to do with SM type of thing?"
No, it was just a book I picked at random. See, Emma had said that Twilight provoked a lot of discussion and emotion, and I was like, "yeah, just look at the Lord of the Rings, no one argues over that as much as Twilight."
No, it was just a book I picked at random. See, Emma had said that Twilight provoked a lot of discussion and emotion, and I was like, "yeah, just look at the Lord of the Rings, no one argues over that as much as Twilight."
I appreciate what Stephanie writes, but I do think she could spend a little more time on it!!! Keep up the good work Stephanie!!!
Diane wrote: "He didn't even want to listen, so I'm not sure why majority (even me) tried to cater to him. Come to think of it, this happens a lot."I think that's why Twilight threads attract so many trolls. We have so many bored people who don't have anything better to do with themselves because fans will drop anything to get in long discussions with them.
Diane wrote: "The fans have been way too nice in the past. It's weird to see you be 1/4 as harsh as some antis and get called out on it; but antis get a free pass at saying mean stuff, it's ridic."
I like belonging to the nice side, but there's a reasonable limit to that. I don't think fans need to worry about "getting called out". I mean, look at the people who are doing the calling. If anyone thinks those people have a shred of credibility, they're the kind of people you don't want on your side.
Totally get your points, Rachel and Jocelyn. The success of a book is not solely down the technical skills of the writer. Sometimes we, the reader, feed off of and get caught up in the emotions and feelings of the writer, and that is just as much a skill as technique.
Just as a general question: Is the tone of disdain just a pretentious and disguised form of being rude? I'd like to see what your opinions are on this...
(And I promise this is not directed at anyone, and any offense this question carries is completely accidental and unintended.)
(And I promise this is not directed at anyone, and any offense this question carries is completely accidental and unintended.)
Emma wrote: "Totally get your points, Rachel and Jocelyn. The success of a book is not solely down the technical skills of the writer. Sometimes we, the reader, feed off of and get caught up in the emotions and..."
Yeah, TBH I did feel some of the emotion in Twilight, particularly in Eclipse and Breaking Dawn. I think Meyer's writing is very passionate, in some ways, if occasionally melodramatic.
Yeah, TBH I did feel some of the emotion in Twilight, particularly in Eclipse and Breaking Dawn. I think Meyer's writing is very passionate, in some ways, if occasionally melodramatic.
She is not bad....she's too obvious! I mean, she writes OBVIOUS stories...
Jocelyn wrote: "I'm afraid you misread my post. I never said that there were any ongoing threads with problems of antis being insulted. I said the opposite:It's true that it has died down, while the insults to fans haven't died down much, like you said.""
The part where you claimed "A while ago it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names..." was in the sentence before. This is what I was responding to. I should think that would be obvious.
I asked for ten threads where there was a real problem with Anti-Twilighters being insulted and called names. I didn't get one. Typical.
You must really have a low opinion of people to think that lopping off the sentence where you claimed that there had been a problem and simply putting the next sentence will convince anyone that you never said it. Break that down.
Jocelyn wrote: "Did you by any chance skim my post, Mickey, instead of actually reading it? If you're actually 37 like you claim, I think you should be mature enough to actually listen to what people have to say, instead of raging on them and twisting their statements to something unrecognizable."
I do skim your posts, because I don't find them interesting, which you think I would out of anybody, since they generally address me. I can't imagine how tedious others must find them if I can't find much interest in them.
As for raging, I think it's a legitimate request when someone says that Anti-Twilighters have been insulted and called names to the level of what has happened to fans, that they provide proof. If they can't, then it's an indication that they're making false claims.
Jocelyn wrote: "Obviously, you're trying to make me feel ashamed of that post by implying that Uncommon Sellsword would not think too well of it."
Actually, that wasn't my intent at all. I think she probably wouldn't mind the post. I was making the claim that her calling you mature when you write such posts (and that certainly wasn't the first of its kind on here) casts doubt on her ability to objectively distinguish maturity.
Ana wrote: "She is not bad....she's too obvious! I mean, she writes OBVIOUS stories..."From my point of view, that is bad.
Peace wrote: "serisly. without her book, the movie wouldn't have been made type of thing."I don't understand your point. Are you saying that it would be better if she never wrote thos books, because there wouldn't be this horrible movie? Or you like the movie?
Peace wrote: "why does some pple don't like SM type of style of writing in her books? just a Q."Because we are all evil, radical, anarcho-feminists.
Peace wrote: "why does some pple don't like SM type of style of writing in her books? just a Q."Because we think she's not very good at it. But please, don't go asking why we think so, what's wrong with her writing ans so forth, because Mickey's already worn me out with that.
Mickey wrote: "The part where you claimed "A while ago it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names..." was in the sentence before. This is what I was responding to. I should think that would be obvious.
That's exactly my point. I said "a while ago." that is to say, that antis being insulted has become a thing of the past. I hope that clarified some stuff.
You keep acting like every time there's miscommunication, it's instantly my fault.
I asked for ten threads where there was a real problem with Anti-Twilighters being insulted and called names. I didn't get one. Typical."
Look Mickey...may I please request something? Can you stop putting a label on me as a typical anti? You do not know me personally, and it's irritating to be stereotyped like that. Because its pretty much the same as calling you a typical Twihard.
And like I said....I never said it was a real problem. I said it was a thing of the past. That is why I didn't give you ten threads, because I agree with your point. I should think that would be obvious, as well.
As for raging, I think it's a legitimate request when someone says that Anti-Twilighters have been insulted and called names to the level of what has happened to fans, that they provide proof. If they can't, then it's an indication that they're making false claims.
Obviously you missed my point. I'm talking about civility. I thought my statement to be civil enough not to warrant such a disdainful response. It's the tone of your posts, not the content I'm addressing here.
I said that antis were insulted in the past. Hopefully, I've made that clear enough. Remember? I said the tide is constantly changing. Before it was the antis getting the short end of the stick. Now it's the fans. As you can see, I agree with you so why are you using it to argue against me and saying I made a false claim?
Actually, that wasn't my intent at all. I think she probably wouldn't mind the post. I was making the claim that her calling you mature when you write such posts (and that certainly wasn't the first of its kind on here) casts doubt on her ability to objectively distinguish maturity.
As I've made clear fifty thousand times already, I don't give a fuck to what anyone thinks of me, so that entire thing is pointless.
And his ability to distinguish maturity is none of anyone's business. Uncommon Sellsword did nothing wrong against you so why are you leveling a personal attack on him? Or me? What kind or relevance does Uncommon Sellsword's (who's not even on the discussion board anymore, dammit) ability to distinguish maturity have? Why should anyone care? What about his ability to distinguish maturity is there to care about? What's the point of that kind of insult? (And yes, saying that someone lacks the ability to distinguish maturity is an insult. You're doing the exact same thing you accuse anti-Twilighters of doing.)
I do skim your posts, because I don't find them interesting, which you think I would out of anybody, since they generally address me. I can't imagine how tedious others must find them if I can't find much interest in them.
Obviously if you skim them, you're not going to understand my points with accuracy. No wonder you keep twisting what I say to such ridiculous effects.
And obviously if you're bored by them, then why are you taking the time to respond to me? Are you so confident in your intelligence and sure of my utter stupidity that you can accurately rebut my points without even fully reading them?
Plus, this almost entirely devalues all of your arguments, because you're explicitly admitting that you don't take my points into consideration. You don't even know what some of them are because you don't bother to read them. How can you rebut something when there is nothing to rebut?
And this is coming from a reader. If you can read books, then you should probably be able to read a very short (in comparison) post. If you find me so dull, then don't bother to respond, because it's clear that you don't have a single bit of respect for me or anyone else who disagrees with you and you're not even bothering to hide it.
That's exactly my point. I said "a while ago." that is to say, that antis being insulted has become a thing of the past. I hope that clarified some stuff.
You keep acting like every time there's miscommunication, it's instantly my fault.
I asked for ten threads where there was a real problem with Anti-Twilighters being insulted and called names. I didn't get one. Typical."
Look Mickey...may I please request something? Can you stop putting a label on me as a typical anti? You do not know me personally, and it's irritating to be stereotyped like that. Because its pretty much the same as calling you a typical Twihard.
And like I said....I never said it was a real problem. I said it was a thing of the past. That is why I didn't give you ten threads, because I agree with your point. I should think that would be obvious, as well.
As for raging, I think it's a legitimate request when someone says that Anti-Twilighters have been insulted and called names to the level of what has happened to fans, that they provide proof. If they can't, then it's an indication that they're making false claims.
Obviously you missed my point. I'm talking about civility. I thought my statement to be civil enough not to warrant such a disdainful response. It's the tone of your posts, not the content I'm addressing here.
I said that antis were insulted in the past. Hopefully, I've made that clear enough. Remember? I said the tide is constantly changing. Before it was the antis getting the short end of the stick. Now it's the fans. As you can see, I agree with you so why are you using it to argue against me and saying I made a false claim?
Actually, that wasn't my intent at all. I think she probably wouldn't mind the post. I was making the claim that her calling you mature when you write such posts (and that certainly wasn't the first of its kind on here) casts doubt on her ability to objectively distinguish maturity.
As I've made clear fifty thousand times already, I don't give a fuck to what anyone thinks of me, so that entire thing is pointless.
And his ability to distinguish maturity is none of anyone's business. Uncommon Sellsword did nothing wrong against you so why are you leveling a personal attack on him? Or me? What kind or relevance does Uncommon Sellsword's (who's not even on the discussion board anymore, dammit) ability to distinguish maturity have? Why should anyone care? What about his ability to distinguish maturity is there to care about? What's the point of that kind of insult? (And yes, saying that someone lacks the ability to distinguish maturity is an insult. You're doing the exact same thing you accuse anti-Twilighters of doing.)
I do skim your posts, because I don't find them interesting, which you think I would out of anybody, since they generally address me. I can't imagine how tedious others must find them if I can't find much interest in them.
Obviously if you skim them, you're not going to understand my points with accuracy. No wonder you keep twisting what I say to such ridiculous effects.
And obviously if you're bored by them, then why are you taking the time to respond to me? Are you so confident in your intelligence and sure of my utter stupidity that you can accurately rebut my points without even fully reading them?
Plus, this almost entirely devalues all of your arguments, because you're explicitly admitting that you don't take my points into consideration. You don't even know what some of them are because you don't bother to read them. How can you rebut something when there is nothing to rebut?
And this is coming from a reader. If you can read books, then you should probably be able to read a very short (in comparison) post. If you find me so dull, then don't bother to respond, because it's clear that you don't have a single bit of respect for me or anyone else who disagrees with you and you're not even bothering to hide it.
Zoran wrote: "This is what a bad writer does, and this is why SM is a bad writer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue"
Bella is nothing close to a Mary Sue! Name her positive traits, name her flaws. id probably say her flaws outwieghed her virtues.
Zoran wrote: "That SM is a horrible writer, is a fact. But what is interesting to me are the people who like those books anyway.It reminds me of being 16, when I was completely into metal music. I only wanted ..."
I wouldnt call it a fact. Writing is subjective therefore it is an opinion. The witing draws the reader in and i like the comment about risk taking. She does a fine job. Twilight gets a lot more flack than it deserves.
Zoran wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Oh, seriously Mickey."Maybe Mickey is SM undercover?"
Is that a hidden insult against alternative lifestyles?
Aaand shouldn't that go in a fifty shades thread then?
Jocelyn wrote: "Mickey wrote: "The part where you claimed "A while ago it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names..." was in the sentence before. This is what I was responding to. I should thin..."
This Mickey chick is always starting fights. I'm on your side Jocelyn, fight the tyranny.
This Mickey chick is always starting fights. I'm on your side Jocelyn, fight the tyranny.
Gerd wrote: "Zoran wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Oh, seriously Mickey."Maybe Mickey is SM undercover?"
Is that a hidden insult against alternative lifestyles?
Aaand shouldn't that go in a fifty shades thread then?"
I was under the impression that SM stood for Stephenie Meyer.
I think Stephanie Meyer has some very good aspects to her writing, and good ideas threaded into twilight (I like when she explains how you turn into a vampire), but the twilight series was a very romantic series, which I personally despise (nothing against the genre, I like action stuff). Its very much a matter of preferences and opinions.
IN MY OPINION THE PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE HER BOOKS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE ANTI FEMINIST, IS ALL ON THEM. OBVIOUSLY YALL HAVE A BIG ISSUE WITH IT FOR YALLS OWN REASONS. I DONT SEE YOUR POINT AT ALL APPARENTLY OTHER PEOPLE DONT EITHER. REALLY,!! REALLY YOUR GOING TO MARK A FICTION, ROMANCE, PARANORMAL BOOK ANTI FEMINIST BECAUSE OF HOW YOUR MIND IS TWISTED AND SICK. PLEASE JUST LET THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE. LIKE THE BOOK AND IF YOU DONT MOVE ON. STATE YOUR OPINIONS YES BUT DONT ATTACK THE AUTHOR WITH YOUR OVERREACTIONS OF YOUR BELIEFS. (caps locks happened to be stuck)
Gerd wrote: "Is that a hidden insult against alternative lifestyles?Aaand shouldn't that go in a fifty shades thread then?"
LOL Gerd I like the way your mind makes conclusions, but in this context SM stands for Stephenie Meyer :-))
Let's get something straight here: popular != good.Stephen King's novels are still popular, but even his most ardent fans say they haven't been good since The Tommyknockers or so. Pop music is popular, but most musicians I know consider it barely "music," and certainly it's far from good.
I bring that up because Stephanie Meyers is not "good." Not even close. How the bloody fuck she managed to get published is a mystery someone should investigate (and press criminal charges for fraud, preferably).
She has single-handedly set vampire literature back several centuries, created a cultural phenomenon with many of the same effects as an epidemic of chlamydia (with none of the beneficial side effects), and made a mockery of some of the baddest, most hard-core horror villains in existence. I'm convinced that her next project will be a way to make Hitler cuddly.
Someone needs to invent a time machine so we can go back to before she started to puke out that abortion of a novel, smash her fingers to the point where the bones are pulverized, and ensure that she never has the chance to inflict Bella and Edward on us, ever. I'd ask for her assassination, but apparently its "bad karma."
If you want good vampire fiction with believable vampires, look for Dracula or The Hunger. You'll thank me later.
Bill wrote: "I'm convinced that her next project will be a way to make Hitler cuddly."Oh, I can already see teen girls walking around with pink, sparkling swastikas :-))))
Gerd wrote: "Zoran wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Oh, seriously Mickey."
Maybe Mickey is SM undercover?"
Is that a hidden insult against alternative lifestyles?
Aaand shouldn't that go in a fifty shades thread then?"
Haha, Gerd! I think it was really just a joke, though.
Maybe Mickey is SM undercover?"
Is that a hidden insult against alternative lifestyles?
Aaand shouldn't that go in a fifty shades thread then?"
Haha, Gerd! I think it was really just a joke, though.
Victoria wrote: "Zoran wrote: "This is what a bad writer does, and this is why SM is a bad writer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue"
Bella is nothing close to a Mary Sue! Name her positive traits, name her fl..."
I find it more ridiculous when people argue that edward is a mary sue after opining at length over all of his flaws.
Bill wrote: "Let's get something straight here: popular != good.Stephen King's novels are still popular, but even his most ardent fans say they haven't been good since The Tommyknockers or so. Pop music is po..."
I'd just like to point out that years of enduring comments like this one is largely what pisses mickey (and me) off. it eventually gets really hard to remain civil...
bill, I just want to say (AGAIN) that there is not a finite amount of space in the universe reserved for vampire fiction. the existence of twilight in no way endangers the genre- anne rice and whoever else are still allowed to write about any kind of vampires that they wish, and you're free to read (or not read) any vampire book that has ever or will ever exist.
also, just out of curiosity- do you make such brutal and insulting posts on the threads for other books that you dislike, or is it just twilight?
Bill wrote: "Let's get something straight here: popular != good.Stephen King's novels are still popular, but even his most ardent fans say they haven't been good since The Tommyknockers or so. Pop music is po..."
But who decides what constitutes "good" writing?
Literary canon? Academia?
I dont think she is a bad writer. She has written another book series that hasn't hit the spot light but has a very interesting plot. Ever read the host?
Kirby wrote: "Victoria wrote: "Zoran wrote: "This is what a bad writer does, and this is why SM is a bad writer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue"
Bella is nothing close to a Mary Sue! Name her positive tr..."
Yes, I find that quite comical myself!
Diane wrote: "Bill wrote: "Let's get something straight here: popular != good.
Stephen King's novels are still popular, but even his most ardent fans say they haven't been good since The Tommyknockers or so. Po..."
I just want to ask for clarification Diane--is it Bill's acting like SM's bad writing is a simple fact that bothers you most? (TBH it did kinda bother me too.)
I'm not sure what dictates what constitutes good writing, either. I agree that it IS very subjective.
Part of it is, I think, technical examination--kind of like a dent in a car, or a malfunctioning engine. Obviously a smoothly-running car will be deemed the better car in comparison to the one with the malfunctioning engine/dent/etc. Of course, writing is a lot more ambiguous than a car, but you get what I mean--I'm narrowing this thing to the technical things alone.
(btw, this is just speculation on my part, I'm not devaluing my own argument by going against SM's writing.)
There's also things like extreme repetition. While good writing is a matter of opinion, I don't think anyone can argue that repeating the same phrases 100, 200 times in a book is good writing. Or using words in the wrong context.
That's just my cup of tea. I don't think SM is a BAD writer--if I were judging her on her first book alone, yes, I would think she's a horrid writer, but the series as a whole is actually surprisingly well written, in my view. It's not good writing, IMO, but I did manage to enjoy it in my own way--sometimes SM's writing flows very well, and when she's not using purple prose some of her descriptions can be very vivid and beautiful. I also liked her ability to set atmosphere--despite my dislike for the book, I did like how she set the setting. I felt like I was actually in Forks, experiencing things along with Bella (after the first book--book one I didn't feel that way.) The important thing here is that SM improves her writing, which all writers should. That's a plus.
My final verdict for SM's prose is "cute, but overall unremarkable."
Stephen King's novels are still popular, but even his most ardent fans say they haven't been good since The Tommyknockers or so. Po..."
I just want to ask for clarification Diane--is it Bill's acting like SM's bad writing is a simple fact that bothers you most? (TBH it did kinda bother me too.)
I'm not sure what dictates what constitutes good writing, either. I agree that it IS very subjective.
Part of it is, I think, technical examination--kind of like a dent in a car, or a malfunctioning engine. Obviously a smoothly-running car will be deemed the better car in comparison to the one with the malfunctioning engine/dent/etc. Of course, writing is a lot more ambiguous than a car, but you get what I mean--I'm narrowing this thing to the technical things alone.
(btw, this is just speculation on my part, I'm not devaluing my own argument by going against SM's writing.)
There's also things like extreme repetition. While good writing is a matter of opinion, I don't think anyone can argue that repeating the same phrases 100, 200 times in a book is good writing. Or using words in the wrong context.
That's just my cup of tea. I don't think SM is a BAD writer--if I were judging her on her first book alone, yes, I would think she's a horrid writer, but the series as a whole is actually surprisingly well written, in my view. It's not good writing, IMO, but I did manage to enjoy it in my own way--sometimes SM's writing flows very well, and when she's not using purple prose some of her descriptions can be very vivid and beautiful. I also liked her ability to set atmosphere--despite my dislike for the book, I did like how she set the setting. I felt like I was actually in Forks, experiencing things along with Bella (after the first book--book one I didn't feel that way.) The important thing here is that SM improves her writing, which all writers should. That's a plus.
My final verdict for SM's prose is "cute, but overall unremarkable."
Jocelyn wrote: "I just want to ask for clarification Diane--is it Bill's acting like SM's bad writing is a simple fact that bothers you most? (TBH it did kinda bother me too.)"
No, it's mostly the way he said it.
(Kirby already called him out on it; yay Kirby!)
It's not that hard to be nice. Even if you did hate the book to bits.
Kirby wrote: "I'd just like to point out that years of enduring comments like this one is largely what pisses mickey (and me) off. it eventually gets really hard to remain civil..."Don't stay civil, then. I couldn't really care less. The question was "Is Meyers a bad writer?" and I answered it, without pulling a single punch, because a brutal truth (Meyers sucks on a level I continually find it difficult to fathom) should never be sugar-coated.
Vampires have 1 function in fiction: to be hunted down and staked. Period. Anything else is an insult to the the amazing vampire authors of the past.
As far as Mickey's feelings... she came in to a topic about what vampires should do besides sparkle and made it her personal mission to derail it. She can either grow a thicker skin, or continue to discover what a hard, cold and cruel place the internet is and live in constant butthurt. I really do not care.
And yes... I reserve a special reservoir of venom for Meyers. I've read some bad books in my life, but her's managed to insult my intelligence on top of being pathetic. If it wasn't "bad karma," I'd seriously wish a slow, painful case of pancreatic cancer on her.
Jocelyn wrote: "Part of it is, I think, technical examination--kind of like a dent in a car, or a malfunctioning engine. I don't think anyone can argue that repeating the same phrases 100, 200 times in a book is good writing. Or using words in the wrong context. "Yes, there is a technical part of writing. Grammar, spelling, word usage. Those are factors, but not the only factors, and (IMO) not the ones that matter most.
For repetition, that's more subjective (bother some people, some don't mind it). Using words in the wrong context is a more objective criteria.
(related note: I find people criticize SM for this more than necessary as Mickey mentioned in some other thread, reasoning with vampires points out a word, mentions a meaning but completely ignores other meanings that might fit how SM used the word).
To me, good writing is writing that makes sense, is understandable, is entertaining (and/or) informative.
Good writing communicates, good writing makes you feel. Those are very subjective.
I get that other people have other opinions on what constitutes good writing; it just really annoys me when people think their definition of good writing is more valid or more valuable than others'.
p.s. I do like how you critique books (when you're not being overly harsh and exaggerating, lol); even though our views and preferences differ a lot, I can appreciate how you break down aspects of the books and give your opinion on each.
The biggest problem in this thread is people's assertion that "if I like it, it's good writing" or "it's all subjective ... some like it, some don't"Actually, it's quite clear that you can have objectively bad writing (objective, that is, by societal standards)
If I wrote:
"Once Upon A Time there was a snargflakal beast who was a big wee nasty beasty who gobbled people up for breakfast then slept in the afternoon and the people were afraid of his big teeth and worried he'd get them while they slept"
and tried to pass that off as good writing, then it wouldn't wash. You might find someone who enjoyed reading that paragraph, but it wou'd still be a badly written paragraph.
Likewise, Meyer's bad case of the repetitions? That's just chronically bad writing by any standards and there's no excusing it. If you like Meyer's Twilight, it's not because she can write well, it's because you don't care that she writes badly.
Bill wrote: "Vampires have 1 function in fiction: to be hunted down and staked. Period. Anything else is an insult to the the amazing vampire authors of the past."
Says you. I don't get why you would begrudge people a type of vampire they enjoy.
Why do you care? Are you so threatened by other people enjoying vampires? Do you feel like everyone who writes anything about vampires should cater to your standards?
There is more than enough space for everyone's preferences. Stop insisting that it "should be" like this or that.
It's like two children playing with monster trucks then then one decides to put stickers on his, and then the other kid goes "nooo, that's stupid, monster trucks shouldn't have sparkly stickers".
Stop it.
You have your own. Let the other kid do what he wants.
Alex wrote: "The biggest problem in this thread is people's assertion that "if I like it, it's good writing" or "it's all subjective ... some like it, some don't"Actually, it's quite clear that you can have o..."
Why? If it communicates what it's supposed to then it could be good writing. At least by my standards but obviously not yours.
Who determines what is good and what is bad? Majority? Academia?
I don't believe in making value judgments on language if it's based on arbitrary rules.
Diane wrote: "Why? If it communicates what it's supposed to then it could be good writing. At least by my standards but obviously not yours."Good writing is not about "communicating what it's supposed to". Good writing is about "communicating well" or "imaginatively" . Good writers express themselves in exceptional ways, ways that make you sit up and think that was beautiful or interesting or worth my time. I have conversations every day that communicate what they're supposed to - my job is about communication afterall - but I don't think of it as literary, I think of it as mundane.
A writer that can write has a superior mode of expression. Writing is not just about filling up blank pages with anything (Ed Cullen is beautiful, Ed Cullen is beautiful, Ed Cullen is beautiful).
Popular readers seem to fear Academia "Oh my, how dare Academia judge what I like or don't like ... as if they're qualified to understand popular fiction". (Well errr actually they do and most Academics enjoy popular fiction these days...). No one is, of course, sitting there with a "good writing" checklist and Academics aren't on the whole writing books on "this is what makes good literature". They don't need to, they instinctively already know, good and bad writing becomes a part of you when you fall in love with it when you study Shakespeare or Jane Austen or Toni Morrison. Ideas of quality literature have evolved over hundreds of years and those novels that are considered to be "good" are considered so because they've been debated as good novels for a long time. Twilight, on the other hand, is up for debate since it's current, but since it's been met with mostly derision from most corners it seems unlikely to be canonized as a classic. It will still be studied in 100 yrs time though, you gotta give it that!
Alex wrote: "Diane wrote: "Why? If it communicates what it's supposed to then it could be good writing. At least by my standards but obviously not yours."Good writing is not about "communicating what it's su..."
If it communicates what it's supposed to then that is what "communicating well" is for me. Language slippery and arbitrary, it's amazing how you can express things and have other people understand what you say (or miss the point).
No, I don't fear Academia, I just don't think their opinions are any better than anyone else's. Through the strict lens of "literary canon" then maybe yes. But literary canon has known to be concept created and perpetuated by an "elite" group of people.
Literary canon is why people of color, queer people, and women are still struggling to be accepted in the "literary world". I'm only beginning to scratch the surface of the problematic aspects of literary canon.
In my opinion, neither language nor literature belongs to a small group of people. It should be for all.
But it's okay, I suppose you won't change your mind. We couldn't even convince you that what you said about housewives devalues them.
So have your opinion. Just don't expect me to agree.
Jocelyn wrote: "That's exactly my point. I said "a while ago." that is to say, that antis being insulted has become a thing of the past. I hope that clarified some stuff."You don't understand what I was asking? I asked for proof that there's been a problem of antis being insulted in the past. You claimed there was a problem of threads where insults to antis were widespread, and I would like proof of that because it's contrary to what I know. I disagree with your statement.
It seems like you are trying to misdirect here. First, you claimed you hadn't said it by quoting a different sentence and now you're saying that you said it was in the past (which wasn't what I was asking at all). I know you said it was in the past. I'm contesting that it happened in the past.
I've asked for proof that there has been an equivalent amount of harrassment and insults directed at antis. Simply clicking on old threads should be able to confirm it. I mean, I imagine that's where you're getting your information, right? To make such a definitive statement, you must have done some research. Or, as I suspect, you just put that in because that's what you want to believe happened?
Jocelyn wrote: "I said it was a thing of the past. That is why I didn't give you ten threads, because I agree with your point."
Goodreads threads are archived and they are readily available to any member. I'm not sure that you agree with my point, either. My point is that the statement "A while ago, antis were the ones being insulted" is completely false. I think you claimed it without any research or knowledge about the subject, and I think it's typical of the way that you function: you make things up and try to pretend they're a certain way.
Narmin wrote: "Because we think she's not very good at it. But please, don't go asking why we think so, what's wrong with her writing ans so forth, because Mickey's already worn me out with that."Wow. That didn't take long. So, two exchanges and you're "worn out"? I've seen fans cover page after page after page about a topic they discussed before countless times. While I don't expect others to have the same stamina, it's rather telling that a few posts are all you can muster in defense of your opinions.
Mickey wrote: " I've seen fans cover page after page after page about a topic they discussed before countless times. "Yeah, one must wonder what's wrong with them? :-))
Really, all quality discussions aside, I can't imagine fans of, I don't know, "Lolita" for example, opening topics like "What would Humbert do?" :-)))
Or, I can't imagine fans of "Catcher in the Rye" talking about how they should get organised to "defend" that book from people who publicly dislike it.
You are a bit weird.
Bill wrote: "As far as Mickey's feelings... she came in to a topic about what vampires should do besides sparkle and made it her personal mission to derail it."I find your recollection of the What Vampires Should Do Besides Sparkle thread interesting. I didn't "derail" it, I participated. I spoke about sparkly and non-sparkly vampires throughout and I offered better ideas than calling Meyer stupid a number of times and wishing her to get hit by a truck. I contributed actual thoughts to the discussion. If that wasn't your vision of what that thread should be, then I suppose you could say it didn't go the way it should have, but that seems to be a pattern with you, doesn't it? You have a clear vision of the way things "should be" and become incensed when people or stories don't act the way you think they should. That sort of rigidity of thinking must make you absolutely miserable.
Mickey wrote: "I offered better ideas than calling Meyer stupid a number of times and wishing her to get hit by a truck."But she being hit by a truck would make her more like Stephen King. You know, a real writer. :-p
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...
It reminds me of being 16, when I was completely into metal music. I only wanted ..."
There are many faults with SM's Twilight books, ranging from a rather weak lead character to her somewhat controlling boyfriend. If you are measuring it against literary books then on many levels it wouldn't measure up. However, if you are judging a book on it's fun factor, pleasure factor and it's escapism, it's ability to transport you to another place wholly and completely, then I don't think you'll find better.
SM somehow managed to tap in to a collective fantasy that we didn't know we had and would have denied if asked. Once in a while, a little piece of magic is born that captivates and enthralls for no apparent reason, and against reason we lap it up, love it, and desperately scrabble around in the dirt when it is gone, searching for a replacement.
Are there better, more well written books than the Twilight books? Yes.
But how many of them provoke such feeling and discussion in their readers?