Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Mickey wrote: "And who's seeking to organize fans?."You.
Mickey wrote: "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."..."
Discussing? it seemed more like you were attacking anybody who refused to admit that twilight was indeed a great series and that Stephenie is a very talented writer. I wasnt even one of those fiercest crtitics of this series, you know. I only said these were just average books. and believe me it is a compliment to twilight. Even if we assume that Stephanie is not a horrible writer(which i agree, she's not all bad, just not great either)how can a book about love story between clumsy human being and a virgin vampire be great?
I guess HP fans are even weirder, but I suppose they are kids so that's not surprising. But, maybe Twilight fans are also kids?
Now when I think of it, I do know 12 year old girls reading it.
Damn, am I'm arguing with 12 year olds here?
Oh, the horrors of the internet.
Narmin wrote: "how can a book about love story between clumsy human being and a virgin vampire be great?"I have to disagree with you here. I think it could be good, if it's written well.
Zoran wrote: "Narmin wrote: "how can a book about love story between clumsy human being and a virgin vampire be great?"I have to disagree with you here. I think it could be good, if it's written well."
Yeah, maybe it could. But i kind of hate it when this clumsy girl turns out to be something special and everybody's swooning over this century old virgin vampire. I don't know. It sounds really pathetic to me.
Narmin wrote: "But i kind of hate it when this clumsy girl turns out to be something special and everybody's swooning over this century old virgin vampire. I don't know. It sounds really pathetic to me."
It sounds pathetic because it is pathetic :-)) But it could have been written in a non-pathetic way, and than it wouldn't be pathetic :-))
But of course, it probably wouldn't sell so well. :-))
Narmin, by the way, could you recommend some Azerbaijan writers to me? Ones that I could find in English? (or in Croatian, but I guess that's a small chance LOL)
Zoran wrote: "Narmin wrote: "But i kind of hate it when this clumsy girl turns out to be something special and everybody's swooning over this century old virgin vampire. I don't know. It sounds really pathetic t..."Don't let Mickey hear you say that :D
Zoran wrote: "Narmin, by the way, could you recommend some Azerbaijan writers to me? Ones that I could find in English? (or in Croatian, but I guess that's a small chance LOL)"I'll post the answer on your wall, if you don't mind, we don't want to irritate Twilight fans :D
Narmin wrote: "we don't want to irritate Twilight fans :D "Oh no, we wouldn't want THAT to happen.
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.
No, I did not claim that there were problems in the threads, I simply said there were problems.
The thing about the past is from personal experience, Mickey. I made that pretty clear. (I've been called a retard by a fan before, remember?)
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.
Okay, I think I get what you're trying to say here. You're saying that my sentences contradict each other. This might be due to the fact that you skim them, but whatever.
I wrote:
I think the tide is constantly changing. A while ago it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names. It's true that it has died down, while the insults to fans haven't died down much, like you said.
Should I break it down for you, in case you skimmed? The tide is constantly changing, as in the ball keeps going back and forth. You do know that Twilight fans have been violent about their fandom before, right?
Then I conceded that it HAS died down with this sentence: It's true that it has died down, while the insults to fans haven't died down much, like you said.
So I'm saying that in the past, anti-Twilighters were mistreated, but it has died down.
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?
You accused me of jumping to conclusions. I think you have trouble falling your own advice. I joined Goodreads pretty recently, in August 2012. Which is FAR beyond the point where I consider the tide changed over to the fans. I have not experienced any mistreatment yet on Goodreads.
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.
There are Twilight fans who actually get violent. And remember, I'm not narrowing this entire thing to the Internet, I'm broadening it to every form of communication possible between people.
http://io9.com/5204316/twilight-fans-...
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.
Thank you so much for laying out exactly what I did, exactly what I think and exactly how I "function." I'm glad you know me so well. You must have superhuman intelligence to infer this from across the Internet, eh?
Like I said: Can I please request for you to stop labeling me as "typical?" If you're not, please actually acknowledge this request and say no. Okay? Again, it's pretty much the same as calling you a typical Twihard. (Is this respectful enough? Because if it isn't, I don't know what is, and I have no earthly clue how to disagree with you without you firing back such disdainful responses.)
No, I did not claim that there were problems in the threads, I simply said there were problems.
The thing about the past is from personal experience, Mickey. I made that pretty clear. (I've been called a retard by a fan before, remember?)
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.
Okay, I think I get what you're trying to say here. You're saying that my sentences contradict each other. This might be due to the fact that you skim them, but whatever.
I wrote:
I think the tide is constantly changing. A while ago it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names. It's true that it has died down, while the insults to fans haven't died down much, like you said.
Should I break it down for you, in case you skimmed? The tide is constantly changing, as in the ball keeps going back and forth. You do know that Twilight fans have been violent about their fandom before, right?
Then I conceded that it HAS died down with this sentence: It's true that it has died down, while the insults to fans haven't died down much, like you said.
So I'm saying that in the past, anti-Twilighters were mistreated, but it has died down.
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?
You accused me of jumping to conclusions. I think you have trouble falling your own advice. I joined Goodreads pretty recently, in August 2012. Which is FAR beyond the point where I consider the tide changed over to the fans. I have not experienced any mistreatment yet on Goodreads.
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.
There are Twilight fans who actually get violent. And remember, I'm not narrowing this entire thing to the Internet, I'm broadening it to every form of communication possible between people.
http://io9.com/5204316/twilight-fans-...
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.
Thank you so much for laying out exactly what I did, exactly what I think and exactly how I "function." I'm glad you know me so well. You must have superhuman intelligence to infer this from across the Internet, eh?
Like I said: Can I please request for you to stop labeling me as "typical?" If you're not, please actually acknowledge this request and say no. Okay? Again, it's pretty much the same as calling you a typical Twihard. (Is this respectful enough? Because if it isn't, I don't know what is, and I have no earthly clue how to disagree with you without you firing back such disdainful responses.)
Diane wrote: "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..."
Well, I have to say that while writing is subjective, it isn't ENTIRELY, 100% subjective.
If every person on earth wrote like that paragraph Alex wrote, I think the literary world would be downright chaotic.
Is it possible for anyone to argue that this paragraph is well written?
First of all, there are about ten thousand adjectives in there, which is not a good idea. Again, writing may be subjective, but throwing in adjectives left and right, inserting them before every single noun, is repetitive and unnecessary.
Now the actual adjectives are used in the wrong context. I don't think this is totally subjective. For example, the word "scintillating." A quick look at dictionary.com tells you:
1. animated; vivacious; effervescent: a scintillating personality.
2. witty; brilliantly clever: a scintillating conversationalist; a play full of scintillating dialogue.
So Edward apparently has arms that are animated and witty conversationalists. That struck me as, I don't know, maybe a little weird?
"Incandescent." Dictionary.com....
1. (of light) produced by incandescence.
2.glowing or white with heat.
3.intensely bright; brilliant.
4.brilliant; masterly; extraordinarily lucid: an incandescent masterpiece; incandescent wit.
5.aglow with ardor, purpose, etc.: the incandescent vitality of youth.
It can't be the first one (since it doesn't give a definition, just another related word.) It can't be the second one because Edward is not glowing, he's sparkling. It COULD possibly be the third one, but usually that definition is used for things like stars and the sun, things that glow, not used for....er, crystal. It definitely can't be the fifth one because, well....I don't think anyone's chest can glow with "ardor", vampire or no.
But, like I said, SM improves on this, and by Eclipse this almost entirely disappears. I think it's possible to like and be entertained by someone's writing, but still dislike it at the same time from a literary standpoint. That's what happened for me; I do honestly like SM's writing style after the first book. I just don't think writing is so subjective that any argument against is suddenly negated by "it's an opinion." Because can't the same be said of anyone who deems the writing to be good?
Good writing is not about "communicating..."
Well, I have to say that while writing is subjective, it isn't ENTIRELY, 100% subjective.
If every person on earth wrote like that paragraph Alex wrote, I think the literary world would be downright chaotic.
Is it possible for anyone to argue that this paragraph is well written?
"His skin, white despite the faint flush from yesterday's hunting trip, literally sparkled, like thousands of tiny diamonds were embedded in the surface. He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn't sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marl, glittering like crystal."
First of all, there are about ten thousand adjectives in there, which is not a good idea. Again, writing may be subjective, but throwing in adjectives left and right, inserting them before every single noun, is repetitive and unnecessary.
Now the actual adjectives are used in the wrong context. I don't think this is totally subjective. For example, the word "scintillating." A quick look at dictionary.com tells you:
1. animated; vivacious; effervescent: a scintillating personality.
2. witty; brilliantly clever: a scintillating conversationalist; a play full of scintillating dialogue.
So Edward apparently has arms that are animated and witty conversationalists. That struck me as, I don't know, maybe a little weird?
"Incandescent." Dictionary.com....
1. (of light) produced by incandescence.
2.glowing or white with heat.
3.intensely bright; brilliant.
4.brilliant; masterly; extraordinarily lucid: an incandescent masterpiece; incandescent wit.
5.aglow with ardor, purpose, etc.: the incandescent vitality of youth.
It can't be the first one (since it doesn't give a definition, just another related word.) It can't be the second one because Edward is not glowing, he's sparkling. It COULD possibly be the third one, but usually that definition is used for things like stars and the sun, things that glow, not used for....er, crystal. It definitely can't be the fifth one because, well....I don't think anyone's chest can glow with "ardor", vampire or no.
But, like I said, SM improves on this, and by Eclipse this almost entirely disappears. I think it's possible to like and be entertained by someone's writing, but still dislike it at the same time from a literary standpoint. That's what happened for me; I do honestly like SM's writing style after the first book. I just don't think writing is so subjective that any argument against is suddenly negated by "it's an opinion." Because can't the same be said of anyone who deems the writing to be good?
Mickey wrote: "I find your recollection of the What Vampires Should Do Besides Sparkle thread interesting."Of course you would. I wouldn't expect anyone like you (i.e. a religious fanatic, with The Vampire Bible According to Meyers as your gospel) to view anything unpleasant you have done in Her Holy Name to reflect poorly upon you.
Should I post the PMs I got in regards to that thread, stating that you have a history of twisting peoples' posts to mean something other that what they actually meant? Or would that shatter your closely-held view that you are Meyers' Holy Avenger upon the internet?
I vividly recall calling Edward a "fairy" because he flits about the forest like Tinkerbell, instead of an actual vampire (the blood-sucking, human-hunting type... you know, the real vampires), and seeing that interpreted as questioning Edward's masculinity or sexual orientation. Even after EXPLICITLY stating that I was talking about fae folk, you insisted that I was talking about his manhood.
I also suggested that you read other vampire novels to see much more creative interpretations of vampires, and was immediately met with "Oh, no, I wouldn't like those." I suspect that this is because you may actually discover that Her Holiness may pale in comparison to actual authors... but to each their own, eh?
It still all circles back to the fact that Eddie-boy isn't a vampire in anything but name. Even Lestat, despite being an anti-hero as opposed to a straight-up villain, hunted up human victims. Ed's like the retarded step-child of the family, and he should have been locked in a closet, not set loose as an insult to the genre. I blame Meyers for this. She needs to be stopped, by whatever means necessary.
Bill wrote: "seeing that interpreted as questioning Edward's masculinity or sexual orientation. "Now, I don't remember it from the book so maybe I'm wrong... isn't this Edward character supposed to be a virgin?
So, you have this incredibly handsome guy, who's been around for 150 years (or something like that) and he didn't get laid????
Well, I would question his masculinity.
Bill wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I find your recollection of the What Vampires Should Do Besides Sparkle thread interesting."
Of course you would. I wouldn't expect anyone like you (i.e. a religious fanatic, with T..."
Hey Bill, I don't like SM, but I do think your posts are a little too...radical to be reasonable.
First Amendment: Freedom of press. SM is allowed to publish anything she wants. She doesn't "need to be stopped."
While I don't like her vampires too much, there's nothing totally horrible with sparkling, is there? I mean, it's kinda silly, and it probably looks stupid on the movie screen (Idk because I haven't seen it yet), but it's not illegal or anything.
Is it the fact that the vampires have no real weaknesses that bother you? Because while I dislike the sparkling, I don't think it's horrible. Just really cheesy, that's all.
Of course you would. I wouldn't expect anyone like you (i.e. a religious fanatic, with T..."
Hey Bill, I don't like SM, but I do think your posts are a little too...radical to be reasonable.
First Amendment: Freedom of press. SM is allowed to publish anything she wants. She doesn't "need to be stopped."
While I don't like her vampires too much, there's nothing totally horrible with sparkling, is there? I mean, it's kinda silly, and it probably looks stupid on the movie screen (Idk because I haven't seen it yet), but it's not illegal or anything.
Is it the fact that the vampires have no real weaknesses that bother you? Because while I dislike the sparkling, I don't think it's horrible. Just really cheesy, that's all.
Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "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..."
If you had scrolled down a bit, that same site provides us with a broader definition of scintillate.
1. to emit sparks.
2. to sparkle; flash: a mind that scintillates with brilliance.
3. to twinkle, as the stars.
As we are told Edward's skin sparkles like diamonds, I think this word fits perfectly. If it doesn't flow for you, or you don't like it, that's fine--subjective, even. However, it doesn't mean the word was used incorrectly.
Jocelyn wrote: "Hey Bill, I don't like SM, but I do think your posts are a little too...radical to be reasonable. "I tried "reasonable." Reasonable doesn't penetrate the thick skulls of the most fanatical of her fans.
As for the rest... so what? Since her abomination was unleashed upon the world, I've heard nothing but Meyers this, Team Edward/Jacob that, Bella the other, and the horror section of the local bookstores have been infested with Twitard ripoffs. She damned-well does need to go the hell away, and never ever come back, in the most permanent fashion available.
If people need specific proof why SM is a less than stellar writer, here you are: http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/
The shelves in bookstores are littered with terrible books. There are reasons for that, I guess. ( It's not bad, it's subjective. If 'I' like to read it, it 'must' be good.). If not Meyer then something else. People always have and will continue to have terrible taste in literature.That said, as I've argued in other threads, the extent to which Twilight represents an anti-feminist resurgence is quite troubling.
Oh man, that tumblr is killing me. One thing's for sure, I'm staying the fuck away from fridge magnets.
Mickey wrote: "My point is that the statement "A while ago, antis were the ones being insulted" is completely false."Really? Completly?
From what I hear rabid fans are not above throwing around insults against any one that even dares to look as if he dislikes twilight. :)
Zoran wrote: "Now, I don't remember it from the book so maybe I'm wrong... isn't this Edward character supposed to be a virgin?So, you have this incredibly handsome guy, who's been around for 150 years (or something like that) and he didn't get laid????
Well, I would question his masculinity. "
On the whole "he's a 150-year-old virgin" question, I have no real comment. Guys lie all the time to get laid. Just because he says he's been celibate doesn't mean he's celibate. "Oh, sure honey... you're my first... whatever you think is sexiest."
Bill wrote: "On the whole "he's a 150-year-old virgin" question, I have no real comment. Guys lie all the time to get laid. Just because he says he's been celibate doesn't mean he's celibate. "Oh, sure honey... you're my first... whatever you think is sexiest." Yeah but Edward is perfect so he wouldn't lie. We know Edward is perfect because meyer tells us this 1,567,354 times in the first book alone.
Perfect is synonymous with beautiful, right?
Diane wrote: "If it communicates what it's supposed to then that is what "communicating well" is for meYou have pretty low standards for what constitutes good writing then. Tha, to me, would be good report writing.
No, I don't fear Academia, I just don't think their opinions are any better than anyone else's.
Really? You don't think people who have comprehensively studied literature every day of their lives for years and years know more about and/or have better opinions than those who "just like to curl up with a good book after a hard day's accounting?"
It takes 7 years full time studying books night and day in the UK to come out with a doctorate in literature ... what exactly do you think these people do? Smoke pot and shoot shit in Starbucks?
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.
Welcome to Academia 30-50 years ago.
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.
Academia, on the other hand, has grasped this notion and moved on. believe it or not, bad writing still exists in the world.
In my opinion, neither language nor literature belongs to a small group of people. It should be for all.
Struggling to see where anyone wrote that one group of people "owned" literature.
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.
Shucks. Was that because I'm dumb?
So have your opinion. Just don't expect me to agree.
I wouldn't dream of expecting that.
Jocelyn wrote: "While I don't like her vampires too much, there's nothing totally horrible with sparkling, is there? I mean, it's kinda silly, and it probably looks stupid on the movie screen (Idk because I haven't seen it yet), but it's not illegal or anything.I don't know how much vampire literature you've read Jocelyn so forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious to you. What I think that Meyer did was basically take everything that lovers of vampire literature love about vampire literature and shit all over it. I think that's one of the main reasons Twilight generates such hatred. I wouldn't normally have much patience with that kind of hatred but the prominence of her work and the way that it appears to be seeping into our culture and influencing future Vampire fiction negatively I think justifies a little ire towards it. What once was a bastion of exciting liberalism now feels staid and stupid.
Vampire literature is about sex. That's pretty much the genre. Sex sex sex sex sex. Vampires - they're a metaphor for sex and lust. It's a literature that explores the boundaries between societal appropriacy and illicit desire, it's about expressing, understanding and exploring those desires and their limits. That's why Vampire series have always produced cult followings amongst liberals but largely been shunned by the mainstream. (Anne Rice or Buffy for instance).
I am personally OK with Meyer portraying Vampires however she likes - it's totally her right as an author - but I hate the portrayal literarily for its lack of understanding of the history of vampire lit, turning it upside down and using vampires to represent chastity and traditional safe male/female romance, and I hate it for popularising something in a way that completely misinterprets and subverts its own influences in obnoxious anti-feminist ways.
I think that the "sparkling" is the most obvious way in which Meyer fails to connect with vampire mythology because it's a change that isn't in the spirit of what vampires represent, it's a change that's meant to make them cosy, safe figures rather than dangerous and fascinating ones.
So having read through all 381 comments (wow I really need to get Sky or something) I think (mind you I say *think*) I can see both sides.Personally I think Meyer is a bad author because I dislike her writing style and have read a *lot* of books that written more professionally. A number of people have pointed out the issues in her writing already so I won't go into it again.
I can also see though that people say she improves and that a lot of the common issues people have with her writing is down to the editing process. I've already decided I am going to re-read the series in 2013 so perhaps I will also be able to see a difference between the earlier books and the latter.
In terms of negativity, again, I do wish personally that Meyer had chosen something over than Vampires because, until recent years, they were something to be feared and loathed and to me sparkling in daylight is... the total opposite. However, it is the authors right to choose what they write - Bram Stokers Dracula was not overtly sexual but take the sequel written by Dacre Stoker and suddenly there is a lot more going on behind the scenes of the first book. If Meyer chooses to have sparkly vampires, that is her choice as author.
One thing that I do think she did 'well' is choosing not to give Breaking Dawn the ending we thought it would have. I have very mixed feelings over the 'anti-fight' in the book - I felt it was a cop-out (especially when you think how much of the book was building to it) - but at the same time how many authors could be considered brave enough to take expectations and turn them on their ears.
I think, in a way, it all comes down to your definition of bad - is an author you dislike bad in your view because you dislike their work (the approach I take at this moment in time), or are they bad because it goes beyond your personal view?
Carina wrote: "Bram Stokers Dracula was not overtly sexualFor a mainstream book written in Victorian Britain I think that it really was quite a sexually risky book. At least, it was about sex as much, and as explicitly as a popular novel was likely to be. Le Fanu's Carmilla which was written a little earlier - possibly even more so.
Alex wrote: "For a mainstream book written in Victorian Britain I think that it really was quite a sexually risky book. At least, it was about sex as much, and as explicitly as a popular novel was likely to be. Le Fanu's Carmilla which was written a little earlier - possibly even more so. "I am not a huge reader of that period of book but I always took it to not be as overt as say the books by Anne Rice. Plus I was comparing it with the sequel written Dacre Stoker not with other books of the same period of time.
Carina wrote: "Alex wrote: "For a mainstream book written in Victorian Britain I think that it really was quite a sexually risky book. At least, it was about sex as much, and as explicitly as a popular novel was ..."Sorry. I didn't say it purely to contradict you, just to strengthen my point that Vampire literature has a tradition of embracing sexuality. To read it now, it feels fairly coy, for sure!
I didn't know that Dacre Stoker had written a sequel - is it actually any good?
Alex wrote: "Carina wrote: "Alex wrote: "For a mainstream book written in Victorian Britain I think that it really was quite a sexually risky book. At least, it was about sex as much, and as explicitly as a pop..."No worries :) I just wanted to clarify the context I meant it in. But you're right in that most vampire novels I have read sex is a key part whether it be overt or not.
Define good... in some ways it is an interesting take in others it reads like some form of Fanfic. I am not disapointed that I read it put it that way.
Bill wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Hey Bill, I don't like SM, but I do think your posts are a little too...radical to be reasonable. "
I tried "reasonable." Reasonable doesn't penetrate the thick skulls of the most ..."
No, that's not what I mean Bill. I'm just saying...you're giving them more reason to be nasty about it. I think sometimes you might just have to let it go. That's all. If they're not reasonable in return, then it's their problem, not yours. If you're not being reasonable...then, well, it's kinda more your problem than theirs. That's all I'm saying, it's just a suggestion.
But if they don't return your respect, then I think you have more than enough reason to be annoyed about it.
I tried "reasonable." Reasonable doesn't penetrate the thick skulls of the most ..."
No, that's not what I mean Bill. I'm just saying...you're giving them more reason to be nasty about it. I think sometimes you might just have to let it go. That's all. If they're not reasonable in return, then it's their problem, not yours. If you're not being reasonable...then, well, it's kinda more your problem than theirs. That's all I'm saying, it's just a suggestion.
But if they don't return your respect, then I think you have more than enough reason to be annoyed about it.
Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "While I don't like her vampires too much, there's nothing totally horrible with sparkling, is there? I mean, it's kinda silly, and it probably looks stupid on the movie screen (Idk ..."
TBH I'm not too experienced with vampire literature. I've never had a huge problem with SM's vampires because I've never been a vampire fan, but I can see a vampire fan getting annoyed at the "thousands of diamonds embedded in his skin" and all that cheesy crap. Maybe that's the reason why? I haven't really connected with vampire lore?
I do know, though, that for years, centuries, maybe even millennia, vampires have been symbols of power/evil/blah blah blah, and for Stephenie Meyer to turn it around by taking away what made them "interesting" in the first place and making them sparkle can be kind of insulting. What I'm saying is that while it might be pretty bad, it's not ILLEGAL, you know? Like, literally illegal.
But I get what you're saying. It's almost like Meyer doesn't really respect the original mythology and fails to appreciate it on almost every level, and she's desecrating it with her own ignorance. It would be kind of like taking Greek mythology and making the Minotaur into some kind of soft delicate little fairy...and then the future Greek mythology-based books having sparkly fairies for Minotaurs. Ugh.
TBH I'm not too experienced with vampire literature. I've never had a huge problem with SM's vampires because I've never been a vampire fan, but I can see a vampire fan getting annoyed at the "thousands of diamonds embedded in his skin" and all that cheesy crap. Maybe that's the reason why? I haven't really connected with vampire lore?
I do know, though, that for years, centuries, maybe even millennia, vampires have been symbols of power/evil/blah blah blah, and for Stephenie Meyer to turn it around by taking away what made them "interesting" in the first place and making them sparkle can be kind of insulting. What I'm saying is that while it might be pretty bad, it's not ILLEGAL, you know? Like, literally illegal.
But I get what you're saying. It's almost like Meyer doesn't really respect the original mythology and fails to appreciate it on almost every level, and she's desecrating it with her own ignorance. It would be kind of like taking Greek mythology and making the Minotaur into some kind of soft delicate little fairy...and then the future Greek mythology-based books having sparkly fairies for Minotaurs. Ugh.
Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "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 writ..."
Good point Angie, I'd missed that.
I still think the paragraph is badly written, though. About 99% of the adjectives crammed in there are utterly unnecessary, and are part of the reason the book is far too long for what little actually happens in it. But you're right in that word definition, and I was wrong. :)
Good writ..."
Good point Angie, I'd missed that.
I still think the paragraph is badly written, though. About 99% of the adjectives crammed in there are utterly unnecessary, and are part of the reason the book is far too long for what little actually happens in it. But you're right in that word definition, and I was wrong. :)
Alex wrote: "Yeah but Edward is perfect so he wouldn't lie. We know Edward is perfect because meyer tells us this 1,567,354 times in the first book alone.
Perfect is synonymous with beautiful, right?"
In Meyer's world it is. Unfortunately.
Perfect is synonymous with beautiful, right?"
In Meyer's world it is. Unfortunately.
I mean she is not the best writer in the world and the books are not the best I've ever read, but I guess since no author is perfect and each has its flaws and its good things, this author is good in that it can describe interesting and captivating stories. And we can see that by his huge success not by being a bad author for sure! I think honestly if you do not like do not read it, but I think a shame many people go badmouth (writing, errors in the history etc) as've seen and heard many times! In my opinion her mistake in not making this a 5th book, but my opinion is an opinion of an incurable romantic ....
Carina wrote"One thing that I do think she did 'well' is choosing not to give Breaking Dawn the ending we thought it would have. I have very mixed feelings over the 'anti-fight' in the book - I felt it was a cop-out (especially when you think how much of the book was building to it) - but at the same time how many authors could be considered brave enough to take expectations and turn them on their ears."
I'd never thought of that....I guess it does take courage. Still, it annoyed the heck out of me. A diplomatic negotiation is not a climax, and villains who just walk away from things are not real villains.
I'd never thought of that....I guess it does take courage. Still, it annoyed the heck out of me. A diplomatic negotiation is not a climax, and villains who just walk away from things are not real villains.
Hey Bill, can you give me a link to that thread (what could vampires do instead of sparkle? Sorry if you already did a couple of pages ago or anything.) I'm curious to see it. (I'm a bit too lazy to search through all the Goodreads archives...)
Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "What I'm saying is that while it might be pretty bad, it's not ILLEGAL, you know? Like, literally illegal."No, and it's not worth losing any sleep over. I read the book before I realised it was a huuuuuuuuuge phenomenon (just a huge one), thought it was shit and moved on. It was only because everyone I knew seemed to be reading it and loving it that I felt compelled to repeatedly ask people "you like that ... why? and never received back any interesting answers beyond "yeah, I know it's so cheesy but I like reading it" or some-such pointlessness.
So no, not illegal. Just annoying, really. You always wanna turn round and say
"but.there.are.so.many.better.books.please.read.them"
because us book lovers, we're just like that.
"she's desecrating it with her own ignorance"
heh, that's brilliantly put.
Alex wrote: "The shelves in bookstores are littered with terrible books. There are reasons for that, I guess. ( It's not bad, it's subjective. If 'I' like to read it, it 'must' be good.). If not Meyer then s..."
That's true...it drives me nuts when I would write down a looooong essay-length post explaining something, and then have someone come up to me and say "it's a matter of opinion," as if that suddenly negates everything. Or my favorite one: "You just don't get it." If writing were as subjective as some people claim, or in the future turns out to be, I'm going to immediately delete my Goodreads account and stop loving books as much as I do now, and possibly sob my heart out.
That's true...it drives me nuts when I would write down a looooong essay-length post explaining something, and then have someone come up to me and say "it's a matter of opinion," as if that suddenly negates everything. Or my favorite one: "You just don't get it." If writing were as subjective as some people claim, or in the future turns out to be, I'm going to immediately delete my Goodreads account and stop loving books as much as I do now, and possibly sob my heart out.
Alex wrote: "No, and it's not worth losing any sleep over. I read the book before I realised it was a huuuuuuuuuge phenomenon (just a huge one), thought it was shit and moved on. It was only because everyone I knew seemed to be reading it and loving it that I felt compelled to repeatedly ask people "you like that ... why? and never received back any interesting answers beyond "yeah, I know it's so cheesy but I like reading it" or some-such pointlessness.
No, it's just that Bill was so vehement about it, so passionate, I thought he was being literal about it. You know, "she must be stopped by any means possible." Forgive me for my stupidity...since so many people have varying degrees and points of how much they take something literally it's hard for me to tell whether someone's exaggerating or not.
So no, not illegal. Just annoying, really. You always wanna turn round and say
"but.there.are.so.many.better.books.please.read.them"
because us book lovers, we're just like that.
Haha, yes!
heh, that's brilliantly put.
Thanks.
No, it's just that Bill was so vehement about it, so passionate, I thought he was being literal about it. You know, "she must be stopped by any means possible." Forgive me for my stupidity...since so many people have varying degrees and points of how much they take something literally it's hard for me to tell whether someone's exaggerating or not.
So no, not illegal. Just annoying, really. You always wanna turn round and say
"but.there.are.so.many.better.books.please.read.them"
because us book lovers, we're just like that.
Haha, yes!
heh, that's brilliantly put.
Thanks.
Bill wrote: "Should I post the PMs I got in regards to that thread, stating that you have a history of twisting peoples' posts to mean something other that what they actually meant?"
No, that's not necessary. We already know that she has a way of twisting around people's points until it's like "wait a minute, something's wrong...."
No, that's not necessary. We already know that she has a way of twisting around people's points until it's like "wait a minute, something's wrong...."
Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "That's true...it drives me nuts when I would write down a looooong essay-length post explaining something, and then have someone come up to me and say "it's a matter of opinion," as if that suddenly negates everything. Or my favorite one: "You just don't get it." If writing were as subjective as some people claim, or in the future turns out to be, I'm going to immediately delete my Goodreads account and stop loving books as much as I do now, and possibly sob my heart out. "For me, honestly, it's not really whether somebody likes something or not - I've never met two people with exactly the same taste in fiction. It will probably never happen - it's more whether you can talk about it in interesting ways. Say something interesting. I like it when people say interesting things. Twilight is such a bog standard, unimaginative romance that it seems to pull in those who self-confessedly don't really enjoy reading that much and treat the past-time in the same way they would an evening soap opera ... so totally dull conversations about Twilight don't tend to endear me towards Twilight.
"Yeah, I just really love it, he's so in love with her". ummm Ok?
Jocelyn wrote: "No, that's not necessary. We already know that she has a way of twisting around people's points until it's like "wait a minute, something's wrong...." "She skims yours. She doesn't even read mine, apparently. Win for me!
Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "That's true...it drives me nuts when I would write down a looooong essay-length post explaining something, and then have someone come up to me and say "it's a matter of..."
True, I like it as well. Differing opinions are always interesting. What annoys me, though, is when someone tells me that since it's a matter of opinion, my whole argument is not valid. That's really annoying. That is the point of debate. Everyone has different opinions, and supporting that opinion does not mean it's somehow illegitimate. It just grates on me when people do that.
But yeah, different opinions are always interesting. Just the "it's an opinion," or "since writing is so subjective, analyzing it like you do is invalid," or "you don't get it," gets on my nerves.
True, I like it as well. Differing opinions are always interesting. What annoys me, though, is when someone tells me that since it's a matter of opinion, my whole argument is not valid. That's really annoying. That is the point of debate. Everyone has different opinions, and supporting that opinion does not mean it's somehow illegitimate. It just grates on me when people do that.
But yeah, different opinions are always interesting. Just the "it's an opinion," or "since writing is so subjective, analyzing it like you do is invalid," or "you don't get it," gets on my nerves.
Narmin wrote: "Discussing? it seemed more like you were attacking anybody who refused to admit that twilight was indeed a great series and that Stephenie is a very talented writer. I wasnt even one of those fiercest crtitics of this series, you know. I only said these were just average books. and believe me it is a compliment to twilight."I went over this thread to see how the conversation developed. I didn't "attack" you because you claimed they were average books. I took a part of one of your posts about how you were upset that Twilight was getting attention and I noted the irony of people claiming this as a reason to rail against it constantly, because they are giving attention to the thing they're complaining has too much attention already. This is hardly "attacking".
There are series that I'm not a fan of. I don't like Star Trek, but it doesn't upset me that other people are fans. I don't feel the need to go on threads dedicated to the series and agree that Star Trek fans "are people who don't care about quality" like you did with Zoran's statement. The whole notion of being upset because others like something you don't and that you find undeserving is a little intolerant.
As far as your defense of your views, I asked you to explain how Edward and Jacob were Mary Sues. You gave me the definition of a Mary Sue (and then said that you didn't know how to make your point any clearer). When I asked you how it applied to those characters, you simply restated the definition using their names. There wasn't any analysis of how they were, which is what the original poster was asking.
This is people's big chance to explain their grievances with the book, but I find that most don't know how to muster a proper defense. No doubt that skill has atrophied from disuse, much like fans have become so used to defending that I don't think they'd know what to do if the focus weren't on defending.
Narmin wrote: "Even if we assume that Stephanie is not a horrible writer(which i agree, she's not all bad, just not great either)how can a book about love story between clumsy human being and a virgin vampire be great?"
I personally don't see a problem with a love story between a clumsy human or a virgin vampire. It seems like you're saying that the problem doesn't lie in the writing, but in her choice of characters, as if there is no way that a clumsy human being or a vampire virgin should ever be in a story, which seems like an odd statement to me, because I don't find either to be a stumbling block that makes sense except on a very subjective level.
Angie wrote: "If you had scrolled down a bit, that same site provides us with a broader definition of scintillate.1. to emit sparks.
2. to sparkle; flash: a mind that scintillates with brilliance.
3. to twinkle, as the stars."
I think people should know that the Reasoning with Vampires blog (which is probably where these complaints of using words that don't fit comes from) is notorious for not putting all the definitions down when it comes to snarking on Meyer's word choice.
The word incandescent works, as does scintillating when describing Edward in the sunlight. It also makes sense in the story that she savors the sight of the person she's in love with to the extent that she does, down to small details. It gives a good feel of how a person feels when looking at their love object in moments of quiet. That's an example of good writing.
Gerd wrote: "Really? Completly?From what I hear rabid fans are not above throwing around insults against any one that even dares to look as if he dislikes twilight. :)"
Gerd, you have been participating on these threads as long as anybody (certainly longer than me and it seems like I've been here for an eternity), I'm curious if you agree with Jocelyn's statement that insults between fans and antis have been on the same par and that they tend to be as cyclical as the tides. Was there a time that antis were the ones being insulted and called names and now it's the fans' turn? Before I started posting, I read the majority of the back threads on Twilight and I didn't get that impression.
Stephanie Fucktard wrote: ""His skin, white despite the faint flush from yesterday's hunting trip, literally sparkled, like thousands of tiny diamonds were embedded in the surface. He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn't sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marl, glittering like crystal.""It's true, I think , that incandescent and scintillating are used correctly, I've no problem with that personally. What I personally have a problem with in this passage I think Jocelyn would refer to as "thesaurus rape". I don't come across this often because I haven't read a writer this bad since David Eddings or Raymond Feist.
How many times and in how many ways in one short paragraph does Meyer describe Edward as "sparkling?"
We have
1. "his skin literally sparkled like thousands of tiny diamonds" This in itself is already overkill. It's an appalling simile but she could probably get away with it if she left it at that.
2. Incandescent chest
3. Scintillating arms
4. Glistening javender lids
4. A perfect statue, glittering like crystal.
All in one very short paragraph. Honestly, if you can't see that's appalling writing then there's no hope.
If you're going to write a book that's based solely on how beautiful you think someone else is, with no other recognizable plot, then at least come up with some unique and interesting ways to describe beauty ... perhaps don't say the same thing over and over again?
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...
You are a bit weird."
Most likely, Catcher on the Rye fans can have a discussion without having to defend whether they "don't care about quality" or the same plot points over and over again, no matter what the topic of discussion. Although I don't have that book down as something I've read since it's been so long and I wasn't enamoured with it, so I don't rightly know, but I think it's a good guess.
As for the Lolita threads, have you been on them? There are plenty of differing interpretations on those threads and it does become hostile at times, but there are no real functioning factions there. Almost everyone is a fan, but differing interpretations are the ground where most of the debates are fought. While some of the posters can be said to be insufferably arrogant, none are outright trolls who don't have the ability to discuss the book or add anything of value to the discussion.
And who's seeking to organize fans?