Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
message 351:
by
Ree
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Nov 17, 2012 02:38AM
It's been a while since I read the books and I can't say much about her writing style or technique, because I simply don't remember (I also read the German translation, so there probably are differences anyway). But there's one thing I've always held in Stephenie Meyer's favor and that was how enthralling the book was (at least for me at the time). And if an author can achieve that you don't want to put the book down, well, I think, that's something.
reply
|
flag
Jocelyn wrote: "So I'm saying that in the past, anti-Twilighters were mistreated, but it has died down."Show me evidence from Goodreads that in the past, there have been threads in which antis have been mistreated. I've asked this countless times and you keep misdirecting by breaking down the wrong sentence, telling me "it's in the past" as if that somehow mattered, and saying you are agreeing with me.
Things haven't been cyclical on this board, because throughout the history of these threads, there's been no parity of insults. If you think there are, then I'd like you to prove it. There are hundreds of threads. I could easily find fifty of them as evidence that fans have been insulted throughout the discussion.
When you make a statement that uses no disclaimer, such as "based on my personal experience" or "in my opinion", you are usually implying that you making a statement based on strong evidence that what you're saying is true. Yet, the only thing you can come up with is "I was once called retarded"? This makes a case for parity?
This is pretty typical of you. Do you remember your response to my pointing out that many books do not have perfect grammar and are still considered good books? You started out by saying something like, "Even though I haven't read any of these books, writers should use proper grammar...". You have more assumptions based on little evidence than you have experienced or reasoned points to add to the discussion.
Jocelyn wrote: "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."
Then why make comments about things you haven't read about? If you haven't read the history, why claim that there was a time when antis were being abused on the same level as fans? If you make a statement that such a thing has happened, people that don't know that much of what you say is wishful thinking would probably assume that you were talking out of some sort of broad range of experience to make such a sweeping statement. I actually didn't make that assumption, having had prior experience with you before. I assumed you had just made a statement and didn't think you would have anyone contest its actual truthfulness.
Jocelyn wrote: "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."
I'm talking about Goodreads.
Jocelyn wrote: "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?"
You've been telling me what I'm like for a while now. How hypocritical to whine about what is your calling card. You've even said that I had called you an idiot because you "felt" it in my posts, even though I certainly never called you one. On the other hand, you have blatantly called people twitards and became annoyed when I said people who used that term were just trying to get attention from fans.
Jocelyn wrote: "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 t..."http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...
Ok, both of you just shut up now.
Alex wrote: "Ok, both of you just shut up now."Now you are being rude. Punish yourself by reading a desription of Edward, three times.
Peace wrote: "how rude and odd.."That was meant in good humour. If you squint really hard you'll make out a silver smiley glistening like diamonds next to the text.
Zoran wrote: "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."
So, hornyness equals masculinity for you?
You must have thought Bella to be the quite the man, then. :D
Alex wrote: "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..."So, now we know you don't think much of Stephanie Fucktard's writing, mind to tell us what you think about Stephenie Meyer's writing?
Gerd wrote: "So, now we know you don't think much of Stephanie Fucktard's writing, mind to tell us what you think about Stephenie Meyer's writing? "I think it sparkles!
Mickey wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "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 ..."
Thanks.
Thanks.
Mickey wrote:"Show me evidence from Goodreads that in the past, there have been threads in which antis have been mistreated. I've asked this countless times and you keep misdirecting by breaking down the wrong sentence, telling me "it's in the past" as if that somehow mattered, and saying you are agreeing with me.
Okay, let's get this straight. In the beginning, when I answered to Diane, I said I'd been called a retard before. That was saying just from my own personal experience. I'm not using it as proof that antis were insulted in the past. At all. I'm simply saying that I, personally, have gone through some of the experiences you have.
Things haven't been cyclical on this board, because throughout the history of these threads, there's been no parity of insults. If you think there are, then I'd like you to prove it. There are hundreds of threads. I could easily find fifty of them as evidence that fans have been insulted throughout the discussion.
Like I said, I joined Goodreads very recently. I agree with you that fans have been insulted. I conceded that when Diane told me that antis being insulted has died down, while fans being insulted has not.
When you make a statement that uses no disclaimer, such as "based on my personal experience" or "in my opinion", you are usually implying that you making a statement based on strong evidence that what you're saying is true. Yet, the only thing you can come up with is "I was once called retarded"? This makes a case for parity?
No, it doesn't. Did I ever imply that? If I did, I didn't mean it that way. Also, if I recall correctly, when I said that antis were being insulted, it was a question. I said: "To be fair, weren't antis once insulted as well?" Question...then whatever statements I made after that were either 1) just a hypothesis, and 2)concession to Diane's comment that fans being insulted has not died down.
This is pretty typical of you. Do you remember your response to my pointing out that many books do not have perfect grammar and are still considered good books? You started out by saying something like, "Even though I haven't read any of these books, writers should use proper grammar...". You have more assumptions based on little evidence than you have experienced or reasoned points to add to the discussion.
No, I did not say that. I said people should use proper grammar unless they have a reason to break it. That is not the same. I'm not flip-flopping my argument. If anything, I'm saying it's okay to break grammar rules...as long as there's a reason for it.
You've been telling me what I'm like for a while now. How hypocritical to whine about what is your calling card. You've even said that I had called you an idiot because you "felt" it in my posts, even though I certainly never called you one. On the other hand, you have blatantly called people twitards and became annoyed when I said people who used that term were just trying to get attention from fans.
No, I only said what I thought how you came across. I didn't say anything regarding what you were. At all.
As for calling people Twitards...I guess you're talking about other threads. Every time I did that, I apologized for it. I conceded that it was rude, and moved on. Also, I did not "blatantly" call people Twitards, I referred to unnamed rabid fans.
If you're talking about Twihards in this thread...you misread my posts. TwiHard. H. Not a T. Is Twihard offensive too? If so, let me know.
And of course I'd be annoyed, because you're generalizing them. "They're just...." "You're just...." If I said Twilight fans "just" came onto the discussion board to attack anti-Twilighters, would you be offended?
And I never said you called me an idiot. I said you implied it. That is not the same thing. When I said you IMPLIED it, I was addressing the tone of your responses, not the statements that you explicitly made.
btw, just out of curiosity....are you still skimming my posts? Because you have massively misinterpreted almost everything I said, and I think this might be due to skimming.
Okay, let's get this straight. In the beginning, when I answered to Diane, I said I'd been called a retard before. That was saying just from my own personal experience. I'm not using it as proof that antis were insulted in the past. At all. I'm simply saying that I, personally, have gone through some of the experiences you have.
Things haven't been cyclical on this board, because throughout the history of these threads, there's been no parity of insults. If you think there are, then I'd like you to prove it. There are hundreds of threads. I could easily find fifty of them as evidence that fans have been insulted throughout the discussion.
Like I said, I joined Goodreads very recently. I agree with you that fans have been insulted. I conceded that when Diane told me that antis being insulted has died down, while fans being insulted has not.
When you make a statement that uses no disclaimer, such as "based on my personal experience" or "in my opinion", you are usually implying that you making a statement based on strong evidence that what you're saying is true. Yet, the only thing you can come up with is "I was once called retarded"? This makes a case for parity?
No, it doesn't. Did I ever imply that? If I did, I didn't mean it that way. Also, if I recall correctly, when I said that antis were being insulted, it was a question. I said: "To be fair, weren't antis once insulted as well?" Question...then whatever statements I made after that were either 1) just a hypothesis, and 2)concession to Diane's comment that fans being insulted has not died down.
This is pretty typical of you. Do you remember your response to my pointing out that many books do not have perfect grammar and are still considered good books? You started out by saying something like, "Even though I haven't read any of these books, writers should use proper grammar...". You have more assumptions based on little evidence than you have experienced or reasoned points to add to the discussion.
No, I did not say that. I said people should use proper grammar unless they have a reason to break it. That is not the same. I'm not flip-flopping my argument. If anything, I'm saying it's okay to break grammar rules...as long as there's a reason for it.
You've been telling me what I'm like for a while now. How hypocritical to whine about what is your calling card. You've even said that I had called you an idiot because you "felt" it in my posts, even though I certainly never called you one. On the other hand, you have blatantly called people twitards and became annoyed when I said people who used that term were just trying to get attention from fans.
No, I only said what I thought how you came across. I didn't say anything regarding what you were. At all.
As for calling people Twitards...I guess you're talking about other threads. Every time I did that, I apologized for it. I conceded that it was rude, and moved on. Also, I did not "blatantly" call people Twitards, I referred to unnamed rabid fans.
If you're talking about Twihards in this thread...you misread my posts. TwiHard. H. Not a T. Is Twihard offensive too? If so, let me know.
And of course I'd be annoyed, because you're generalizing them. "They're just...." "You're just...." If I said Twilight fans "just" came onto the discussion board to attack anti-Twilighters, would you be offended?
And I never said you called me an idiot. I said you implied it. That is not the same thing. When I said you IMPLIED it, I was addressing the tone of your responses, not the statements that you explicitly made.
btw, just out of curiosity....are you still skimming my posts? Because you have massively misinterpreted almost everything I said, and I think this might be due to skimming.
Alex wrote: "Ok, both of you just shut up now."
Well....to be honest I've been experimenting with Mickey ever since I first interacted with her. I think being as civil as possible, with NO hint whatsoever of malice or anger, will be the best way. (which I figured out like ten minutes ago...stupid me. *sigh*) The problem is that no matter what tone I try to use with her, the tone of her responses always stay the same. But whatever.
Hey, I used to be a rude idiot who thought my opinion was the only one that mattered....and now that I don't (even if I slip up from time to time), I think it will be better. Sometimes it's just so HARD. It's the Internet, you're hiding behind a screen, so it's so much easier to be much ruder than you really are in real life, and so much easier to get annoyed...ugh. Hope that never happens again to me.
Well....to be honest I've been experimenting with Mickey ever since I first interacted with her. I think being as civil as possible, with NO hint whatsoever of malice or anger, will be the best way. (which I figured out like ten minutes ago...stupid me. *sigh*) The problem is that no matter what tone I try to use with her, the tone of her responses always stay the same. But whatever.
Hey, I used to be a rude idiot who thought my opinion was the only one that mattered....and now that I don't (even if I slip up from time to time), I think it will be better. Sometimes it's just so HARD. It's the Internet, you're hiding behind a screen, so it's so much easier to be much ruder than you really are in real life, and so much easier to get annoyed...ugh. Hope that never happens again to me.
Jocelyn wrote: "Well....to be honest I've been experimenting with Mickey ever since I first interacted with her. I think being as civil as possible, with NO hint whatsoever of malice or anger, will be the best way. The problem is that no matter what tone I try to use with her, the tone of her responses always stay the same. But whatever.Ignoring her would be the best way. What are you getting out of this conversation at this point, whether its civil or angry? And I ask this as someone who has carried on many internet feuds for far far longer than this, in the past (and as you can see, I still have a tendency to waste my time doing it...)
Hey, I used to be a rude idiot who thought my opinion was the only one that mattered....and now that I don't (even if I slip up from time to time), I think it will be better."
Other people will keep telling you that you're rude or arrogant or whatever if you trump them in an argument full stop. I've not personally seen you be rude or disagreeable yet, FWIW. Just by participating you leave yourself open to those accusations ... I've seen people who are polite repeatedly called arrogant and condescending because they're intelligent. A lot of people get very threatened in these conversations, unfortunately.
But, of course, find a way of expressing yourself that you're comfortable with. It's nice to be nice. :)
Ignoring her would be the best way. What are you getting out of this conversation at this point, whether its civil or angry? And I ask this as someone who has carried on many internet feuds for far far longer than this, in the past (and as you can see, I still have a tendency to waste my time doing it...)
Maybe. It's really hard for me, though. It's my natural instinct to defend myself. I've probably been like that since I was born, lol.
Other people will keep telling you that you're rude or arrogant or whatever if you trump them in an argument full stop. I've not personally seen you be rude or disagreeable yet, FWIW. Just by participating you leave yourself open to those accusations ... I've seen people who are polite repeatedly called arrogant and condescending because they're intelligent. A lot of people get very threatened in these conversations, unfortunately.
Well, I did let it slip once in some of the Twilight threads. But thanks. :)
But, of course, find a way of expressing yourself that you're comfortable with. It's nice to be nice. :)
Yep. I enjoy being nicer than feeling like I'm going to explode. The ugly, unhealthy satisfaction of bashing someone who just offended you fades VERY quickly.
Maybe. It's really hard for me, though. It's my natural instinct to defend myself. I've probably been like that since I was born, lol.
Other people will keep telling you that you're rude or arrogant or whatever if you trump them in an argument full stop. I've not personally seen you be rude or disagreeable yet, FWIW. Just by participating you leave yourself open to those accusations ... I've seen people who are polite repeatedly called arrogant and condescending because they're intelligent. A lot of people get very threatened in these conversations, unfortunately.
Well, I did let it slip once in some of the Twilight threads. But thanks. :)
But, of course, find a way of expressing yourself that you're comfortable with. It's nice to be nice. :)
Yep. I enjoy being nicer than feeling like I'm going to explode. The ugly, unhealthy satisfaction of bashing someone who just offended you fades VERY quickly.
Jocelyn wrote: "Maybe. It's really hard for me, though. It's my natural instinct to defend myself. I've probably been like that since I was born, lol."Completely understandable and I'm exactly the same. It's not good for the soul in the long run though, trust me.
Well, I did let it slip once in some of the Twilight threads. But thanks. :)
According to you. ;) There's a huge difference, though, between someone who gets a little frustrated and someone who acts in genuinely obnoxious ways.
Alex wrote: "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..."
Exactly. While I'll concede that I WAS wrong about being incomplete with the definitions of some of the words I pointed out, it's kinda repetitive and unnecessary.
And even if it's likely for Bella to "savor" the sight of her beloved vampire sparkling, it's not too likely for her to throw around words like that in her head. I'm pretty sure no teenager on the planet does that.
Isn't "incandescent" still used at least a little inaccurately, though? I scrolled down for more definitions, and I got:
1. emitting light as a result of being heated to a high temperature; red-hot or white-hot
2. informal extremely angry; raging
It can't be 1, because Edward isn't being heated to a high temperature. He isn't extremely angry or raging, so it can't be 2. I already explained the first five, so it can't be them, either.
I guess in this case, it's a lot more subjective than I previously thought it was.
Exactly. While I'll concede that I WAS wrong about being incomplete with the definitions of some of the words I pointed out, it's kinda repetitive and unnecessary.
And even if it's likely for Bella to "savor" the sight of her beloved vampire sparkling, it's not too likely for her to throw around words like that in her head. I'm pretty sure no teenager on the planet does that.
Isn't "incandescent" still used at least a little inaccurately, though? I scrolled down for more definitions, and I got:
1. emitting light as a result of being heated to a high temperature; red-hot or white-hot
2. informal extremely angry; raging
It can't be 1, because Edward isn't being heated to a high temperature. He isn't extremely angry or raging, so it can't be 2. I already explained the first five, so it can't be them, either.
I guess in this case, it's a lot more subjective than I previously thought it was.
The story she wrote was entertaining; however, the writing was not good and the female characters weren't original.
i don't know. i read the dutch version of twilight.. and at the time that i read it (i think more than 3 years ago..) i din't notice any mistakes.. but maybe the dutch translator took some of the mistakes away..
Jocelyn wrote: "Also, if I recall correctly, when I said that antis were being insulted, it was a question. I said: "To be fair, weren't antis once insulted as well?" Question...then whatever statements I made after that were either 1) just a hypothesis, and 2)concession to Diane's comment that fans being insulted has not died down"Reminder to Jocelyn, this is what you actually 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.
Exactly where is the question?
I know how this will be minimized (Oh, I forgot it wasn't a question!) but I think when you add it to the pile of misdirecting and convenient restructuring that you've engaged in, it's clear that you operate on a different level than most people. You're proving yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
@ Mickey
This was the question:
To be fair, though, wasn't there a time in which fans tried to make anti-fans feel bad for disliking Twilight?
I'd accidentally deleted the comment, but Diane had copied and pasted it before that. Message 269...you can scroll back to it to see, if you want. That was the question. It was before message 271, which was where your example of me saying the tide was changing.
You're proving yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
It was not an intellectual statement. I wasn't trying to argue anything with it. All this time, I've simply been trying to clarify what I meant, and the purpose behind it. That's all.
Besides...isn't that statement kind of harmless? Does it really warrant you calling it a "ridiculous" statement? I don't think I was all that unreasonable in that sphere while stating my opinion on the subject.
This was the question:
To be fair, though, wasn't there a time in which fans tried to make anti-fans feel bad for disliking Twilight?
I'd accidentally deleted the comment, but Diane had copied and pasted it before that. Message 269...you can scroll back to it to see, if you want. That was the question. It was before message 271, which was where your example of me saying the tide was changing.
You're proving yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
It was not an intellectual statement. I wasn't trying to argue anything with it. All this time, I've simply been trying to clarify what I meant, and the purpose behind it. That's all.
Besides...isn't that statement kind of harmless? Does it really warrant you calling it a "ridiculous" statement? I don't think I was all that unreasonable in that sphere while stating my opinion on the subject.
Jocelyn wrote: "I'd accidentally deleted the comment, but Diane had copied and pasted it before that. Message 269...you can scroll back to it to see, if you want. That was the question. It was before message 271, which was where your example of me saying the tide was changing."This is simply another misdirection. Did you write this statement:
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.
This wasn't a question. For you to say that this statement, which I've pasted numerous times, is a question is not true. You made a definitive statement and it was about the amount of hostility that Twilight fans have gotten from antis on these threads. You claimed an equivalence there, and I disagreed and asked for proof of your assertions. You can't back up your claim and instead of just saying so, you spent a lot of time misdirecting and restructuring words and I'm saying I find that typical of the way you function.
This wasn't a question. For you to say that this statement, which I've pasted numerous times, is a question is not true. You made a definitive statement and it was about the amount of hostility that Twilight fans have gotten from antis on these threads.
Remember, I also said that what I wrote after the question was ALSO either 1) a hypothesis, or 2) a concession to what Diane said. What I wrote in that example you gave would fall into the "hypothesis" category. Are you still skimming my posts?
You claimed an equivalence there, and I disagreed and asked for proof of your assertions.
No, I did not claim an equivalence there. I did not even imply it. I just said that antis were insulted as well. That's not a claim of equivalence. It's far too general for anyone to take that as an equivalence claim.
You can't back up your claim and instead of just saying so, you spent a lot of time misdirecting and restructuring words and I'm saying I find that typical of the way you function.
That's fine. Seeing as this is a very obvious "no" to my request, that's okay. It was just a request, after all. *shrug* If you find this typical, I couldn't care less.
My claim? Obviously you mean an intellectual claim. No, it is not an intellectual claim. Like I said, it's not something I was trying to argue. I was just giving by 2 cents on the subject. Is it necessary to take it, call it ridiculous, and rip it apart?
Also, the "instead of just saying so" bothers me. I'm allowed to defend myself. I don't need to concede to everything you say. I CAN back up my claims, which you keep denying while openly admitting that you skim my posts. Which, IMO, makes your statements lose a lot of credibility.
Remember, I also said that what I wrote after the question was ALSO either 1) a hypothesis, or 2) a concession to what Diane said. What I wrote in that example you gave would fall into the "hypothesis" category. Are you still skimming my posts?
You claimed an equivalence there, and I disagreed and asked for proof of your assertions.
No, I did not claim an equivalence there. I did not even imply it. I just said that antis were insulted as well. That's not a claim of equivalence. It's far too general for anyone to take that as an equivalence claim.
You can't back up your claim and instead of just saying so, you spent a lot of time misdirecting and restructuring words and I'm saying I find that typical of the way you function.
That's fine. Seeing as this is a very obvious "no" to my request, that's okay. It was just a request, after all. *shrug* If you find this typical, I couldn't care less.
My claim? Obviously you mean an intellectual claim. No, it is not an intellectual claim. Like I said, it's not something I was trying to argue. I was just giving by 2 cents on the subject. Is it necessary to take it, call it ridiculous, and rip it apart?
Also, the "instead of just saying so" bothers me. I'm allowed to defend myself. I don't need to concede to everything you say. I CAN back up my claims, which you keep denying while openly admitting that you skim my posts. Which, IMO, makes your statements lose a lot of credibility.
Nothing that has been read, enjoyed, and loved by so many people can really be bad. I'm not going to go over what I liked or didn't like, I thought the books got better each time. But if they hadn't gotten so much attention, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also, remember that young readers are probably a majority of her fans, and for someone in middle school, they're not ready for Anna Karenina just yet. Whatever gets young people reading is good. All Good.
Andrea wrote: "Nothing that has been read, enjoyed, and loved by so many people can really be bad. I'm not going to go over what I liked or didn't like, I thought the books got better each time. But if they had..."Actually that is a valid point - when Harry Potter came out everyone was saying how great it was that young people are reading again - if Twilight means they continue to do so (I personally see Twilight as being for older people that the early Harry Potters books) or means that they get people who weren't reading already then surely it is a win for the literary community.
The more I read from various people on these threads the more I actually start to see the positives in Twilight and this was a point that I haven't seen raised yet.
Jocelyn wrote: "Remember, I also said that what I wrote after the question was ALSO either 1) a hypothesis, or 2) a concession to what Diane said. What I wrote in that example you gave would fall into the "hypothesis" category."More misdirection. You made a definitive statement that wasn't tied to any sort of research or wide experience on your part. This isn't a hypothesis or a question:
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.
As for the idea that you aren't claiming equivalence, that's frankly ridiculous. The tide reference suggest a cycle and claiming that a while ago, it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names (which I contest that there's been widespread anti-Twilight bashing on these threads on the same level as what's been occurring regularly to the fans). It's insulting to me that you think you can make definitive statements about things you know nothing about and then later plead ignorance. Why make the statements at all then?
You've accused me of things (such as saying that my posts were implying you're an idiot) as a way to pretend that there is some equivalence between the behavior of fans and antis. Then you make some ridiculous statement about the history of things on here that you admittedly know absolutely nothing about.
And then you are insulted that I'm not hanging on your every word. Are you kidding me?
More misdirection. You made a definitive statement that wasn't tied to any sort of research or wide experience on your part. This isn't a hypothesis or a question:
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.
Look, Mickey. I get what you're saying, and I get what you're addressing. You doubt my statement that in the past, antis have been insulted, correct?
The thing is, first of all: I am under no obligation to do what you request. I remember seeing another thread of yours, when you said that fans have to get away from the idea of defending Twilight. Does that not apply to the other side as well? We, too, are not obligated to defend it, if we wish.
Next thing. You keep acting like it's an intellectual claim. It is not. You keep acting like it is a subject for argument. It is not. I did not intend it that way. It was just a side comment I thought was harmless. It was not something I was trying to argue, not something I was trying to support, it was just a random side comment. Asking me to support that "claim" is pointless, because I wasn't even trying to argue it.
As for the idea that you aren't claiming equivalence, that's frankly ridiculous. The tide reference suggest a cycle and claiming that a while ago, it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names (which I contest that there's been widespread anti-Twilight bashing on these threads on the same level as what's been occurring regularly to the fans).
Really? Is it that ridiculous? When did I imply that?
Let me explain, because either I was unclear or you misinterpreted my statement. The tide SUGGESTS. Since I did not explicitly say that, why couldn't you have asked me for clarification first? I did not mean it that way.
By tide I mean that sometime in the future, it's either going to die out, or it will be the antis getting the short end of the stick. Because this is what I think happened. 1) Rabid fans get annoyed at antis. 2) Antis get annoyed and fight back, and go completely overboard. 3) Now it's fans getting the short end of the stick. 4) Sometime in the future, MAYBE, it will be the antis getting the short end of the stick. Did that clarify anything?
How can you say my claims are ridiculous? Half the time, you don't even know what they are (seeing as you either skim them, or misinterpret them.) You cannot read my mind. You do not know that I'm just backtracking and covering it up.
It's insulting to me that you think you can make definitive statements about things you know nothing about and then later plead ignorance.
It was not a definitive statement. It was just a side comment. Can I not say this enough, until you can finally understand that argumentation was NOT the purpose of my comment?
Why make the statements at all then?
Why rip someone's opinion apart when it clearly was not meant as an intellectual claim?
You've accused me of things (such as saying that my posts were implying you're an idiot) as a way to pretend that there is some equivalence between the behavior of fans and antis. Then you make some ridiculous statement about the history of things on here that you admittedly know absolutely nothing about.
Really? How do you know that I use it as a "way to pretend that there is some equivalence in the behavior of fans and antis?" You must know me really well from thousands of miles away.
For the last time Mickey...it was just a side comment, basing it from what I experienced. It was not meant to be argued, it was just my 2 cents on the subject.
And then you are insulted that I'm not hanging on your every word. Are you kidding me?
When did I say that? When did I imply that I was insulted? I just said that openly admitting you skim my posts makes your statements lose much of its credibility. That is not the same as being insulted.
I do not expect you to hang on my every word. When did I say that? I just would like it if you paid more attention to my points, because you keep misinterpreting them and twisting them until they're way out of proportion. It's kind of like saying, "oh, your comments are so stupid...but I didn't even pay attention to some of those comments." How can you rebut something when you don't know what you're rebutting?
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.
Look, Mickey. I get what you're saying, and I get what you're addressing. You doubt my statement that in the past, antis have been insulted, correct?
The thing is, first of all: I am under no obligation to do what you request. I remember seeing another thread of yours, when you said that fans have to get away from the idea of defending Twilight. Does that not apply to the other side as well? We, too, are not obligated to defend it, if we wish.
Next thing. You keep acting like it's an intellectual claim. It is not. You keep acting like it is a subject for argument. It is not. I did not intend it that way. It was just a side comment I thought was harmless. It was not something I was trying to argue, not something I was trying to support, it was just a random side comment. Asking me to support that "claim" is pointless, because I wasn't even trying to argue it.
As for the idea that you aren't claiming equivalence, that's frankly ridiculous. The tide reference suggest a cycle and claiming that a while ago, it was the anti-Twilighters who were insulted and called names (which I contest that there's been widespread anti-Twilight bashing on these threads on the same level as what's been occurring regularly to the fans).
Really? Is it that ridiculous? When did I imply that?
Let me explain, because either I was unclear or you misinterpreted my statement. The tide SUGGESTS. Since I did not explicitly say that, why couldn't you have asked me for clarification first? I did not mean it that way.
By tide I mean that sometime in the future, it's either going to die out, or it will be the antis getting the short end of the stick. Because this is what I think happened. 1) Rabid fans get annoyed at antis. 2) Antis get annoyed and fight back, and go completely overboard. 3) Now it's fans getting the short end of the stick. 4) Sometime in the future, MAYBE, it will be the antis getting the short end of the stick. Did that clarify anything?
How can you say my claims are ridiculous? Half the time, you don't even know what they are (seeing as you either skim them, or misinterpret them.) You cannot read my mind. You do not know that I'm just backtracking and covering it up.
It's insulting to me that you think you can make definitive statements about things you know nothing about and then later plead ignorance.
It was not a definitive statement. It was just a side comment. Can I not say this enough, until you can finally understand that argumentation was NOT the purpose of my comment?
Why make the statements at all then?
Why rip someone's opinion apart when it clearly was not meant as an intellectual claim?
You've accused me of things (such as saying that my posts were implying you're an idiot) as a way to pretend that there is some equivalence between the behavior of fans and antis. Then you make some ridiculous statement about the history of things on here that you admittedly know absolutely nothing about.
Really? How do you know that I use it as a "way to pretend that there is some equivalence in the behavior of fans and antis?" You must know me really well from thousands of miles away.
For the last time Mickey...it was just a side comment, basing it from what I experienced. It was not meant to be argued, it was just my 2 cents on the subject.
And then you are insulted that I'm not hanging on your every word. Are you kidding me?
When did I say that? When did I imply that I was insulted? I just said that openly admitting you skim my posts makes your statements lose much of its credibility. That is not the same as being insulted.
I do not expect you to hang on my every word. When did I say that? I just would like it if you paid more attention to my points, because you keep misinterpreting them and twisting them until they're way out of proportion. It's kind of like saying, "oh, your comments are so stupid...but I didn't even pay attention to some of those comments." How can you rebut something when you don't know what you're rebutting?
One last thing Mickey, may I ask a question?
A respectful question. A harmless question. Just a question.
How should I disagree with you in a way that you address me without mocking me? Is there anything you currently (emphasis on CURRENTLY) find particularly offensive about my posts? I don't think I'm being all too unreasonable. Let me know if I am, and what kind of tone or manner you find unreasonable about them. (not the content, just the tone and manner.)
And that was not sarcastic. It's an honest, sincere question.
A respectful question. A harmless question. Just a question.
How should I disagree with you in a way that you address me without mocking me? Is there anything you currently (emphasis on CURRENTLY) find particularly offensive about my posts? I don't think I'm being all too unreasonable. Let me know if I am, and what kind of tone or manner you find unreasonable about them. (not the content, just the tone and manner.)
And that was not sarcastic. It's an honest, sincere question.
Stéphanie wrote: "i don't know. i read the dutch version of twilight.. and at the time that i read it (i think more than 3 years ago..) i din't notice any mistakes.. but maybe the dutch translator took some of the m..."Edward wasn't beautiful in dutch version?
I think she did well with the series, except it seemed the end was a bit lacking but that's just my opinion. I loved the host too.
Gerd wrote: "You must have thought Bella to be the quite the man, then. :D "If she didn't masturbate every day during her teens, no :-p
Jocelyn wrote: "The thing is, first of all: I am under no obligation to do what you request. I remember seeing another thread of yours, when you said that fans have to get away from the idea of defending Twilight. Does that not apply to the other side as well? We, too, are not obligated to defend it, if we wish."You are again thinking that there is an equivalence between the typical experiences of fan and anti. Antis have not spent any time here defending their views.
You're certainly under no obligation to defend a statement you've made, but the fact that you don't is telling. I think it's because you can't. You know very well that your statement is faulty.
As for your idea that you don't have to defend it because it is a "side comment" instead of a definitive statement is an example of how you use words to pretend that changing the definition suddenly makes a difference. (Oh, it was a side comment, or No, I was implying that you were saying I was an idiot.) I think it's irresponsible and I think you have the idea that such tactics actually deflect criticism. Ultimately, it doesn't. There isn't actually any difference between a side comment or a definitive statement. A sentence could easily be both. I don't know why you have the idea that naming it such changes anything or makes it exempt from being called into question. It's not a very logical defense.
I'm not misinterpreting your posts. You are trying your hardest to misrepresent your own statements. You can't mount a proper defense of your statement, so instead "broke down" a neighboring sentence, insisted that it was "in the past" (which was irrelevant), told me how you agreed with me (which made no sense at all, as I was asking you to prove your statement), claimed ignorance, and now claim that it is a side comment (which changes what exactly?). This level of argumentation is sub-par even for Twilght threads, which have seen some bad arguments.
That passage I posted from George Eliot, is that grammatically poor?
@ Mickey
Okay, I'm taking down my old multiple-post rebuttal to every one of your points, because you'll just keep twisting it and morphing it.
I've tried to be nice in this conversation (and this conversation alone, so don't throw back any "once upon a time, you did this" crap). I thought if I were respectful enough, you'd give me the same. I thought you'd stop mocking and belittling me like I was a little child being scolded. I was wrong. You're still mocking and belittling me, and you don't show a single shred of respect for me, or anyone who disagrees with you.
Telling me that "my statement is faulty" and I know that "very well" is downright insulting. I don't know why you keep acting like I secretly agree with you but keep denying it. FYI, I do sincerely believe in every one of my statements, and your saying that I keep denying it while secretly "knowing that my statement is faulty" is absolute shit.
You keep laying out what I think and what my purpose is behind it. Problem is, you don't know me personally. You don't read my mind. It is not your job to lay that out.
And don't bother to deny it. When you make comments like:
You are trying your hardest to misrepresent your own statements.
You can't mount a proper defense of your statement...
...is an example of how you use words to pretend that changing the definition suddenly makes a difference.
You know very well that your statement is faulty.
...then obviously, you think you can actually make such massive assumptions with accuracy.
First of all: How the fuck do you know me so well?
Second of all: Why do you feel the need to mock and belittle me like that? Was I honestly that unreasonable?
Third of all: Your guess that I'm not defending it because I can't is contradictory to your statement that people are under no obligation to defend their views.
Did I ever tell you that you're not defending your opinion because you can't? Did I? Why the hell are you doing it to me?
My most favorite one of all:
This level of argumentation is sub-par even for Twilght threads, which have seen some bad arguments.
Jeez, thanks. *eye roll* Unfortunately, I don't give enough shit to pay attention to your educational lessons on how to strengthen my argument. To lecture me endlessly like that is pointless, insulting, belittling, and condescending in every respect.
insisted that it was "in the past" (which was irrelevant)
Really? I think this statement loses all credibility from your previous statement, from message 350:
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.
Which was in response to what you considered to be my central point: that antis were insulted in the past. Please remember your own arguments.
I will repeat, for the fucking fifty thousandth time, that the purpose behind that comment was NOT argumentation. Telling me that "this" argumentation is bad is illegitimate, because I didn't even try to argue it. If I don't argue it, then it is not argumentation, and since it's not argumentation, I'm still wondering what exactly you're saying is sub-par. This whole time I've simply been trying to clarify what I meant and my purposes, not trying to argue the central point.
Just because I'm an anti-Twilighter, does not mean I am incapable of defending my views. It just means that I'm not going to, and all of your assumptions about me are complete shit.
Okay, I'm taking down my old multiple-post rebuttal to every one of your points, because you'll just keep twisting it and morphing it.
I've tried to be nice in this conversation (and this conversation alone, so don't throw back any "once upon a time, you did this" crap). I thought if I were respectful enough, you'd give me the same. I thought you'd stop mocking and belittling me like I was a little child being scolded. I was wrong. You're still mocking and belittling me, and you don't show a single shred of respect for me, or anyone who disagrees with you.
Telling me that "my statement is faulty" and I know that "very well" is downright insulting. I don't know why you keep acting like I secretly agree with you but keep denying it. FYI, I do sincerely believe in every one of my statements, and your saying that I keep denying it while secretly "knowing that my statement is faulty" is absolute shit.
You keep laying out what I think and what my purpose is behind it. Problem is, you don't know me personally. You don't read my mind. It is not your job to lay that out.
And don't bother to deny it. When you make comments like:
You are trying your hardest to misrepresent your own statements.
You can't mount a proper defense of your statement...
...is an example of how you use words to pretend that changing the definition suddenly makes a difference.
You know very well that your statement is faulty.
...then obviously, you think you can actually make such massive assumptions with accuracy.
First of all: How the fuck do you know me so well?
Second of all: Why do you feel the need to mock and belittle me like that? Was I honestly that unreasonable?
Third of all: Your guess that I'm not defending it because I can't is contradictory to your statement that people are under no obligation to defend their views.
Did I ever tell you that you're not defending your opinion because you can't? Did I? Why the hell are you doing it to me?
My most favorite one of all:
This level of argumentation is sub-par even for Twilght threads, which have seen some bad arguments.
Jeez, thanks. *eye roll* Unfortunately, I don't give enough shit to pay attention to your educational lessons on how to strengthen my argument. To lecture me endlessly like that is pointless, insulting, belittling, and condescending in every respect.
insisted that it was "in the past" (which was irrelevant)
Really? I think this statement loses all credibility from your previous statement, from message 350:
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.
Which was in response to what you considered to be my central point: that antis were insulted in the past. Please remember your own arguments.
I will repeat, for the fucking fifty thousandth time, that the purpose behind that comment was NOT argumentation. Telling me that "this" argumentation is bad is illegitimate, because I didn't even try to argue it. If I don't argue it, then it is not argumentation, and since it's not argumentation, I'm still wondering what exactly you're saying is sub-par. This whole time I've simply been trying to clarify what I meant and my purposes, not trying to argue the central point.
Just because I'm an anti-Twilighter, does not mean I am incapable of defending my views. It just means that I'm not going to, and all of your assumptions about me are complete shit.
Jocelyn wrote: "This level of argumentation is sub-par even for Twilght threads, which have seen some bad arguments.I will repeat, for the thousandth time, that it was not meant for argumentation. It's illegitim..."
Hey Jocelyn... wanna some tea?
Zoran wrote: "Hey Jocelyn... wanna some tea?"
No thanks. I don't think tea will help me over someone telling me I misunderstand my own statements.
(btw, I did drink tea last night. It helped! For a while....Tea wears off, you know?)
No thanks. I don't think tea will help me over someone telling me I misunderstand my own statements.
(btw, I did drink tea last night. It helped! For a while....Tea wears off, you know?)
Jocelyn wrote: "I don't think tea will help me over someone telling me I misunderstand my own statements. "It might help you stop giving a damn.
many people just say she's a bad writer because they think twilight sucks. i'll admit it, i don't LOVE twilight but it has really good writing style and some good ideas and the host, her other book, is amazing. so she's not a bad writer. it depends on the person who's criticizing...
I've been ultra-busy... came back to see the tread exploded in exactly the way I figured it would, starring the exact person I thought would drag it straight to the sewer...Jocelyn wrote: "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."
...and after reading your argument with Meyers' High Priestess, are you still sure I need to be "respectful"?
Seems like it doesn't matter if I come in dripping sweetness and sunshine, or pull no punches and come out swinging: I'll still be treated like shit for having a view contrary to the Gospel According to Twitards.
So stop trying to reason with people who aren't reasonable. If they were, indeed, worthy of respect, they'd actually argue from some reasoning other that "'CAUSE I LIKE THE NOVELS, SO FUCK YOU!!!", wouldn't they? In fact, they wouldn't be trying to play retard-word-aikido with every point, twisting them into things that were never said or implied, wouldn't they?
Bill wrote: "I've been ultra-busy... came back to see the tread exploded in exactly the way I figured it would, starring the exact person I thought would drag it straight to the sewer...
Jocelyn wrote: "No, th..."
Yeah, I know. I tried to be reasonable, MULTIPLE TIMES, and I get looked down on like a little child being scolded. You were right, in the end. (I've actually interacted with Mickey prior to this, and I've given her the benefit of doubt more times than I can count.) The thing is, I try to treat everyone equally, no matter my past experiences with them.
Whoa, Bill. You actually went through all the trouble to read, what, 4 pages of arguments between me and Mickey?
To be fair, though, not all Twilight fans are like that...TBH I've probably met more respectful fans than not, even on this thread. I usually try to give people the benefit of doubt FIRST. Usually it works out, whether I disagree with them or not. Fortunately. I've just found over time using Goodreads that being respectful gives you a lot more power (USUALLY, not, as I've found out recently, always) than being rude, since in the past when I've been rude...well, yeah.
Also, while I dislike Twilight, I'm pretty sure Meyer doesn't deserve a painful death for sparkly vampires. It's, like Alex said, nothing to lose sleep over.
Jocelyn wrote: "No, th..."
Yeah, I know. I tried to be reasonable, MULTIPLE TIMES, and I get looked down on like a little child being scolded. You were right, in the end. (I've actually interacted with Mickey prior to this, and I've given her the benefit of doubt more times than I can count.) The thing is, I try to treat everyone equally, no matter my past experiences with them.
Whoa, Bill. You actually went through all the trouble to read, what, 4 pages of arguments between me and Mickey?
To be fair, though, not all Twilight fans are like that...TBH I've probably met more respectful fans than not, even on this thread. I usually try to give people the benefit of doubt FIRST. Usually it works out, whether I disagree with them or not. Fortunately. I've just found over time using Goodreads that being respectful gives you a lot more power (USUALLY, not, as I've found out recently, always) than being rude, since in the past when I've been rude...well, yeah.
Also, while I dislike Twilight, I'm pretty sure Meyer doesn't deserve a painful death for sparkly vampires. It's, like Alex said, nothing to lose sleep over.
Jocelyn wrote: "Also, while I dislike Twilight, I'm pretty sure Meyer doesn't deserve a painful death for sparkly vampires. It's, like Alex said, nothing to lose sleep over."I can't wish for her to die... like I've said before, it's "bad karma." I can wish for something to cause her to stop writing permanently, and I'll leave that up to a Higher Power to determine how to accomplish that.
...and no, I didn't read the entire argument start-to-finish... unlike certain others, I'm pretty good at skimming threads, and when I see the same two names repeated, and see the general tone morph from "I see your point" to "Oh, just go the hell away, I'm not arguing with you," I don't need to read word-for-word what happened.
(By the way... once again, Edward is a vampire in the same way that a Boeing 747 is a bicycle. He's more of a faerie than a supernatural predator. Just sayin'.)
Bill wrote: "(By the way... once again, Edward is a vampire in the same way that a Boeing 747 is a bicycle. He's more of a faerie than a supernatural predator. Just sayin'.) "
Eh, at the moment I don't care. I've never been a huge vampire fan. I can see why vampire fans would be annoyed, but I guess I'll suspend judgement for now until I do become a vampire fan, if ever.
Eh, at the moment I don't care. I've never been a huge vampire fan. I can see why vampire fans would be annoyed, but I guess I'll suspend judgement for now until I do become a vampire fan, if ever.
Jocelyn wrote: "I've tried to be nice in this conversation (and this conversation alone, so don't throw back any "once upon a time, you did this" crap). I thought if I were respectful enough, you'd give me the same."Exactly when did you start being respectful in this thread? This is more of your renaming things to suit you. You started out here calling me names for responding to Zoran's insulting posts and it's continued to the previous page. You don't belong on the moral high ground here.
If you want to be thought well of and treated nicely, you should have thought of that when you started using me to pretend there's an equivalence (in the I'm implying that Mickey indirectly called me an idiot phase), using me or your version of me to pretend things that aren't true.
If you attack people, why would you expect that you can say you're acting respectful now (although you're not) and now everything is supposed to be kosher?
You operate on fantasies here. Most of what you say does not have any resemblence to reality. Look at your arguments for your statement. It's misdirection and renaming, and that's typical of you.
I'll tell you right now: I don't foresee ever having a civil conversation with you. You've gone past the point with your behavior where that would be a possibility. There are lasting consequences for your actions, Jocelyn.
Look around you and see where you belong. You belong with Bill and Zoran. These are your comrades. These are the people who actually think your behavior is okay. You are BFFs with people who wish Meyer pancreatic cancer and the other a run of the mill troll. Nice company. And you think you have the moral high ground? That's another level of delusion.
Jocelyn wrote: "I will repeat, for the fucking fifty thousandth time, that the purpose behind that comment was NOT argumentation. "
Why do you think it matters what your purpose was? This is the sixth misdirection or so. I can't imagine how you think that you can say a statement and then legitimately say that it isn't up for scrutiny because it was not argumentation. (That's basically saying: You can't question my statement, because it wasn't my intention when I wrote it to have you question my statement.) When I speak of argumentation, I'm talking about how you've gone about responding to calls for proof of this statement. I think I've highlighted how weak your arguments are and how you operate. And that was my goal.
Jocelyn wrote: "This whole time I've simply been trying to clarify what I meant and my purposes, not trying to argue the central point."
Trust me, I know you haven't attempted to actually provide proof of parity. You know you can't. I think it was instructive to go through this process because it shows exactly how you are. You haven't tried to clarify at all, which is how we got a breakdown of another sentence, the argument that it was in the past, and the misdirection that you were agreeing with me (which made no sense). I could name others, but it's not necessary. I've made my point.
Mickey wrote: " You belong with Bill and Zoran. These are your comrades. These are the people who actually think your behavior is okay."Am I not even bad enough to go in the naughty corner with these guys? :(
Mickey wrote: "There are lasting consequences for your actions, Jocelyn"Mark my words, there'll be tears before bedtime.
Alex wrote: "Am I not even bad enough to go in the naughty corner with these guys? :( "Maybe we should form a club... "Mickey's naughty corner".
I'm going to make a prediction here. This will only mean something to us old-timers, but anyway: If you remember the Paul/Will/Hazel gang that used to be on here, I think we are seeing another such forming. (What is that saying? History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce?)They are even somewhat similar. Bill would be the Paul character. They both have monomanias-Paul's was Mormons and Bill's is vampires. I haven't seen evidence of Bill being quite as inappropriate as Paul, at least not in the same way. Zoran would be Will, but he doesn't have the same pretensions as Will. Jocelyn would be Hazel, not only because she is the female, but I've noticed a lot of similarities before. She spends a lot of time defending the others (my favorite one, I think, was her defense of Paul's calling kids "f*** trophies". She smoothed it over when people complained with the argument that "he wasn't talking about your children", but I'm digressing...).
I'm calling it.
Mickey wrote: "Jocelyn would be Hazel,"Hazel sounds like some mushy pet name to me. Jocelyn, can I call you Hazel, or do you think our relationship is not in that phase yet?
All the characters are archetypes, there's no such thing as a true to type character. Outsiders have close friends, tortured heroes have moments of mirth, good girls say bad things, and best friends in love say screw you to the one love. But my problem with Meyers writing isn't the concept, her vampires are unusual as is the werewolf society that she's created, it's her words themself.
"Say it"
"You're a vampire."
Made me throw up in my mouth. She's not original in her dialogue, and having a character that says interesting things is why I read I read books. I'm not clever or well educated, but I can come up with original responses.
If one of my friends showed me they sparkled, I'd say cool built in disco ball, oh oha.
Meyers characters take themselves way to seriously, that's the perfect recipe for turning off people. Studies have shown that people need the release valve of humor when they are constantly subjected to tense situations. The only moments of lightness she has are in the last one, and it's a better book because of it.
Mickey wrote: "This wasn't a question. For you to say that this statement, which I've pasted numerous times, is a question is not true. You made a definitive statement and it was about the amount of hostility that Twilight fans have gotten from antis on these threads. You claimed an equivalence there, and I disagreed and asked for proof of your assertions. You can't back up your claim and instead of just saying so, you spent a lot of time misdirecting and restructuring words and I'm saying I find that typical of the way you function."But talking about reconstructing, where exactly does Jocelyn state that antis where insulted on GoodReads in the past (which they proabably were, and still do get at times - if not expressivly for being against twilight)?
In looks to me as if you take her statement and put in a context that it wasn't intended for.
She only went and called it.She really did, she actually called it.
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...
