Is Stephenie a bad writer? Showing 1-50 of 2,281

[Haley]

I hear a lot of people criticizing Stephenie's writing style (I don't know if they are talking about her grammar, her technique, her editing, or if Twilight is just a stupid book) and I just want to know what that is about. I mean, what are her exact mistakes or writing errors? I just don't see them.

[Mimi ❤]

No writer is perfect. She's not bad, but not the best. I personally think she's not bad of an author and I enjoy her style

[Sonny]

Awkward phrases and too wordy at times, but overall I think shes a good storyteller, which I think is the most important part of the novel. Go Stephenie!

[Gin]

Yes, she is a horrible writer.

[[deleted user]]

She's not, just take The Host for example. I think people just don't like Twilight.

[Candy]

Yeah, I actually really enjoyed the Twilight series when I first read them - I think a few found the constant telling of Bella's daily life in the first book a little boring but it's actually one of my favourite parts!
I think it's wrong to compare every single write to each other - but if we're going to do that, can I just say that from what I've seen of 50 Shades, Meyer is 100x better than E.L. James.

[Gin]

50 shades was based off of Twilight so....

[Eva]

TheFeelsAreOnTheFloor wrote: "Yes, she is a horrible writer."

you never said why you think that.

[Eva]

there writes a thing for where you hae to show the reader what's happening, instead of just teling them. That's one of the thing that SM got wrong.

[Kal]

I'd say no author that gets published is well and truly terrible. It's only once you've read several really good books and your standards are pushed a bit higher that you start calling stuff like Twilight bad. It's like "if these books I've read are five stars and these other books I used to say are five stars is nowhere near as good..." and then the rating for everything else goes down.

[★ Mist ☆ Cassidy ★]

I don't think she's a bad writer but I don't think she's without her flaws either. There were some things I really didn't care for with Twilight (Bella's attitude and personality for example), but over all, I think the actual writing portion of the books were good.
I think a lot of people say they don't like Twilight, not because of the books, but because of the joke the first movie was. Also, because of how the actors portrayed the characters in the first movie.
I'm not sure about the Host though. I was never able to get past the first hundred pages of that, but I still don't think that makes her a bad writer. There's tons of books that have come out from author's the I really like, that I just can't get through.

[[deleted user]]

Does anyone here live in colorado?If so do you know if the twilight saga marathon is sold out?You can just message me!Id appreciate it!:)

[Zoran]

LOL is Pope a catholic?

[Nermin]

I read twilight series ages ago, so i don't exactly remember her writing style. but i remember i didn't like it back then. she lacks something, wit, humor, something. I wouldn't go as far to say she's as horrible as let's say E.L. James but she's not a very good writer either in my opinion.

[Zoran]

This is what a bad writer does, and this is why SM is a bad writer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

[Emma]

I think if any author can escape you to another world in their books, then they have done a good job. Writing styles will always come down to personal preference of how you like to read your books. Personally I think she has done quite well with the twilight books, with the exception of the last couple of chapters in breaking dawn (as you will see if you glance through my own review of it). She has had very good ideas with the books but some don't seem to have surfaced in the way I had hoped them to. But that doesn't necessarily mean she is a bad writer does it??

[Zoran]

5 year old kid has ideas, but that doesn't make it a writer.

[Mickey]

I think what makes the Twilight books so interesting is her willingness to take risks. I really hope that she doesn't allow the criticism she gets to change this about her. I like the fact that her main character is a girl who isn't the cookie cutter role model. I like that she created her own version of supernatural creatures. She offers something different from the norm.

Some people have a hard time with change.

[Haley]

Mickey wrote: "I think what makes the Twilight books so interesting is her willingness to take risks. I really hope that she doesn't allow the criticism she gets to change this about her. I like the fact that her..."

That's a really good point - I like that.

[Zoran]

That SM is a horrible writer, is a fact. But what is interesting to me are the people who like those books anyway.

It reminds me of being 16, when I was completely into metal music. I only wanted to listen to metal, and I would rather listen to some really shitty lo-fi concert bootleg of a really bad demo metal band, than to some really good, quality musician of some other musical genre. I didn't want quality, I just wanted metal.

It's the same with SM fans. You guys don't really care for good writing, you just want vampire romances and some prince charming that you can dream of. And the fact that SM couldn't write well if it ment her life, that is not really your concern.

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "It's the same with SM fans. You guys don't really care for good writing, you just want vampire romances and some prince charming that you can dream of. And the fact that SM couldn't write well if it ment her life, that is not really your concern."

Lots of Twilight fans read other books that don't feature vampire romance or romance at all. I don't know where you're getting your information that Twilight fans don't read other types of books, but it's faulty.

[Haley]

Zoran wrote: "That SM is a horrible writer, is a fact. But what is interesting to me are the people who like those books anyway.

It reminds me of being 16, when I was completely into metal music. I only wanted ..."

That's kind of a harsh judgement.

[Mickey]

Thinking it over, I don't think that people who read only in a certain genre are a lower class of reader than those of us who "play the field". There are good books and excellent writers in every genre: romance, supernatural, science fiction, fantasy. There's really no cause to be a snob about it.

To put forth an argument that someone is not a good writer or others are not good readers based on the fact that they write or read in a certain genre is a little ignorant.

[Haley]

Also, I know a lot of boys who read and like Twilight, and they are not looking for a "Prince Charming" as far as I know.

[Eva]

Zoran wrote: "That SM is a horrible writer, is a fact. But what is interesting to me are the people who like those books anyway.

It reminds me of being 16, when I was completely into metal music. I only wanted ..."

a very wrong judgement

[Gerd]

Zoran wrote: "It reminds me of being 16, when I was completely into metal music. I only wanted to listen to metal, and I would rather listen to some really shitty lo-fi concert bootleg of a really bad demo metal band, than to some really good, quality musician of some other musical genre. I didn't want quality, I just wanted metal...."

So, in essence, you are saying that it's about favouring entertainment over technical perfection - nothing wrong with that I'd say.

[Mickey]

Haley wrote: "Also, I know a lot of boys who read and like Twilight, and they are not looking for a "Prince Charming" as far as I know."

A lot of the flak that Twilight gets is just old misogynistic thinking that tales of romance (being seen as women's concerns) are somehow inferior to other types of stories.

[Haley]

Mickey wrote: "Haley wrote: "Also, I know a lot of boys who read and like Twilight, and they are not looking for a "Prince Charming" as far as I know."

A lot of the flak that Twilight gets is just old misogynist..."

Yep - I agree.

[Nermin]

i have to agree with Zoran.

[Mickey]

Gerd wrote: "So, in essence, you are saying that it's about favouring entertainment over technical perfection - nothing wrong with that I'd say."

How is his metal analogy about entertainment over technical perfection? It's about being a fan of a certain genre and preferring that genre over others, which doesn't apply to Twilight fans anyway.

[Mickey]

Narmin wrote: "i have to agree with Zoran."

You think that Twilight fans don't read outside the romance or supernatural genre?

[Kit Kat]

I think that she is a good writer the plot was just stupid

[Gerd]

Mickey wrote: "How is his metal analogy about entertainment over technical perfection? It's about being a fan of a certain genre and preferring that genre over others, which doesn't apply to Twilight fans anyway."

Because a (Metal) fan listens to (or reads) what entertains him, what speaks to him - inspite of any technical or other merit.

Unless he meant to say that he listened to metal, any kind of, because it fed his youthful aggression - however, in that case I'd still think that it would be possible to draw a line to being a fan of vampire romance, even if the drive was a very different one.

[Mickey]

What entertains someone and what speaks to someone are two different things. He didn't talk about entertainment. His point was that staying within a certain genre meant that you didn't care about quality. That is the parallel he drew.

I don't know where he got his information that Twilight fans do not read in other genres or that they have read extensively in supernatural or romance genres, but he would be wrong in my case on both points. I figured he should know that he's making assumptions that are not true.

[Linda]

Mickey wrote: "Zoran wrote: "It's the same with SM fans. You guys don't really care for good writing, you just want vampire romances and some prince charming that you can dream of. And the fact that SM couldn't w..."

Perfect :)

[Gerd]

Mickey wrote: "His point was that staying within a certain genre meant that you didn't care about quality."

Ah, okay.
That's a strange assumption to make; I'd say people stay with certain genres either because of the (felt) quality or because of the familiarity. That staying with a genre equals to not caring for quality - hmm, can't see that.

[[deleted user]]

Stephenie has scored a bloody good number of fans.This only means that she is a bloody good writer or people,nowadays,fall for everything gooey romantic.

[Lindsay]

I don't think she's a bad writer exactly...

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

It's marketable and straight forward. Bland for lack of a better word.

[M.R.]

I think most of the problems with Twilight could actually be blamed on bad editing. Most books undergo intensive rewriting AFTER the author has completed the final draft. The editing is supposed to catch awkward turns of phrase, misplaced or missing commas, excessive use of sentence fragments, overused words, and words snagged from a thesaurus that aren't actually used in the appropriate context.
Meyer's got all of those, but a lot of authors do. Someone should have caught them before they were put into print.

Of course, there's not much editing can do about flat characters. The fact remains that very few of the characters had any personality or relatable motivation, and Meyer is completely mistaken in thinking that a tabula rasa character is necessary for the reader to invest in the story. That was bad writing.

Personally, I would have preferred to read a story about Alice and Rosalie. The bubbly punk and the tortured bitch were actually very interesting.

[Zoran]

Mickey wrote:
A lot of the flak that Twilight gets is just old misogynist..."

LOL if there is something misogynistic about "Twilight", that's the whole Bella - Edward relationship, and her complete dependance on him :-))

[Anu]

I don't think Stephanie is a bad writer. She did fantastic with her first book Twilight. It was her later books, perhaps, that brought this disgrace of not being a crafty author. I remember seeing Mr. Stephen King's comments on Mayer. It was unfortunate, what else to say. But other than than, I don't find anything wrong with her craft.

[Gin]

Twilight is a horrible series, i dislike it very much, I do not have the taste for SM's 'writing style'. Though to call it that might be a bit too generous.

[Rana]

I personally think she's an awesome writer..The Host is actually one of the best books on earth! and even though I really hated Twilight and the whole concept of it..yet her way of writing it made me read it in two days!

[Zoran]

Gerd wrote: "So, in essence, you are saying that it's about favouring entertainment over technical perfection - nothing wrong with that I'd say."

It's nothing wrong with that, unless if we are talking about technical perfection :-))

I might be more entertained by Steve Jones guitar playing than by Mark Knopfler's guitar playing, but that doesn't make Steve Jones a good guitar player.

So, SM has entertained a lot of people, and it is obvious that she is a good entertainer, but that doesn't make her a good writer. Just as Steve Jones never was a good guitar player.

[Madog]

Oh, she is a great writer! can you write a story that amazing?!?! I love her!

[Haley]

Zoran wrote: "Gerd wrote: "So, in essence, you are saying that it's about favouring entertainment over technical perfection - nothing wrong with that I'd say."

It's nothing wrong with that, unless if we are tal..."

Ok, now I see where you're coming from - that makes sense.

[Gerd]

Zoran wrote: "I might be more entertained by Steve Jones guitar playing than by Mark Knopfler's guitar playing, but that doesn't make Steve Jones a good guitar player."

True that, but, say, Karajan might have been a brilliant orchester director, but that doesn't make him necessarily an enjoyable artist ... and, in art, that's usually the bottom line of what counts.

Pollock was, by all I've seen by him, a terrible artist, none the less some people enjoy(ed) his work enough to pay good money for it.

Quality, if we ain't talking technical perfection, which is a fine skill to have, is difficult, if not impossible, to judge objectively.

[Deliriate]

She is a terrible writer. Just because she cashed in on some weird dream she had one night and that most teenage girls (and other population groups) that just so happened to like what had came out of it, doesn't mean she's a good writer. Like someone said earlier, a 5 year old child can have ideas too. The way they convey it is another.

[Mickey]

Zoran wrote: "LOL if there is something misogynistic about "Twilight", that's the whole Bella - Edward relationship, and her complete dependance on him"

No, Zoran, I'm calling your dismissal of the theme into "waiting for Prince Charming" to be misogynistic. Doesn't it derive from a discounting of "women's themes"? Love isn't as weighty of an issue as others?

As for your defense, I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Why don't you try to explain?

[Zoran]

Gerd wrote: "Pollock was, by all I've seen by him, a terrible artist, none the less some people enjoy(ed) his work enough to pay good money for it.

Quality, if we ain't talking technical perfection, which is a fine skill to have, is difficult, if not impossible, to judge objectively. "

I'm not a visual artist so I might be wrong here, but my impression is that most people see Pollock as a quack who was just dripping and spilling paint around. But those who are into painting, they understand his value and are willing to pay for his work. I would say that Pollock is an opposite to Mayer, in a sense that her work is crowd-pleaser, while his work is appreciated by smaller but better informed audience.