Twilight
discussion
Do you think the whole Twilight series would be better if...?
I read these books in middle school/early high school and I did like them back then. Except for the 4th one, it has always bugged me. It was just one big easy-peezy ending. Bella's special vamp power is that she can control herself, oh, AND Edward gets to read her thoughts? And even though her daughter is growing super fast (and she shouldn't have been able to have her in the first place) she stops at a reasonable age and stays immortal? Let's not forgot about Nessie and Jacob either... It was just resolved so boringly and perfectly, there was no reason why the last book needed to be so long.
When I went back and reread the first book last year I couldn't connect to it anymore. It was perfect when I was feeling dramatic and angst-ridden as a tween, but now- not so much.
Melodic_May wrote: "Everything I read has romance in it. Everything. I don't care what other genres are in the book as well, unlike you, but it all has romance in it. In my time on GR I've labeled 135 stories as read. That is practically the only thing I read. If there's no romance in it I'm not interested.
Some of Stephen King's novels have romantic sub-plots. That doesn't mean that he's a romance writer, though. I care about the other genres present only in the sense that I realize that a typical urban fantasy heroine tends to be a lot different from a typical chick-lit heroine. There are actually definable genre differences between the various sub-genres of romance. You seem to lean toward urban fantasy and I actually do think there is a very distinct difference between urban fantasy and paranormal romance.
I don't think you realize how angry that statement made me, or what I had to rewrite because you apologized. The important part of this, however, is not that you didn't think it rude or ignorant, but that you don't see this statement you made as wrong. So it's very hard to accept your apology when you aren't sorry for the right thing. Especially when you don't see it as rude or ignorant, but are sorry that I see it as that way.
I've apologized for the comment. You are within your rights to accept or not accept. That is entirely your prerogative.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Some of Stephen King's novels have romantic sub-plots. That doesn't mean that he's a romance writer, though. I care about the other genres present only in the sense that I realize that a typical urban fantasy heroine tends to be a lot different from a typical chick-lit heroine. There are actually definable genre differences between the various sub-genres of romance. You seem to lean toward urban fantasy and I actually do think there is a very distinct difference between urban fantasy and paranormal romance."I don't think you understand or read correctly, allow me to reiterate. Everything I read is predominantly romance focused. I have not read a book that had no romance in it since before I started GR. This however is highly irrelevant because the statement you made is not only narrow-minded, stereotypical twilight fan's response to people's differing, 'negative' opinions, it is wrong. You cannot even back it up to state why you think it is right and targeting my choice of books will not make you right or make that statement valid in any way. It has not been valid since the first fan said it and it still isn't valid now.
And this is why I do not accept your apology. As long as you hold onto views like this on this topic then your apology will always be meaningless to me.
Melodic_May wrote: "I don't think you understand or read correctly, allow me to reiterate. Everything I read is predominantly romance focused. I have not read a book that had no romance in it since before I started GR. This however is highly irrelevant because the statement you made is not only narrow-minded, stereotypical twilight fan's response to people's differing, 'negative' opinions, it is wrong. You cannot even back it up to state why you think it is right and targeting my choice of books will not make you right or make that statement valid in any way. It has not been valid since the first fan said it and it still isn't valid now. hmmm.......the more you explain or reiterate, the more I secretly start to think that I may have been right after all...
Yes, the books on your romance shelf have romance in them. I did not say that they didn't. However, a novel having romance in it, even as a major plot vs a novel actually being a "romance novel" are entirely two different things from a genre perspective. That's partly why Nora Roberts writes her romantic suspense novels as "JD Robb". The books written as JD Robb are distinctly different in genre from the romances that she is known for as Nora Roberts.
I looked at your romance shelf and wondered if all of the urban fantasy on it influences how you view Twilight, which is very different and whether the same also applies to me and my shelves.
I've told you before how I thought some of the things that you said would make Twilight better in your view would have ruined the book for me and completely taken it out of it's genre in my view.
I know of people who lean toward historical romances and typically hate ya romances. I know of romance readers who hate Nicholas Sparks for many reasons, but partly because in their view, a good romance must have an optimistic HEA and many Nicholas Sparks' books tend to have sad or bittersweet endings. I know of romance readers who lean toward contemporaries who despise the rapey bodice rippers that Kathleen Woodwiss and Johanna Lindsey are known for. I know of Danielle Steele fans who like any depicted sex to be classy that can't stand the current crop of smexy romances with uber alpha billionaires that are popular right now.
To that end, I do believe that genre preferences might possibly influence how someone responds to a book. This isn't an absolute by any means, but there have been many instances where I've encountered someone on goodreads who says "I hated Fifty Shades of Grey" and their romance shelves is all Daniel Steele, Judith Krantz and Barbara Delinski.....my first thought is, "Duh!! Of course!." Even taking into account the poor writing factor, their dislike of t makes sense to me.
And this is why I do not accept your apology. As long as you hold onto views like this on this topic then your apology will always be meaningless to me.
ok. whatever floats your boat. Like I said, your prerogative.
@mochaspresso ( I'm mobile so I hope I spelled that correctly ) I just read your comment and although I don't know the entire debate between you two however I agree with you in what you said how when people have a genre preference and how it influences a new book. I know when I read books outside of my favorite genres I always think if how they could have made it fit into that specific genre I like so much. Even if I truly love the book I'm reading, it always comes across my mind.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "I don't think you understand or read correctly, allow me to reiterate. Everything I read is predominantly romance focused. I have not read a book that had no romance in it since..."I don't think you can truly judge genre by goodreads shelves. I read a lot of books that aren't listed, either because they haven't got the titles on here, I read them too long ago, or else I want to forget ever reading them. I can't be the only person not listing all books.
Likewise, you're judging a books genre on your own concepts of those genres. Using your example, is a Jilly Cooper really romance, or is it romantic erotica? Would you say one, and someone else say another? It's too ambiguous to use as a judging point.
I agree with Melodic_May on the whole concept of romance. It's the only genre which appears, in any of it's disguises, in all other books. There's romance of sorts in sci-fi, fantasy, crime, horror, children's books, historical novels ... romance is the one story element anyone can comment on. Because without love in some form, you cannot make the relationships (or lack thereof) work throughout the story.
And as was pointed out earlier, Stephenie in all her ignorance does NOT class Twilight as a paranormal romance. We have to go by the genre she defined it as. And she failed horribly at it.
Mochaspresso wrote: "hmmm.......the more you explain or reiterate, the more I secretly start to think that I may have been right after all...."Nope. Still wrong. Because your statement is a generalization of too many people for you to even begin to be right about it. Twilight is a romance. To say many of the people who critique it don't like romance books and think you're right about it is just very sad. And also wrong. And because this is such a stereotypical response from a Twilight fan what little respect I had for you, despite the many tiffs we get in, is dwindling so fast.
Besides, my reiteration of me liking romance doesn't mean that you are actually right in one instance where someone who critiques is doesn't like romance. This isn't opposite day. Yes doesn't mean no, the world is still round, and my love of romance still knows no bounds so no, not liking romance is not the reason I don't like Twilight. That statement is just to petulant and still wrong and automatically makes you wrong when the census for that statement is just too huge for your generalization to even begin to be correct. Why make that statement and think that my protesting it means you're secretly right, even with proof of my love for romance right in your face?
Siobhan wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "I don't think you understand or read correctly, allow me to reiterate. Everything I read is predominantly romance focused. I have not read a book that had ..."I'm not diligent about listing books at all. I mainly use goodreads to keep track of the trashy beach reads because many of those are series and I would never be able to keep the installments straight without it. That's part of why I originally apologized for some of the generalizations that I made based on goodreads shelves.
I tried to access the interview that someone mentioned appeared in Modern English Teacher and wasn't able to find it upon a cursory search. I could try logging into my grad school account and searching there but it just isn't that serious. I'll just take your word for it and say that in the interviews that I have read and/or saw, she has never denied that Twilight was a romance.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20049...
If you pitched the first book to publishers as a ''suspense romance horror comedy,'' which of those do you think your books are most?
I think that it's romance more than anything else, but it's just not that romance-y. It's hard to nail down, but romance tends to be my favorite part of any book or movie, because that's really the strongest emotion. Orson Scott Card is my favorite: The romances are a small part of his books, but they bring his people to life.
(btw, I don't classify Orson Scott Card as "romance". He mostly writes Science Fiction, imo. But whatever)
Twilight is typically classified as "YA paranormal romance" pretty much everywhere else out in the real world. This thread is the first and only place that I have ever encountered people who attempt to deny it.
However, I will say that the one thing that I've noticed about Stephanie Meyer is that she tries to answer to and appease her critics. I think it's to her detriment at times in the sense that those people have typically already made up their minds and can't be swayed, so why even bother? A die-hard sci-fi fan is not going to be sold on Meyer's explanations for how Edward and Bella had a baby. The criticism wasn't affecting her sales or her success...so I didn't see the point of bothering to address it at all.
I've never read anything by Jilly Cooper, but I will say that the genre differences between romance, erotic romance and erotica are not really all that ambiguous. At least, not to me. I like the way Sylvia Day explains it....
https://www.sylviaday.com/extras/erot...
Oh, I don't deny that it would fall in the genre of paranormal romance, but Stephenie herself has said in interviews that it wasn't. But that probably fits with your backtracking about Stephenie trying to appease people, since your quotation contradicts her other comments. Which actually means I have less respect for her as an author.I'm not saying it's easy to classify a story - god knows I'm struggling to apply a genre to mine (high school coming of age? Moral tale? The importance of friendship? Overcoming adversity? Romance? What would you call two whiny teenagers who grow together over seven books?) but once you decide what your story is, stick to your damn decision.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "hmmm.......the more you explain or reiterate, the more I secretly start to think that I may have been right after all...."Nope. Still wrong. Because your statement is a gene..."
I agree that it was a generalization and I admitted it. I admit that it may not always be accurate to make generalizations about a person's reading preferences just by perusing their goodreads shelves. (Even though, that is partly what the shelves were designed to do. It's just that not everyone is as diligent about how they update and organize them.) However, I don't think I was wrong about how clear distinct genre preferences may possibly influence how one perceives a book outside of that genre. If someone prefers kick-ass heroines, they may not necessarily like a book that features a weak damsel in distress. A person who does not have that particular preference would not see a weak heroine as an inherent flaw.
Other than your goodreads shelves, what exactly is "in my face"? If you are speaking specifically of your goodreads romance shelf, it actually doesn't demonstrate a love of the romance genre (ie...all encompassing umbrella of romance) overall to me. Just a certain type. Your shelves demonstrate a love of urban fantasy, sci-fi and paranormals with major romantic sub-plots. You say you love romance and I believed you. At least I did, until you insisted that your love of romance was "in my face" because if I'm forced to judge only by what's in my face, I wouldn't have come to that conclusion.
You seem to want your cake and eat it too. You don't want me to look at your shelf and make generalizations about your reading preferences.....but then you go on to say that your shelf clearly demonstrates XYZ and then you get offended when I don't see precisely what you want me to in your shelf. It's not so much that you don't want me to make generalizations....you want me to make the one that you personally approve of.
Samantha wrote: "@mochaspresso ( I'm mobile so I hope I spelled that correctly ) I just read your comment and although I don't know the entire debate between you two however I agree with you in what you said how wh..."I readily admit that my preferences affect how I perceive certain books. I know that I'm not a fan of dark reads and tend to judge those much more harshly than I do the lighter chick-lits. I think having preferences is perfectly normal.
Mochaspresso wrote: "However, I don't think I was wrong about how clear distinct genre preferences may possibly influence how one perceives a book outside of that genre."Meant to say this before, but this is also irrelevant. When it comes to me at least. I was not influenced by anything that I've read that is on my shelves because like Stephen King's books, I read Twilight before I signed up for GoodReads. You hit another dead end here because this doesn't pertain to me.
"Other than your goodreads shelves, what exactly is "in my face"? If you are speaking specifically of your goodreads romance shelf, it actually doesn't demonstrate a love of the romance genre (ie...all encompassing umbrella of romance) overall to me. Just a certain type. Your shelves demonstrate a love of urban fantasy, sci-fi and paranormals with major romantic sub-plots. You say you love romance and I believed you. At least I did, until you insisted that your love of romance was "in my face" because if I'm forced to judge only by what's in my face, I wouldn't have come to that conclusion."
This is like telling someone while wearing merchandise for some product like Pepsi or drinking it that you love Pepsi, but they insist that by the liquid contents of your fridge that you don't love Pepsi. Random comparison but this is exactly like it. Once more, I love romance books. I don't care what else is going on in the book, if it has romance and its the main plot then I will read because I love romance books. You analyzing my shelves won't make me go, "Okay, you got me. I don't like romance." Because that won't happen and again, this wont be a instance where your generalization can be proved right for one person at least. I don't know why you insist to say you know me better than me and thus that I don't like romance books or the romance genre as much as I say I do. It's baffling.
"You seem to want your cake and eat it too. You don't want me to look at your shelf and make generalizations about your reading preferences.....but then you go on to say that your shelf clearly demonstrates XYZ and then you get offended when I don't see precisely what you want me to in your shelf. It's not so much that you don't want me to make generalizations....you want me to make the one that you personally approve of. "
Because my read shelf is filled with romance books. How am I not supposed to be some type of upset that you're saying that I don't know myself or my reading preference enough to say that I love romance books? This doesn't make sense. My read shelf is literally 125 books of romance with 10 that have no romance in it. Wow, I must not love romance as much as I say I do and 'the lady doth protest too much'. Really? And you don't understand why I wasn't okay with your generalization or the fact that you're trying to say that you believe me to not like romance and that is why I didn't like Twilight.
You're over analyzing my shelves and saying that it correlates with me not liking romance but you are giving yourself slack for your not so organized shelves, and have a thriving love for romance books. What gives? What is the point of trying to drag this out when your opinion of me won't outshine a fact about me and how you're wrong and how you admitted it already.
I don't like derailing threads and never do I come in here to derail them or troll them. Why must you go tit for tat with me all the time? Especially now when it's your opinion of me V.S. 1) a fact about me, and 2) you already admitting you were wrong to generalize a group of people and how the statement was wrong? You're not going to be right here, disregarding those two points won't leave open the door for more talk about it, not with me at least.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I readily admit that my preferences affect how I perceive certain books. I know that I'm not a fan of dark reads and tend to judge those much more harshly than I do the lighter chick-lits. I think having preferences is perfectly normal. "And another thing, why assume that because what you read effects your perception of books means that it's the same with me? It's not. Which is another reason bringing up what's on my shelves is irrelevant.
Melodic_May wrote: "And another thing, why assume that because what you read effects your perception of books means that it's the same with me? It's not. Which is another reason bringing up what's on my shelves is irrelevant. I didn't say "what you read". I said "preferences" and I honestly do believe that applies to everyone and is completely normal and understandable. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I also think that you are in denial if you think that personal preferences never have any bearing on how you may respond to literature.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "However, I don't think I was wrong about how clear distinct genre preferences may possibly influence how one perceives a book outside of that genre."Meant to say this before..."
I already said that it was a generalization that I shouldn't have made based on someone's goodreads shelves and apologized for it. You didn't accept and I said ok, whatever floats your boat. It seems to me that the conversation really should have been done at that point.
This is very weird discussion for me. In the real world, I don't have to explain how "Daughter of Smoke and Bone" is very different from "The Notebook". You keep telling me about the 125 romance books on your shelf AFTER you told me that I shouldn't make generalizations about your shelf. Why? Either you want to me to consider what's on your shelves or you don't. I thought you said that what's on them is irrelevant to this discussion? If it's irrelevant, then whatever I think about your shelves and how you choose to categorize your books doesn't and shouldn't matter.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "And another thing, why assume that because what you read effects your perception of books means that it's the same with me? It's not. Which is another reason bringing up what's ..."It's not denial. It's me saying that no, my preference of genre doesn't effect how I respond to books, which is what you said the first time you brought it up, not personal preferences and how they effect how one perceives books.
Mochaspresso wrote: "This is very weird discussion for me. In the real world, I don't have to explain how "Daughter of Smoke and Bone" is very different from "The Notebook". You keep telling me about the 125 romance books on your shelf AFTER you told me that I shouldn't make generalizations about your shelf. Why? Either you want to me to consider what's on your shelves or you don't. I thought you said that what's on them is irrelevant to this discussion? If it's irrelevant, then whatever I think about your shelves and how you choose to categorize your books doesn't and shouldn't matter. "Firstly Mocha, if you didn't want to dig into my shelves and try to nit pick it then you should've never brought it up in the first place.
Secondly, they're both romances to me. I would never read or watch the NoteBook because I just don't care for it, but they both contain romance. It's that simple. No need to over-analyze it. My shelves are filled with romance books and thus there is no reason for you to have tried to use that as a way to say that what's on my shelves somehow proves that I don't like romance books and because of that don't like Twilight. it's that simple.I never wanted you to consider what's on my shelves, you did. There's no, "I'm going back on what I said" or, "trying to have my cake and eat it too." I read romance, I like romance. That is it. You don't want to talk about my shelves and don't want to be confused anymore? Then stop trying to use my shelved books to make a point.
That's it, that is all. There is no way to make it any clearer and thus am done derailing this thread with you.
You know what else would've made this series better? If the kids in the HS were better friends. I never liked that from page one it was always going to be the Cullens and that her and they were MFEO.
Melodic_May wrote: "You know what else would've made this series better? If the kids in the HS were better friends. I never liked that from page one it was always going to be the Cullens and that her and they were MFEO."Or hell, if any of the named characters were given a subplot to give them depth. Otherwise, why should we care about Eric or Lauren or whoever? What's the point?
Siobhan wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "You know what else would've made this series better? If the kids in the HS were better friends. I never liked that from page one it was always going to be the Cullens and that h..."The point's obviously so Bella can feel vindicated in treating them the way she does. Even if they weren't better friends, I would've taken them sounding realistic instead of so stereotypical and flat.
Ya know, this topic actually reminds me of this fanfic series by TPrinces where she rewrote the series. i just started it. have you heard of it?
If they were realistic, there may have been actual conflict to justify Bella being such a bitch about them. And that would have sparked my interest.I haven't read that, but I do love correct!fics. I'll google :)
Siobhan wrote: "If they were realistic, there may have been actual conflict to justify Bella being such a bitch about them. And that would have sparked my interest.I haven't read that, but I do love correct!fics..."
Yes! Make it evident that they don't like her and what for and are still trying to be her 'friends' and later betray her. In no world in existence do new kids get some fantastical golden treatment on their first day of school and have no less than six people flock to them with friendship. It would've been better that if they truly weren't going to be her friend that they faked it with ulterior motives.
Or on the flip side, that they actually give two shits and want to be apart of her life instead of just being placeholders. It would've been nice to have someone that Bella could talk to about the stress of getting herself in a dangerous situation for 'love', like Jessica. She could've been an actual sympathetic ear for her. Just so much more than the half assed attempt Meyer made.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "This is very weird discussion for me. In the real world, I don't have to explain how "Daughter of Smoke and Bone" is very different from "The Notebook". You keep telling me ab..."You've never read or watched "The Notebook" yet can definitively say that you don't care for it. Not only that, you can also definitively say that you would never watch or read it because you don't care for it AND you claim that personal preferences don't affect you perceive literature?
It doesn't matter whether I consider your shelves or not. I'd still come to same conclusions just going by the conversations we've had.
From a genre standpoint, the suggestions that you guys are making take the book out of it's genre for me. It turns Twilight into YA chick-lit along the lines of "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" rather than a paranormal romance.....and yes, even if the chick-lit book in question does feature a romance, there are distinct differences between the two genres.
Mochaspresso wrote: "From a genre standpoint, the suggestions that you guys are making take the book out of it's genre for me. It turns Twilight into YA chick-lit along the lines of "The Sisterhood of the Traveling P..."Not at all, because it still wouldn't be the focus. We're saying that the other characters mentioned have so little relevance that they don't add to the story at all. They're there to increase word count. Either eliminate, or justify. What if they had pretended to be Bella's friend and embarrassed her horribly? Edward could have been a real hero, by protecting Bella, chewing them out and resisting the urge to kill them. The contrast between the human friends and the Cullens could have been more striking. But Meyer's a lazy writer, so I guess it's not surprising that she'd mention these people and then never build on them.
Siobhan wrote: "Not at all, because it still wouldn't be the focus. We're saying that the other characters mentioned have so little relevance that they don't add to the story at all. They're there to increase word count. Either eliminate, or justify. What if they had pretended to be Bella's friend and embarrassed her horribly? Edward could have been a real hero, by protecting Bella, chewing them out and resisting the urge to kill them. The contrast between the human friends and the Cullens could have been more striking. But Meyer's a lazy writer, so I guess it's not surprising that she'd mention these people and then never build on them. Chick-lit tends to make the heroine's relationships with friends and family important to the plot. Romance focuses mainly on the romantic relationship between the two main characters. Creating more drama between Bella and her friends and having Edward protect her has nothing to do with their actual romantic relationship other than reinforcing the damsel in distress needing a Capt Save a Ho trope that some criticized Twilight for having in the first place.
Honestly, isn't that also a trope that's common and been done to death already? ...and what does that suggested storyline have to do with the story of Edward and Bella's romantic relationship? In order to do what you're suggesting, you'd have to 1) establish the characters 2) establish a motivation for them that goes beyond basic petty mean-girl jealousy. Devoting time to developing that type of story line seems like a tangent. A cliched one at that. That's exactly the reason why I didn't like "Beautiful Creatures". The book focused too heavily on cliched small southern town politics rather than further developing the Caster world. That extra focus on the petty mean girl shit at school ruined the book for me. To the point where I wanted Ridley and Lena to use their powers and just blow up the whole building and be done with it. (btw, the book was bad to begin with and imo, they totally butchered the book to make an even worse movie.) It really has been done to death. You can go chick-lit with that story line and call it "Pretty Little Liars" or you can go horror with it and call it "Carrie".
Had SM done what you suggested, I would have been the one arguing that she was a lazy writer.
Siobhan wrote: "Not at all, because it still wouldn't be the focus. We're saying that the other characters mentioned have so little relevance that they don't add to the story at all. They're there to increase word count. Either eliminate, or justify. What if they had pretended to be Bella's friend and embarrassed her horribly? Edward could have been a real hero, by protecting Bella, chewing them out and resisting the urge to kill them. The contrast between the human friends and the Cullens could have been more striking. But Meyer's a lazy writer, so I guess it's not surprising that she'd mention these people and then never build on them. "The book is already filled with meaningless situations and people, why not make them have a purpose other than being placeholders? Bella's actions towards the kids in HS are undeserved and greatly influenced by what Edward thinks of them. Giving her an unbiased and just reason to treat them like shit would make it better. If Meyer's intention was to keep it strictly Paranormal Romance then she didn't need to add all those meaningless scenes with the HS kids and her hanging out, or her doing mundane things that slowed the plot down. She could've had Bella doing much more than the great nothing she did until the last 100 some odd pages.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "You've never read or watched "The Notebook" yet can definitively say that you don't care for it. Not only that, you can also definitively say that you would never watch or rea..."You knew of The Notebook.....
You've never read it or watched it....
You definitively know that you would never read it or watch it....
You definitively know that you never would because you don't care about it...
What happened to "if it has romance and its the main plot then I will read because I love romance books"? (I actually don't care whether you read or liked The Notebook or not. The Notebook is not the issue. The issue is that you clearly have a preference when it comes to which types of romance that you choose to read. A preference that I'm inclined to believe that your romance shelf actually does reflect.)
...and you also feel the same way about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.....
....and you genuinely think that personal preferences have nothing to do with any of the above?
Lol, at how you obstinately don't want to admit how personal preferences (...not which books you've read before or after reading whatever book....GENERAL PERSONAL PREFERENCES) possibly affect your choices in what you read and won't read, your perceptions of what you do choose to read and not read and how you respond to literature in general.
Personal preferences contribute to whether or not you "care" about something. Personal preference affect what you care about and what you are ambivalent or indifferent to. The more we discuss and the fact that you are going out of your way to play some sort of semantics game just makes me think all over again that your perceptions of certain books actually may not be as completely objective as you originally claimed.
By the by, I'm no longer going to continue this line of discussion with Mocha in this thread. And I want to make it clear that I will try to do this with other derailing discussions because it's not fair on other people tho post here/want to, and certainly not fair to the owner of this thread. I don't know about Mocha but I am sorry.
I can speak for myself and often do. :) I don't feel that I have anything to be sorry for in that regard. I spoke my mind, as did others. How exactly do you "own" a thread on a public forum that is open and available to anyone that wants to post anyway? My posting my opinion doesn't stop anyone from posting theirs if they want to. Don't be afraid to speak your mind. You are free to do so and others should be free to agree or disagree. Grow a thick skin and learn how to deal when someone disagreeing with you. This is not a private moderated message board. As long as you are following Goodreads guidelines, no one owns a thread and gets to dictate to others which direction the discussion goes in. If you want a place where you get to say what you want with no challenges, you need to establish a private moderated message board where each and every post has to be approved by the moderator before it gets posted.
btw, I have always hated those types of message boards. I've even managed to get myself banned from a few in my younger days. :)
Mochaspresso wrote: "I can speak for myself and often do. :) I don't feel that I have anything to be sorry for in that regard. I spoke my mind, as did others. How exactly do you "own" a thread on a public forum ..."
This isn't a private thread, but it is a thread where people should be respectful of others and not get into tiffs with each other and completely derail the thread, tossing away it's original purpose. As I said, respond or don't, I'm not going to continue that conversation with you here when it has nothing to do with the topic.
You are the one that asked me a question about something that I said (rather rudely, btw) and I responded to you. Multiple conversations can and often do go on at the same time within threads. That's the purpose of the reply button and quoting the person that you are replying to. All people have to do to get the thread back on topic is post something on topic again. ...and suggestions that affect and possibly even change the genre of Twilight are on topic because the topic is "Do you think Twilight would be better if...".
I understand that writing an entire book series of 4 very large books is not an easy task. I have tried creative writing myself and it is...tolling. And long. And an arduous journey, to say the least. That said, I respect Ms. Meyer for not only finishing this series, but making it a bestseller. Yes, there are many haters, myself being one, but she deserves our respect, no doubt.
So I don't think we should bash Stephanie that hard, but her style was a bit...iffy. The sentence structure was elementary and the flow was off. She did throw in a few big words here and there, but it felt forced, like the vocabulary assignment of a seventh grader.
Jbird wrote: "I understand that writing an entire book series of 4 very large books is not an easy task. I have tried creative writing myself and it is...tolling. And long. And an arduous journey, to say the ..."I actually agree with you about the prose. I never did think that it was well written. However, I am starting to rethink that view because of some other popular YA novels that I've recently read. Given the choice, I'd rather read pretentious and intelligently written purple prose even if it comes across as awkward and forced than prose that has been deliberately dumbed down just to seem more "authentic" yet still fails.
I'll second Jbird's post. The main problem for me, though, was the constant bludgeoning of the readers about Bella and Edward's love for each other. Just a little heavy handed there.
Mochaspresso wrote: "You are the one that asked me a question about something that I said (rather rudely, btw) and I responded to you. Multiple conversations can and often do go on at the same time within threads. That's the purpose of the reply button and quoting the person that you are replying to. All people have to do to get the thread back on topic is post something on topic again....and suggestions that affect and possibly even change the genre of Twilight are on topic because the topic is "Do you think Twilight would be better if...". "
Why would the genre be changed? No one has yet to bring up the change of the genre. So far people have been talking about what they'd like to see changed and none of it alters the paranormal romance genre that is Twilight.
And I offered to continue that conversation over PM because it quickly would've focused on us personally, as our conversations are wont to do and thus would've derailed the thread and made the thread all about us instead about Twilight.
You don't want to, then that's the end of it, no need to harp on it further. Next conversation!
The only thing I would change is making Bella a stronger female lead. I think it teaches young girls that it is okay to have your whole life revolve around a man.
Kayla wrote: "The only thing I would change is making Bella a stronger female lead. I think it teaches young girls that it is okay to have your whole life revolve around a man."Ya know, I always find it interesting when people bring this one up, and fans give the rebuttal that it's not teaching that, that young girls aren't stupid enough to take that to heart. I've always found this interesting because I would love to know what a fan of young age has to say on this matter because many fans who rebut this are anywhere from 20-mid 30s.
Melodic_May wrote: "Why would the genre be changed? No one has yet to bring up the change of the genre. So far people have been talking about what they'd like to see changed and none of it alters the paranormal romance genre that is Twilight. In your opinion. However, I was simply stating my opinion that suggestions about toning down the romance or adding cliched dramatic elements to Bella's interactions with her friends which having nothing to do with the paranormal or the romance would take the book away from it's genre and focus. I've read another paranormal romance ("Beautiful Creatures") that had the very elements that were suggested and thought that book was awful. Then, there is also the anti-feminist issues that people like to bring up with Twilight. I don't understand how adding additional friend drama by having girls squabble with each other like "Mean Girls" is "feminist". It isn't at all, imo.
There are (clearly biased, imo) articles online about how "Beautiful Creatures" is better and far less anti-feminist than Twilight. The bias comes into play here because these opinions are based on the movies and the movie version of "Beautiful Creatures" is significantly different from the book version. (They really did butcher that book. To the point, where it's probably impossible to continue with a sequel that follows the series with any sort of accuracy.)
Everyone says that "better" doesn't mean popularity or sales. However, the Twilight books have sold more than Beautiful Creatures and the movie franchise was very successful while Beautiful Creatures bombed at the box office. I'm still trying to work out this "better" and "quality" concept. People use these terms like it is an irrefutable fact rather than a personal opinion. The same thing happens with a lot of popular books. Everyone talks about how there is better out there. Then, I read some of their suggested "better" and think that it's not really all that much "better". The story elements just fit their personal agenda better and that's not really the same thing as actually being "better". If it is truly better, it should be the case for everyone. Not just a for a certain segment of folks who happen to share the same mindset. It's kind of like my union telling me that our last contract was "better" because it included a raise. Well, that's only better for those that cared more about the money. What if you were one of the ones who valued the concessions that were made (seniority, job security, longer work day, increased retirement age, increase co-pays for medical, changes to the pension etc...) more than the money?
And I offered to continue that conversation over PM because it quickly would've focused on us personally, as our conversations are wont to do and thus would've derailed the thread and made the thread all about us instead about Twilight.
You don't want to, then that's the end of it, no need to harp on it further. Next conversation!
I agree and even said that the conversation should have been over a while ago. Discussions of this nature do not need to be taken personally and there is no need to take it to pm because I've already said everything that I had to say. Anything else was simply an answer to a question that was asked of me or a response to something that was directed at me.
Kayla wrote: "The only thing I would change is making Bella a stronger female lead. I think it teaches young girls that it is okay to have your whole life revolve around a man."I think I could argue that the entire concept of marriage in our society actually teaches that far better than Twilight could ever hope to.
I'm probably opening another can of worms with this, but isn't this kind of a mixed message for girls? When they are young, teach them that their lives shouldn't revolve around a man and then when some of them are in their 30s and unmarried and on the verge of "spinsterhood" (in society's view...not mine), wonder what's wrong with them and why they haven't settled down yet?
Mochaspresso wrote: " However, I was simply stating my opinion that suggestions about toning down the romance or adding cliched dramatic elements to Bella's interactions with her friends which having nothing to do with the paranormal or the romance would take the book away from it's genre and focus."The first book is filled with 90% cliched dramatic elements that don't have anything to do with paranormal romance. And out of all of it only 10% of that 90 is the PR part and it's spaced far apart. I don't see how extrapolating on a few things would take away from its genre. For example, the people at her school. They're already given plenty of book time, with enough focus on them that changing a few things, like making them more genuine friends or the opposite wouldn't take away from anything, it would just be scene changing, not taking the focus away from the book's true intentions.
" I don't understand how adding additional friend drama by having girls squabble with each other like "Mean Girls" is "feminist". "
No one brought up feminism and don't wish to? Like, that is a whole other story that no one cares to bring up, at least not I. and as I said above, Meyer already has that element in her story, expanding it in scenes wouldn't take the focus away from what the book is really about because she's had 428 pages to do everything but focus on the PR element of the story.
" I'm still trying to work out this "better" and "quality" concept. People use these terms like it is an irrefutable fact rather than a personal opinion."
Just like you in these paragraphs about BC. Some would tell you BC is better than Twilight, you'd say differently. But it is a fact that better and quality doesn't equal popularity or what sales. I don't understand how you see differently, but that's your opinion.
" Everyone talks about how there is better out there. Then, I read some of their suggested "better" and think that it's not really all that much "better". The story elements just fit their personal agenda better and that's not really the same thing as actually being "better". If it is truly better, it should be the case for everyone."
I am unsure if you're implying otherwise, but this is all opinion. What's better to you of course won't be better to others, that's why people discuss it.
Wow. Okay, first of all I've had a shitty couple of days and haven't been on here and still don't feel like talking much. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.-in canon, Bella is adored by everyone at high school. This is repeated, and therefore a huge part of the plot.
-in canon, she ignores the other high schoolers, and belittles them for not being like the Cullen's.
-in canon (midnight sun) we are shown Jessica's thoughts from Edwards perspective. She is bitter and two-faced.
-in the guide, we learn that Lauren, who has a very small role, was duped by a fake modelling agency and it resulted in her chopping off her hair.
I was led to believe that, if you write a gun into a book, the gun must go off at the end. All details included must have a relevance. So the above must come together in a conclusion of it's own subplot. That's basic. And Stephenie didn't do that. So either remove high school and Bella's popularity from the book, or expand upon it. And there are many ways to do that - she could have been so innocent looking that the high school boys wanted to use her because they'd gone through all the other girls. Jessica et al could have just been jealous of the attention and overtly shown that, until Edward stepped up and showed Bella she was worth more than the high school boys and how to ignore the gossip. Maybe some of the routes are cliche and derivative, but hey, I'm just trying to do the world-building that Stephenie couldn't be bothered to do.
Your readers shouldn't be speculating on dead herrings, you should endeavour to wrap everything up, or cut whatever's not relevant. If you have readers doing that, then you're not a good reader.
Still wondering, also, on the relevance of Bella's sandwich. Oh, and the bottle cap!
Melodic_May wrote: "The first book is filled with 90% cliched dramatic elements that don't have anything to do with paranormal romance. And out of all of it only 10% of that 90 is the PR part and it's spaced far apart. I don't see how extrapolating on a few things would take away from its genre. For example, the people at her school. They're already given plenty of book time, with enough focus on them that changing a few things, like making them more genuine friends or the opposite wouldn't take away from anything, it would just be scene changing, not taking the focus away from the book's true intentions.
I knew what Twilight was when I picked up the book (...I'm not implying that you or others didn't. I'm just speaking for myself and my pov). When I read romances, I'm not overly concerned with side characters unless it directly affects the romance between the main characters or if I know that the book is part of a series where the side characters will eventually get their own book.
I didn't care for this book, but it one that I've read recently where the friends are actually part of the romantic conflict.
The best friend gives the heroine (awful, imo) advice on her relationship with the
hero (....and I have a very hard time referring to Jesse as a "hero", lol.) The heroine's best friend is also dating the hero's best friend and conflict is created because when there is a problem in one of the relationships, it strains the others. (ie....taking sides, being caught in the middle etc.) Even though I disliked the book, this book actually is an example of where the side plots of the friends does directly affect the romance between the main characters.
Going by what you said above, if it's "filler" anyway and doesn't have anything to do with the paranormal romance between Bella and Edward, I don't see how scene changing actually makes the overall romance or the book any better. If Twilight were chick-lit or urban fantasy, perhaps, but as a paranormal romance, it doesn't.
I also think it's actually more than just scene changing because you would have to devote more time to those characters than SM did to establish those suggested story lines. Imo, more time to a side story line that ultimately will have nothing to do with the romance between Bella and Edward. The only way that I can see making what you guys are suggesting work is if the Forks HS friends eventually find out about the Cullens and the wolves and/or if they are/were actively involved in those paranormal and romantic conflicts all along in some way. In a nutshell if you want to change or write more about the friends, then the friends need to be part of the paranormal romantic conflicts between Bella and Edward in some way. If not, additional or altered focus on those friends is unnecessary and doesn't add to the romance story line.
(btw, I am taking into consideration that I appear to be far more strict about genre than others are. Imo, urban fantasy and paranormal romance are different genres. In paranormal romance, the main story and focus is the romance. That's not always the case in urban fantasies with romantic sub-plots in them. You guys seem to see them as all the same because of the existence of a romance whereas I don't.)
No one brought up feminism and don't wish to? Like, that is a whole other story that no one cares to bring up, at least not I. and as I said above, Meyer already has that element in her story, expanding it in scenes wouldn't take the focus away from what the book is really about because she's had 428 pages to do everything but focus on the PR element of the story.
It's true that no one has brought up feminism in this thread but it has been brought up as a criticism in others. I was just thinking out loud about how I found it ironic that Twilight is called anti-feminist and yet one of the suggested story changes to make it better was to expand a "Mean Girls" reminiscent sub-plot.
Just like you in these paragraphs about BC. Some would tell you BC is better than Twilight, you'd say differently. But it is a fact that better and quality doesn't equal popularity or what sales. I don't understand how you see differently, but that's your opinion.
It is my opinion and I guess what I am trying to say is that I am not so sure of that "fact" anymore. (...that better and quality doesn't equal popularity or what sells.) I think personal values and preferences drive what is perceived as "better" and "quality" to each individual.
I am unsure if you're implying otherwise, but this is all opinion. What's better to you of course won't be better to others, that's why people discuss it.
Totally agree. I'm just leery when people use the word "better" like it is a fact rather than an opinion and refuse to even acknowledge any potential validity of an opposing view.
Siobhan wrote: "Wow. Okay, first of all I've had a shitty couple of days and haven't been on here and still don't feel like talking much. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.-in canon, Bella is adored by every..."
I feel it's bad that I remember Bella's sandwich even with how little it mattered because she went into such intricate detail. How she prepared it, what was in it, the fact that Jacob and her were talking about something and asked Jacob to get her a plate. Just so much intricacies that weren't needed for a thing that didn't matter.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Going by what you said above, if it's "filler" anyway and doesn't have anything to do with the paranormal romance between Bella and Edward, I don't see how scene changing actually makes the overall romance or the book any better. If Twilight were chick-lit or urban fantasy, perhaps, but as a paranormal romance, it doesn't. "Because it would've made it better, it would've made it not filler and thus important. It's such a big part of the book but has very little to no importance to the over all plot. Changing this aspect or redoing it entirely would've made it the paranormal romance that it was meant to be, not just a romance story that realized it was a paranormal romance at the end of the book. Always. Literally for the first three books there is nothing but romance till 100 some odd pages before it ends and it stops being filler and things actually start happening.
"I also think it's actually more than just scene changing because you would have to devote more time to those characters than SM did to establish those suggested story lines."
Because Meyer wrote 428 of filler till something actually happened, changing the scenes to incorporate more of something other than Bella's daily mundane life would've been better than the dull dryness that the book has. The first 428 is literally just filler and romance till a problem arises to get things going and make it actually half interesting, changing the first 428 wouldn't hurt it but help it.
"Imo, more time to a side story line that ultimately will have nothing to do with the romance between Bella and Edward. "
This is the first 2/3s of the book, I don't see how changing scenes that went no where anyway would hurt the book.
"The only way that I can see making what you guys are suggesting work is if the Forks HS friends eventually find out about the Cullens and the wolves and/or if they are/were actively involved in those paranormal and romantic conflicts all along in some way."
And that's what I said. Because they were irrelevant placeholders, giving them more importance because they're such a big part of the book when they have no relevance wouldn't hurt or be detrimental to the overall story.
"I think personal values and preferences drive what is perceived as "better" and "quality" to each individual. "
Even with such diverse and often times differing views on 'better' and 'quality' work I've seen many, many people come together and still agree that yes, better and quality are not synonymous with popularity and the quantity of the product. I don't understand how you see it that way, but that is your prerogative, one that seems wholly opinionated and not really based on more than opinions.
Siobhan wrote: "Wow. Okay, first of all I've had a shitty couple of days and haven't been on here and still don't feel like talking much. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.-in canon, Bella is adored by everyone at high school. This is repeated, and therefore a huge part of the plot.
-in canon, she ignores the other high schoolers, and belittles them for not being like the Cullen's.
-in canon (midnight sun) we are shown Jessica's thoughts from Edwards perspective. She is bitter and two-faced.
-in the guide, we learn that Lauren, who has a very small role, was duped by a fake modelling agency and it resulted in her chopping off her hair.
I was led to believe that, if you write a gun into a book, the gun must go off at the end. All details included must have a relevance. So the above must come together in a conclusion of it's own subplot. That's basic. And Stephenie didn't do that. So either remove high school and Bella's popularity from the book, or expand upon it. And there are many ways to do that - she could have been so innocent looking that the high school boys wanted to use her because they'd gone through all the other girls. Jessica et al could have just been jealous of the attention and overtly shown that, until Edward stepped up and showed Bella she was worth more than the high school boys and how to ignore the gossip. Maybe some of the routes are cliche and derivative, but hey, I'm just trying to do the world-building that Stephenie couldn't be bothered to do.
Your readers shouldn't be speculating on dead herrings, you should endeavour to wrap everything up, or cut whatever's not relevant. If you have readers doing that, then you're not a good reader.
Still wondering, also, on the relevance of Bella's sandwich. Oh, and the bottle cap!
"
To be honest, I don't really blame Bella for belittling the other HSers for not being like the Cullens. Some of the supernatural beings in Twilight were far better at being human beings (..at least in regards to things like compassion, love and loyalty) than the human beings themselves, imo.
I don't necessarily think that you have to remove HS altogether because it is part of the setting for their romance. Bella and Edward do meet in HS and some of their interactions take place there. I think the purpose of the interactions with the HS friends was to demonstrate how she arrives at her choice to become a part of Edward's and Jacob's paranormal world. Regardless of whether is was rightly so or not, according to the story....Bella felt like an outsider among Forks HS kids and her interactions with them demonstrate that. (I don't want to get into whose fault that is, Bella's or the kids, because it really doesn't matter to the story. It is what it is. That's how she felt.) According to the story, she was actually destined for it. No matter what happened, Alice's vision of Bella eventually becoming a vampire was something that never changed. The path changed but the end result never did. Changing the nature of the friendships at school undermines her some of her reasons for wanting to become a vampire. That change that your suggesting, without any major re-structuring of other parts of the novels, makes other parts of the story not make any sense anymore.
Melodic_May wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Wow. Okay, first of all I've had a shitty couple of days and haven't been on here and still don't feel like talking much. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.-in canon, Bella is..."
Heh. Honestly, I don't even remember the sandwich at all. To the extent that I actually need to re-read to remember what you guys are talking about. Just for kicks, could you direct me to this whole sandwich thing?
Does the fact that you guys remember it while I don't mean that I missed something important or that you guys put too much unnecessary focus on something that wasn't important? Or is that what SM did by writing about it? But did she really and truly do that like you say she did if I don't remember it?
Questions.....I feel like that lottery commericial. The one that asks "What would you think about if you didn't have to think about money?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqPswI...
Mochaspresso wrote: " Just for kicks, could you direct me to this whole sandwich thing?"It's chapter 12, Balancing. It's at the very beginning.
"Does the fact that you guys remember it while I don't mean that I missed something important or that you guys put too much unnecessary focus on something that wasn't important?"
It means neither. It's not important and us pointing it out to support are argument that the book is filled with pointless things that could stand to be taken out doesn't mean that we're putting too much focus or unnecessary focus on it. It's not important and we're pointing it out, that's all.
"Or is that what SM did by writing about it? But did she really and truly do that like you say she did if I don't remember it?"
I don't understand what you're asking here.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Wow. Okay, first of all I've had a shitty couple of days and haven't been on here and still don't feel like talking much. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.-in canon, Bella is..."
I thought you'd go there with the high school stuff. Fine, fair enough, for three books they attended high school together. But not all the details needed to be included. Like, going by eclipse, she spends a good couple of pages playing with magnets just to draw a parallel at the end of the book, first to Edward and Jacob and then to her conflicting desires. And she got the analogy wrong, because she was talking about reverse polarities resisting each other. Now, I'm fine with the analogy but the first scene where she plays with them did not have to exist for the comparison to make sense. Likewise, did we need to know all about these beta characters when Bella only wanted to concentrate on Edward? She could have summarised. Like those scenes in trigonometry? I can condense into a paragraph. "In trigonometry, the girl I sat next to, Jessica - who was the school gossip, as far as I had seen, and never paid me any interest until today - suddenly wanted to know why Edward would talk to me, the new girl, and why I would want to talk to him. I knew what she was doing, but I didn't want to seem rude." seriously, she could have been ignored by the entire school and seemed fascinating -inasmuch as gossip goes - for talking to Edward, and the other high school students could have been as relevant as that. But Meyer wanted to add, she wanted to waffle, and left people actually caring about Jessica and Mike and everyone else. She put in too much irrelevant detail.
And that sandwich went on forever. I was like 'damn, this sandwich needs to have the power to make her immortal!' Oh, and the half-chapter on google search ...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
This Man (other topics)
Beautiful Disaster (other topics)
A Shade of Vampire (other topics)
A Shade of Blood (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Pete's Chicken (other topics)This Man (other topics)
Beautiful Disaster (other topics)
A Shade of Vampire (other topics)
A Shade of Blood (other topics)
More...
I do agree with you, the vampire family were way TOO perfect and Bella wasn't flawed when she became one, but was flawed ( constantly falling and just clumsy ) when she was human, I don't quite get the Jasper thing either, why couldn't he control his urge to kill, like all the rest ? It was never really explained all that well. No one is perfect and she did write it like the Carlisle family was.