Twilight
discussion
Do you think the whole Twilight series would be better if...?
If they developed better the Cullen stories,I wanted to see more of Rosalie, Emmett, Jasper, Alice, Carlisle and Esme,more of there perspective more focus.If Stephanie give a little less protagonist to Bella and more on them and they stories will be more interesting and just not so a "bella bella bella bella "thing.Of course less OMNG JACOB OMG EDUARD would help too.
Melodic_May wrote: "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 ..."
Thanks.
So, I did re-read it and the sandwich wasn't important and that's probably why I didn't even remember it. I remembered Jacob and Bella's conversation. It was just what she happened to be doing while she was talking to Jacob. I don't see that as filler because in total, only 3 short sentences in total were devoted to it and they were woven into the conversation. It wasn't as if the book abruptly stopped just to devote 3 sentences to describing a sandwich. When you said that it was described in such "intricate detail", I was actually expecting much more than 3 short sentences. Yes, they could have just stood in the kitchen or anywhere else and had the same conversation with no mention of any other background activity.....but I think the visual image of the conversation taking place naturally while she is doing other things (....like many people who stand in the kitchen and talk tend to really do) seems much more realistic and authentic to me.
Siobhan wrote: "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..."Wouldn't condensing that part down to the extent that you suggested technically be construed as breaking the "show and not tell" rule? I totally agree with you about the google search, though.
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 ...
Is this the same sandwich from Ch. 12? If so, it was only 3 sentences describing what she was doing while she was talking to Jacob. I guess I don't get why you guys paid so much attention to the sandwich rather than the conversation that Jacob and Bella were having. I didn't even remember the sandwich at all. The way you guys are talking about it, I thought I might have been missing pages from the book.
It's summarising on unimportant details. Like, she could have said "I freshened up in the bathroom quickly" the first night Edward stayed over instead of talking us through starting the faucet and brushing her teeth and agonising over whether she should take a shower. Okay, she wanted to build tension, but the laundry list isn't the way to do it, talking through Bella's physical reactions is. Likewise, that example I put up could have been the only mention of Jessica in the story. We didn't need to hear Bella avoiding the questions purely because she didn't want to talk to Bella. We didn't need half of her scenes at all, and the other half she could have been a nameless bystander. In that instance, a quick summary would work better, and then the reader, like Bella, could disregard the superfluous in the excitement of seeing Edward again.And seriously, even three sentences is a lot to dedicate to a sandwich. All we needed was "as we talked, I made myself a sandwich." That sandwich needs a relevance. Like, in my own writing, I have a character who does talk about eating cereal. Usually coloured, sugar-coated crap. But it's relevant because it's building up to the idea that she was OCD, and needs to separated her marshmallows from the rice crispies in the cereal or the world will end. In that instance, the cereal itself is representative of something bigger. But Bella's sandwich is a snack she's making as she's talking to Jacob. Was she going to choke on it, or have an allergic reaction? No, it was just a damn sandwich. We didn't really even need to know what snack she was making, the conversation should have been the focus. It's the exact same principle as her starting her computer, or choosing what clothes to wear, or even going shopping. If I was her line editor, I would have written 'why?' on practically every sentence.
i found the Twilight series a beautiful love story .. a finding and joining of souls.... Bella was not whiney... it was pointed out very early in the books and the show that she was very much a loner and it wasn't until she found the fascination with Edward that she finally was able to be herself... I didn't even know there were books till after New Moon when a friend pointed them out to me... reluctant at first to read the books ( as I'd read the potter series and many a part in the film disappointed me) i started and read all 4 in 4 days i was captured by the beauty!
Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "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 ..."
The scene as a whole was irrelevant and filler. Meaningless conversation with minute details about what she's doing that doesn't matter and doesn't come up again.
Mochaspresso wrote: "just because many people come together and agree on something doesn't mean that something is actually a "truth" or an irrefutable "fact". Especially when pertains to an abstract and subjective concept like "quality". Double especially if holding on to that agreement also hinders one's ability to see or consider a different pov. "Edited this: Aren't you doing the same? You find it hard to believe (or flat out don't) that something that's popular and a bestseller can be bad, that quantity/popularity=quality. That quantity/popularity=/=quality is a popular opinion that isn't based on anything other than other opinions. It is the same with the opinion that you hold. It is all subjective to a point, and that point is when it can be proven that the popular thing(this series)isn't good quality. And I believe that has been proven.
Siobhan wrote: "It's summarising on unimportant details. Like, she could have said "I freshened up in the bathroom quickly" the first night Edward stayed over instead of talking us through starting the faucet and ..."Yes, she could have just said that she made a sandwich as they talked or that she freshened up in the bathroom quickly but the way SM included it paints a more vivid image. I actually liked the way that was described. I suspect that SM is probably more into the visuals. There are some authors who I am convinced envision the movie versions of their novels as they are writing them. Or they may possibly have even lift a few key scenes from movies that they've seen? That description of Bella rushing to freshen up while Edward waited reminded me of Stephanie Pfieffer doing the same thing while George Clooney waited for her in "One Fine Day".
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "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 t..."
The conversation itself wasn't meaningless. It's not a pivotal or crucial point in the story but it isn't completely meaningless. Billy saw her with Edward Cullen and was shocked and concerned since he knows the Cullens' secret. Bella also hasn't told her father about her and Edward yet and was worried that Billy might say something to Charlie. Jacob doesn't recognize Edward and asks her who gave her a ride home. She tells Jacob that she was with Edward Cullen and Jacob instantly knows why Billy was acting so strangely. He knows how Billy feels about the Cullens. (Jacob doesn't really know the secret yet. He just believes it to be old tribal superstitions) and she was curious as to whether Billy would mention to Charlie that he saw Bella with Edward.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: " Just for kicks, could you direct me to this whole sandwich thing?"It's chapter 12, Balancing. It's at the very..."
Billy was only part of the conversation in passing and he confronted her later.
Bella's fear is not necessary, as Billy telling Charlie was a thing that wouldn't happen.
Jacob asking her about who drove her home is a meaningless conversational piece.
None of these things actually lead to anything that wasn't dropped a couple pages after the conversation. Like the sandwich it doesn't lead up to anything meaningful or something that will cause a problem.
Melodic_May wrote: "aren't you doing the same? You find it hard to believe (or flat out don't) that if something is popular and a bestseller that it must be good irrevocably and wholeheartedly,that it is a popular opinion that isn't based on anything other than other opinions. It is the same with the opinion that you hold.
When did I ever say this? That is not what I said at all. Not even what I was implying. I was saying that I don't think of quality as an absolute, black or white, concept. I also think that if you train yourself to only see quality in only one way and only in certain places, it might make it harder for you to acknowledge that it may be found elsewhere.
It is all subjective to a point, and that point is when it can be proven that the popular thing(this series)isn't good quality. And I believe that has been proven.
That actually hasn't been proven. When it comes to artistic endeavors, you can't actually prove quality. The most you can do is gather opinions. Some of them might even be "expert" opinions, but they are still just opinions. I also don't think that the quality in Twilight is necessarily in the technical aspects of the writing. The quality that made it sell is in the story itself.
Melodic_May wrote: "Edited this: Aren't you doing the same? You find it hard to believe (or flat out don't) that something that's popular and a bestseller can be bad, that quantity/popularity=quality. That quantity/popularity=/=quality is a popular opinion that isn't based on anything other than other opinions. It is the same with the opinion that you hold. It is all subjective to a point, and that point is when it can be proven that the popular thing(this series)isn't good quality. And I believe that has been proven. That actually isn't what I said either. I didn't say that something so popular can't possibly be bad. I said that perceptions of quality are based on the personal values and preferences of each individual.
Mochaspresso wrote: "When did I ever say this? That is not what I said at all. Not even what I was implying. I was saying that I don't think of quality as an absolute, black or white, concept. "What other concept can it be? Something either is or isn't quality, there isn't a grey area in this. If there is, it's filled with opinions where as the black and white is what's fact versus popular opinions.
"I also think that if you train yourself to only see quality in only one way and only in certain places, it might make it harder for you to acknowledge that it may be found elsewhere. "
Thankfully this isn't a thing I have a problem with.
"That actually hasn't been proven."
So you're gonna pretend the people who are qualified to say this book is bad and has said it's not good doesn't exist or said nothing?
"When it comes to artistic endeavors, you can't actually prove quality."
Writing is an art, it is also a profession. And when people who are in the same profession says that it isn't good, that proves it's not quality, especially when it comes from more professional and seasoned authors.
Also other people who has degrees in English, but those people must not have said anything either.
"The most you can do is gather opinions. Some of them might even be "expert" opinions, but they are still just opinions."
And why to you would they never be a fact? Especially when factual things are said?
"The quality that made it sell is in the story itself. "
And people question the quality of the story as well, not just the writing.
Melodic_May wrote: "Billy was only part of the conversation in passing and he confronted her later.Bella's fear is not necessary, as Billy telling Charlie was a thing that wouldn't happen.
Jacob asking her about who drove her home is a meaningless conversational piece.
None of these things actually lead to anything that wasn't dropped a couple pages after the conversation. Like the sandwich it doesn't lead up to anything meaningful or something that will cause a problem.
"
Bella didn't know that Billy wouldn't tell Charlie at the time that they were having the conversation, though. It was something that she was worried about. The conversation does lead to something because Jacob and Bella and Edward ultimately become a triangle. That plot device can't just appear out of the blue. The 3 characters do actually have to interact with each other. Bella having a friendly conversation with Jacob is not meaningless and it does eventually lead to something.
Mochaspresso wrote: "That actually isn't what I said either. I didn't say that something so popular can't possibly be bad. I said that perceptions of quality are based on the personal values and preferences of each individual. ""Twilight managed to do this. Sales don't equal quality. Everyone knows this. I'm not arguing that at all. However, I am inclined to think that when something manages to sell on that level, maybe one should be willing to reflect on their perceived parameters for what "quality" might entail."
When you said this, I asked you if you were saying that quantity doesn't mean quality but when it's a bestseller then it means as such. You never answered. Because right here it sounds like you're saying that because this series is a bestseller that it is a quality series, at least by your standards, which aren't standards that I nor any other but you are going by. And also that because it's a bestseller and it's her debut novel, that maybe one should change what they think qualifies as quality books, i.g. that quantity/popularity=quality.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "When did I ever say this? That is not what I said at all. Not even what I was implying. I was saying that I don't think of quality as an absolute, black or white, concept. "..."
There are award winning novels that "experts" have said are bad. There are novels that are now regarded as classics that "experts" of the time panned and that contemporary "experts" still cannot agree upon to this very day.
Also, Twilight's reception is by no means one-sided. Twilight has actually received plenty of "expert" praise. It's received it's fair share of criticism as well. I read as much of both sides as I can and form my own opinions. I don't just take the "experts" word for it simply because they are experts. If I did, I'd still be under the impression that the best cheesecake to be had in NY is Junior's. I'd never know that there are dozens of mom and pop Italian bakeries all over the city that make cheesecakes to die for and that blow Junior's away. I'd also never know that the best delicatessen in NY actually isn't even in NY. It's in Jersey. (Harold's). The "experts" are likely to still tell you that it's Carnegie or Katz, though. These are things that I would never have discovered for myself if I just listened to the "experts".
Mochaspresso wrote: "There are award winning novels that "experts" have said are bad. There are novels that are now regarded as classics that "experts" of the time panned and that contemporary "experts" still cannot agree upon to this very day. "The point being?
" I read as much of both sides as I can and form my own opinions. I don't just take the "experts" word for it simply because they are experts. "
And you're implying that I don't do the same because...? Because if this isn't what you're implying then this is a bunch of non sequiturs with a dead ends because it doesn't lead to a point.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "That actually isn't what I said either. I didn't say that something so popular can't possibly be bad. I said that perceptions of quality are based on the personal values and p..."If millions of people like something that you personally think is bad, maybe there is quality in it that you can't necessarily see for whatever reason. The quality might not be where you have trained yourself to look for it or it may be something that you personally don't care about but apparently millions of other people do. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that the quality in question doesn't count, doesn't exist or isn't valid.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "There are award winning novels that "experts" have said are bad. There are novels that are now regarded as classics that "experts" of the time panned and that contemporary "ex..."The point is that you can find experts that have any point of view that you happen to be looking for. There is no universally accepted "general consensus" that Twilight is bad. Believing that there is is known as a "false consensus bias".
Mochaspresso wrote: "If millions of people like something that you personally think is bad, maybe there is quality in it that you can't necessarily see for whatever reason. The quality might not be where you have trained yourself to look for it or it may be something that you personally don't care about but apparently millions of other people do. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that the quality in question doesn't count, doesn't exist or isn't valid. "And an equal amount find that it isn't a quality series because of factual reasons. The great majority of people who enjoyed the series aren't looking beyond the story, or looking at it critically (I dare say that they have very little knowledge on what quality truly is because they don't read and Twilight is/was the first book they've read that made them enjoy reading) so they base the quality on enjoyment and that it's very popular. Which isn't what makes something quality. It makes it a commodity product, not a quality product. Like cheap, bad food that while still food, provides little to no nutritious value compared to food of a higher caliber, like food bought at Trader Joe's.
Mochaspresso wrote: "The point is that you can find experts that have any point of view that you happen to be looking for. There is no universally accepted "general consensus" that Twilight is bad. Believing that there is is known as a "false consensus bias". "Well, aren't I glad that I don't believe this. It doesn't negate the fact that there are factual reasons why this series is bad.
Melodic_May wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "If millions of people like something that you personally think is bad, maybe there is quality in it that you can't necessarily see for whatever reason. The quality might not b..."Now, who is making generalizations?
Just so that you are aware, many of Trader Joe's foods have too high of a sodium content for many people. It's not necessarily of a "higher caliber" if that is something that concerns you.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Now, who is making generalizations?"
It's not a generalization when it can be proven that many fans (at least on here, which is the many I'm referring to) have said that Twilight is a book that made them enjoy reading. Would you say that one who previously hated reading/had no interest in the hobby would know what quality books are compared to one who loves reading and has been for far longer than the prior person? I wouldn't.
"Just so that you are aware, many of Trader Joe's foods have too high of a sodium content for many people. It's not necessarily of a "higher caliber" if that is something that concerns you. "
Then pick another food seller, like WholefoodsMarket. It is a random example that I picked, whatever you want to replace it with because you find Trader Joe's to be a lacking comparison will do as well. My point still stands. Twilight is a commodity product, not a quality one.
Mocha, you seem to be under the impression that enjoyment of a thing determines it's quality. I enjoy eating skips -a British snack - but they taste like crap. They're fun to eat because they dissolve in your mouth, but in no way are they a decent food.Popularity doesn't determine quality either. Like "blurred lines" by Robin Thicke was popular, but the lyrics were bad. And not just because of the possible rape theme, the lyrics themselves. It was not a quality song, but it was popular. Like Justin Bieber is both popular and shit.
Siobhan wrote: "Mocha, you seem to be under the impression that enjoyment of a thing determines it's quality. I enjoy eating skips -a British snack - but they taste like crap. They're fun to eat because they disso..."Actually, I am not under that impression at all. You over simplify. No one enjoys anything in a vacuum for absolutely no reason what so ever. There is usually an underlying reason for the enjoyment. A potential good quality may be found in that underlying reason. Just because it isn't a quality that appeals to you, doesn't mean that it isn't or can't be a quality for someone else.
I have two gym memberships. An upscale gym and a no frills gym. Which one is the better quality gym? Most would probably say the upscale gym automatically. But I say that depends on what you value. The upscale gym has amenities that I like. However, the atmosphere is also much more schmoozy and social. There are also subtly flirty and handsome/pretty trainers walking around constantly trying to sell you on their services. Some people like that. Personally, I don't at all. I keep the membership for the amenities and the classes. The no frills gym is my "Rocky Gym" because everyone there is serious about working out and no one tries to sell you anything. Their free weights section is also much bigger whereas at the upscale gym, the cardio section is bigger than the weights section. There aren't any amenities at the no frills gym....but they are open 24 hours and they are much cheaper than the upscale gym. Cheap enough where I consider the cost of maintaining the second membership as negligible. I've spent more than their monthly fee on one single visit to Starbuck's. Which is the better quality gym? It totally depends on what you prefer and value as a "quality". Both have qualities that I like and that is why I maintain both memberships.
Never had them, but the fact that the skips dissolve in your mouth is the reason for your enjoyment. Regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it as a "quality", that is their quality for YOU because that is the reason why you eat them. You may not see that as a quality, but it could be possible that other people actually do. It is not for you to arbitrarily decide that those other people are wrong about that quality and just don't know enough about quality to judge. Perhaps you are being a tad too arrogant about your own opinions and how they were formed.
The Robin Thicke song was a popular dance song. DJs played it in clubs and at parties all summer long. For those people dancing, the quality may have been in the music and rhythm, not necessarily in the lyrics. I've been a fan of Robin Thicke for years. I have all of his albums and I have seen him in concert. His musical and lyrical style varies. I happen to think that his strength is in his ballads. I also know that he's a very talented musician, producer and songwriter and has produced and written songs for a lot of different artists that I happen to also like.
I don't like Bieber so I don't know what his quality is.....but I'm not obstinate or arrogant enough to arbitrarily assume that he must not have one simply because I don't like him. The honest truth is that I don't really know much about his music outside of the songs that I've been exposed to and didn't care for. I've never been to one of his concerts. I've never actually sat down and listened to any of his albums. In that respect, Am I truly qualified to automatically assume that his music is bad? How would I know when I never really listened? That is the epitome of arrogance, imo. I'm sure if I asked a fan who has, I could hear what they have to say and even if I don't agree with them, I can acknowledge that to them and possibly his millions of fans, whatever I am told is a quality that they see in him. I don't have to agree. I just don't have to be so arrogant, closed-minded, narrow and biased to believe that I must be right and those millions are wrong. Especially, when I've never even listened to any of his albums objectively or seen him in concert. I'm open to the possibility that they see something that I don't.
I'm starting to think that "popularity doesn't mean quality" is in some instances, a mantra that people soothe themselves with and hide behind when they can"t or refuse to acknowledge why so many people like something that they don't. It's much easier and better for the ego to hide behind that mantra than it is to admit that you just didn't get it.
In the case of Twilight, I understand why you say it isn't quality. I even agree with some of your reasons. Not all of them, but some. What I also don't agree with is saying that it is an absolute irrefutable proven fact that it is completely bad and has no redeeming qualities. I don't believe that to be true. I think making a statement like that about something so subjective is the epitome of arrogance and closed-mindedness. Interestingly enough, a friend of mine blames my way of thinking on certain things on what he refers to as my "hippy dippy drippy liberal arts education". Yeah right. Like hippies never went to his alma mater, MIT.
Mochaspresso wrote: "What I also don't agree with is saying that it is an absolute irrefutable proven fact that it is completely bad and has no redeeming qualities."It has nice qualities. Redeeming though? Not to me. The little good there was in the series was greatly overshadowed by all the bad. And it can be proven with facts why the series is bad. The science behind her vampires, her plot holes, her incorrect geography, biology, chemistry, and history. It was a hot commodity, one that is dwindling, but people don't read this for the quality writing, story telling, characters, plot, or accuracy. People who read this and liked this were entertained, they didn't look further. It was a de-stresser. It's quality to them but again one shouldn't measure something's quality by the enjoyment they get from it.
"I think making a statement like that about something so subjective is the epitome of arrogance and closed-mindedness. "
How am I exuding arrogance and closed-mindedness when it can be proven why it's not good or the basic standard of quality? (Yes, I believe there to be a basic standard of quality when it comes to books. I do, you don't, we don't have to go over this yet again.) That doesn't sound like I'm closed-minded or arrogant when I can prove with facts why it's not good because of x,y, and z. It's not me labeling my opinion as a fact, it's just facts as to why the things she did in the story are incorrect and make the story bad.
Melodic_May wrote: "It has nice qualities. Redeeming though? Not to me. The little good there was in the series was greatly overshadowed by all the bad. And it can be proven with facts why the series is bad. The science behind her vampires, her plot holes, her incorrect geography, biology, chemistry, and history. It was a hot commodity, one that is dwindling, but people don't read this for the quality writing, story telling, characters, plot, or accuracy. People who read this and liked this were entertained, they didn't look further. It was a de-stresser. It's quality to them but again one shouldn't measure something's quality by the enjoyment they get from it."Science behind her vampires"? There is no genuine science to a creature that is a figment of one's imagination and does not exist. The plot holes are debatable. There is no general consensus that Twilight had plot holes. Arguments have been made on both sides. You choosing to accept one argument while rejecting another doesn't make it a "fact". I'll give you the incorrect geography and history as those are facts that can be proven. I am also not convinced that Twilight accurately portrays Native Americans, yet people here in goodreads very rarely criticize that. They tend to care more about the ethical treatment of fictional creatures like vampires. I don't know what you are referring to with regards to biology and chemistry. If it is biology and chemistry with regards to the bodily functions of fictional creatures, then your assertions are no longer grounded in "fact". If I can read about the supposed powers of inanimate objects like magic rings and the creatures that covet them , then I can certainly suspend my belief for Twilight creatures, too. People can believe that an inanimate object possesses a magical power but they can't believe that a vampire can reproduce....even though it has already been done in vampire folklore and literature many many many times. There are vampire series out there that have been successfully breaking each and every one of the "sacred vampire lore rules" for more than 20 books now. The landscape for vampire lore has changed dramatically with time. Insisting to remain stuck in an old way is like reading an old science book are refusing to acknowledge that there are now only 8 planets instead of 9.
There are people who see no problem with the characters and story telling in Twilight. You are within your rights to disagree, but rejecting the things that they have pointed out that they liked doesn't actually make your OPINION a fact.
How am I exuding arrogance and closed-mindedness when it can be proven why it's not good or the basic standard of quality? (Yes, I believe there to be a basic standard of quality when it comes to books. I do, you don't, we don't have to go over this yet again.) That doesn't sound like I'm closed-minded or arrogant when I can prove with facts why it's not good because of x,y, and z. It's not me labeling my opinion as a fact, it's just facts as to why the things she did in the story are incorrect and make the story bad.
I fully understand the basic standard of quality that you are employing. What I am trying to explain is that times have changed and that it is possible that people are starting to rethink and reevaluate those old standards of quality. People are actively challenging and questioning the criterion for certain literary prizes. People are actively challenging literary canon from many different perspectives. The publishing industry has been turned on it's head in the last 10 years. A scientist made a mistake with adhesives in a lab and invented post its in the process. Concepts regarding bad or good in instances like this are entirely dependent on the perspective that one insists on holding on to.
Mochaspresso wrote: ""Science behind her vampires"? There is no genuine science to a creature that is a figment of one's imagination and does not exist. "Thank you for telling me that it's fictional. I didn't notice that, oh my god.
The thing that puts this apart from being a fact or being an opinion is that these creatures are a subhuman species that exist in a world that mirrors our own. This isn't about a human girl in a vampire world, this is about vampires hiding themselves in the human world. And because it is a world that mirrors our own, the science in that world needs to mirror our own. Her science is completely wrong and she should've stuck with omission when it came to how her vampires work.
"The plot holes are debatable. There is no general consensus that Twilight had plot holes. Arguments have been made on both sides. You choosing to accept one argument while rejecting another doesn't make it a "fact"."
It is a fact that there are plot holes. The biggest plot hole of them all is how Edward can't hear Bella's thoughts. This is NEVER explained yet it's a crucial part of not only them individually, but them together. It is also never explained why Bella is immune to vampire powers, or why she has a mental shield she can throw up to block vampire powers from effecting others. Bella in Twilight is screaming her head off when James gives her a little bit on the hand, but when Edward injects her to the eyeballs with venom she's quieter than a mouse. The vampires can't be seen in day light for fear of sparkling but they have the wedding on a bright day in front of everyone. Vampires are not supposed to be able to impregnate women but Bella got pregnant somehow. These are just a few plot holes I can think of off the top of my head.
"I don't know what you are referring to with regards to biology and chemistry. If it is biology and chemistry with regards to the bodily functions of fictional creatures, then your assertions are no longer grounded in "fact"."
This is once again explained with how while this is a fictional world, it is a fictional world that mirrors our own. There is no magic in this series that can let these errs pass or be accepted because she tried to apply science and did it wrong. And thus it is a fact that this aspect is incorrect and added onto why it's bad.
"There are vampire series out there that have been successfully breaking each and every one of the "sacred vampire lore rules" for more than 20 books now. The landscape for vampire lore has changed dramatically with time. Insisting to remain stuck in an old way is like reading an old science book are refusing to acknowledge that there are now only 8 planets instead of 9. "
No one is insisting that things stay in the 'old ways'. But logic must be applied even in fiction and she clearly checked that at the door because she wanted to use the excuse of it being fiction and try to scientifically explain it.
" You are within your rights to disagree, but rejecting the things that they have pointed out that they liked doesn't actually make your OPINION a fact. "
It isn't my opinion that I'm saying is a fact, as I said. You can disagree with it to your heart's desire but it doesn't make it a fact no longer.
"What I am trying to explain is that times have changed and that it is possible that people are starting to rethink and reevaluate those old standards of quality. People are actively challenging and questioning the criterion for certain literary prizes. People are actively challenging literary canon from many different perspectives. The publishing industry has been turned on it's head in the last 10 years."
This still doesn't change the stance that Twilight is/was a commodity and wasn't intended to try to be quality. This is clearly proven by how Meyer always said that she wrote it for herself, and how she responded to the fans reaction to Breaking Dawn.
There is science behind her vampires, because she talks of their physiology, their chromosome count, etc etc.This conversation died for me the moment the word subjective appeared in the arguments though. Of course opinion is subjective, that's redundant. By saying it's subjective, what you're actually saying is that other opinions are invalidated if they don't correlate with yours. And I can appreciate differing opinions but not with such a disregard. Also, it's getting annoying to see someone constantly change their stance or disregard valid points in order to try to make their argument appear more solid.
I'm so tired of the "subjective" argument.
Siobhan wrote: "There is science behind her vampires, because she talks of their physiology, their chromosome count, etc etc.This conversation died for me the moment the word subjective appeared in the arguments..."
I'm tired of it in the way that it's always brought up like we're making these arguments without knowing that we're being subjective. Or that we don't know the difference between subjective and objective.
Melodic_May wrote: " The thing that puts this apart from being a fact or being an opinion is that these creatures are a subhuman species that exist in a world that mirrors our own. This isn't about a human girl in a vampire world, this is about vampires hiding themselves in the human world. And because it is a world that mirrors our own, the science in that world needs to mirror our own. Her science is completely wrong and she should've stuck with omission when it came to how her vampires work. These rules that you are setting forth are old school "hard sci-fi" rules, though. There is plenty of speculative fiction out there that does not follow them. You are insisting that Stephanie Meyer did something wrong but there is a whole sub-genre of literature out there doing exactly what she did and has been successfully doing it for quite some time. That is why I don't think what she did is wrong. You are attempting to hold her to a standard that doesn't even exist for her genre.
fwiw, I do agree that she should have stuck to omission, though. Not because it's plot hole. Simply because explanations aren't essential or necessary to the romance plot.
It is a fact that there are plot holes. The biggest plot hole of them all is how Edward can't hear Bella's thoughts. This is NEVER explained yet it's a crucial part of not only them individually, but them together. It is also never explained why Bella is immune to vampire powers, or why she has a mental shield she can throw up to block vampire powers from effecting others. Bella in Twilight is screaming her head off when James gives her a little bit on the hand, but when Edward injects her to the eyeballs with venom she's quieter than a mouse. The vampires can't be seen in day light for fear of sparkling but they have the wedding on a bright day in front of everyone. Vampires are not supposed to be able to impregnate women but Bella got pregnant somehow. These are just a few plot holes I can think of off the top of my head.
This is once again explained with how while this is a fictional world, it is a fictional world that mirrors our own. There is no magic in this series that can let these errs pass or be accepted because she tried to apply science and did it wrong. And thus it is a fact that this aspect is incorrect and added onto why it's bad.
In Octavia Butler's "Kindred", the time travel is never explained. Why? Because speculative fiction doesn't follow any old-school rule that says it that it has to or should be. "The Time Traveler's Wife" doesn't attempt to explain it either. There are sci-fi elements in "The Hunger Games" and "Divergent" trilogies that are not fully explained. It's not explained because it isn't crucial to the plot. Twilight is a paranormal romance. The focus is the story between Bella and Edward. There is no rule that why Edward's inability to hear Bella has to be explained. Although, I do believe that it does say that she has the ability to block any vampire powers that involve mind manipulation and that's why Jasper's powers work on her while Edward's doesn't.
In the case of James' venom vs. Edward's, that makes sense because the resolve and determination was different. Plus she just had what was probably the worst, most painful and most complicated c-section ever. When you have a child, there are a lot of pains that pale or fade away in comparison to that particular type of pain. If you break you leg, you might forget about your toothache.
The Cullens can and do go out in daylight. It is direct sunlight that affects them. I'd have to re-read to be sure, but I don't remember that their wedding was in direct sunlight. In the movies, it was in the forest and there were canopies, but in the books, wasn't the wedding indoors and at Twilight just as the sun was setting? I think only the reception was outdoors right after sunset.
No one is insisting that things stay in the 'old ways'. But logic must be applied even in fiction and she clearly checked that at the door because she wanted to use the excuse of it being fiction and try to scientifically explain it.
I agree with you. She shouldn't have tried to appease critics and attempt to explain it on her website and in her guides. She should have left it alone. There is plenty of books out there with unexplained sci-fi elements and it wasn't even necessary to the plot.
It isn't my opinion that I'm saying is a fact, as I said. You can disagree with it to your heart's desire but it doesn't make it a fact no longer.
Well, we've reached an impasse, then. You saying it's a fact doesn't make it so and me saying that it's not a fact doesn't mean that it isn't one. Agree to disagree.
This still doesn't change the stance that Twilight is/was a commodity and wasn't intended to try to be quality. This is clearly proven by how Meyer always said that she wrote it for herself, and how she responded to the fans reaction to Breaking Dawn.
Regardless of what she intended, that doesn't mean that quality cannot still be found somewhere in the end result. The post it inventor found quality in the adhesive that did not stick as well as he originally intended it to.
If the shoe fits......you guys are attempting to pass subjective opinions as a proven fact. ...and fwiw, I have always agreed that she should have left the science out of it. I haven't read it, but if it says what you have says it does, then her guide is probably very poorly written in that regard, imo. Her attempts at science explanations are horrible and I am not defending them at all. Those explanations did not appear in the original books though....which is what I always thought we were talking about.
...interesting how folks can bring up what's in the guides but I can't bring up "Midnight Sun".
Mochaspresso wrote: "If the shoe fits......you guys are attempting to pass subjective opinions as a proven fact."Because what we're saying can be proven factually? Like, we don't need to be reminded of subjectivity and objectivity. We know these things, bringing it up like we don't know is kinda redundant.
Mochaspresso wrote: ""Science behind her vampires"? There is no genuine science to a creature that is a figment of one's imagination and does not exist. The plot holes are debatable. There is no general consensus that Twilight had plot holes. Arguments have been made on both sides... If it is biology and chemistry with regards to the bodily functions of fictional creatures, then your assertions are no longer grounded in "fact"."I think I have a little something for this part of the conversation. :)
Obviously, vampires are fictional characters and there's no real world science to them. But we're looking at them from the context of SM's vampire world. The plot holes I know of, are cases where SM has violated her own characterization, world-building, or timeline. Her own rules, basically. You may say it's still debatable, but all we can do is look at the evidence and see if the argument is strong enough. In the case of the baby, I think it's very strong.
If you've read some of my postings on these boards, you know that I'm adamantly against the baby. The reason is not because I can't suspend my disbelief, or I'm pro-choice. It's because SM violated the rules of her world in creating it. SM tried to introduce an element of science to explain her vampires, and she makes a point of rendering her vampires inert down to a cellular level. This inertness should manifest as sterile vampires. But SM ignores that, and pushes a baby into the story anyway. I'd call that a plot hole.
Alice's visions are supposed to be driven by the decisions people make. Yet she doesn't see Bella in the ballet studio with James. Why is that? James never wavered from his intent to kill Bella. Bella didn't rescind her decision to sacrifice herself in her mother's place. Alice should have seen Bella in danger, and grabbed her. Still a plot hole, but we roll our eyes and let it slide because otherwise SM wouldn't have the dramatic showdown in the ballet studio.
The Bree Tanner story blows huge holes into the New Moon/Eclipse timeline. Take a look at my review of Bree. For Riley and Diego to be the age that they are, with Riley mature enough to control his thirst around Charlie, Victoria would have had to start making vampires almost before James was killed. That doesn't work, because she's supposed to have gotten the idea to make an army when Edward was chasing her through the South, after he left Bella in September.
It's not a matter of making sense in our world. It's a matter of making sense within the world that SM created. When it doesn't, I consider that a plot hole. You can find far more in the Amazon discussion board: "Most Ridiculous Plot Hole," but these that I've cited are the most clear.
Mochaspresso wrote: " You are insisting that Stephanie Meyer did something wrong but there is a whole sub-genre of literature out there doing exactly what she did and has been successfully doing it for quite some time. That is why I don't think what she did is wrong. You are attempting to hold her to a standard that doesn't even exist for her genre."She did do something wrong. She created a creature that wasn't a vampire and labeled it as such. She did no research on vampires and her vampire has nothing remotely in common with other vampires other than blood drinking.
"It's not explained because it isn't crucial to the plot. Twilight is a paranormal romance. The focus is the story between Bella and Edward. There is no rule that why Edward's inability to hear Bella has to be explained. Although, I do believe that it does say that she has the ability to block any vampire powers that involve mind manipulation and that's why Jasper's powers work on her while Edward's doesn't. "
It is. That is the whole reason why Edward has any interest in her in the first place. If he could hear her thoughts throughout Twilight he wouldn't have been interested in her because her thoughts are just like everyone else's. This is apart of the paranorm and apart of Bella and Edward, it is the reason Edward is intrigued by her, and yet it has no explanation.
Also, Bella has no reason to have this power. It's not hereditary, a genetic mutation, it's just there and then expands once she's a vampire. And that is a plot whole that is never explained, only expected to be accepted. Which is another reason why this is commodity, not quality. Because this makes no sense for her, a average human, to have this ability. And no one questions it because this series panders to their other wants while reading, like romance and drama.
"In the case of James' venom vs. Edward's, that makes sense because the resolve and determination was different. Plus she just had what was probably the worst, most painful and most complicated c-section ever. When you have a child, there are a lot of pains that pale or fade away in comparison to that particular type of pain. If you break you leg, you might forget about your toothache. "
Pain is still pain, it doesn't matter the difference in situations between those two. She doesn't have a pain threshold noted on any level to be able to withstand a c-section, which she dies from, and then having to go through the transformation. that is an illogical fallacy that isn't believable because Meyer hadn't set it up to be believable.
"The Cullens can and do go out in daylight. It is direct sunlight that affects them. "
and this is where science comes in. They sparkle like diamonds? Diamonds sparkle in any light from candle light to a cloudy day. Which is another reason why this book isn't good quality, but good commodity because the majority of people who read and liked this don't care about things like this and whether it's right or not. I don't understand how anyone with a diamond anything can defend this one and say that it's logical or anything of the sort.
"You saying it's a fact doesn't make it so and me saying that it's not a fact doesn't mean that it isn't one. Agree to disagree."
I'm not just leaving it at saying it's a fact, what kind of fool would just leave it at that? I'm also proving that what I'm saying is factual, you're just disagreeing with some things while you agreed with the rest of the factual things I've said. Why pick and choose?
"Regardless of what she intended, that doesn't mean that quality cannot still be found somewhere in the end result."
And nothing you've said has yet to prove that it is objectively a quality book instead of subjectively a quality book, that it isn't a commodity and thus why it was so popular and a bestseller.
Rel8tivity wrote: "I think I have a little something for this part of the conversation. :)Obviously, vampires are fictional characters and there's no real world science to them. But we're looking at them from the context of SM's vampire world. The plot holes I know of, are cases where SM has violated her own characterization, world-building, or timeline. Her own rules, basically. You may say it's still debatable, but all we can do is look at the evidence and see if the argument is strong enough. In the case of the baby, I think it's very strong.
If you've read some of my postings on these boards, you know that I'm adamantly against the baby. The reason is not because I can't suspend my disbelief, or I'm pro-choice. It's because SM violated the rules of her world in creating it. SM tried to introduce an element of science to explain her vampires, and she makes a point of rendering her vampires inert down to a cellular level. This inertness should manifest as sterile vampires. But SM ignores that, and pushes a baby into the story anyway. I'd call that a plot hole.
These science explanations that you speak of were done retroactively in a guide that I haven't read. I have already stated that I will take your word for it and say I agree that she made a huge mistake in trying to explain it scientifically in another book retroactively.
The only thing that I can do is explain why I did not view it as a plot hole when I read the books. I don't read fantasy novels with the expectation that every thing needs to justified with plausible explanations. As I have stated, I have read several speculative fiction novels where things have happened and no explanation is given at all. In fact, in some instances, any attempts at explanation would have shifted the theme and focus of the novel. In the case of "Kindred" by Octavia Butler, the novel is about a black woman traveling back in time to the days of slavery and struggling to survive. The book is about the brutality of slavery. As a reader, those were the descriptions that I cared about and the author depicts that masterfully, imo. As a reader, I would not have liked being taken out of that for a detailed sci-fi explanation of how the time travel was happening. That would have ruined the book for me.
I feel the same way about Twilight. I read the book for the paranormal romance between Bella and Edward and that's where I wanted to stay in the story. For me, the explanation that no one thought it was possible, but the "it turns out that it is possible. Here's Renesme and Nahuel to prove it"...was enough for me. I completely understand how that would not be enough for a genuine sci-fi fan, but I don't think it is fair to criticize a book for not having an element that is not even consistent with it's intended genre or for breaking a rule that doesn't exist for that genre. I don't think her not including the science was bad...in fact, I'm actually glad that she didn't. Including the science from the guides would not have made the book better, imo. Taking out Renesme altogether would not have made the book better for me either. I think many women identified the concept of doing what you can to protect your child. I know that I did. Now, I'd like to think that I a fairly normal and average person/reader. If I feel this way, perhaps there are also others who feel the same. Perhaps this is why readers some do not see Renesme as a plot hole?
I'm clearly not a trekkie....but did Star Trek ever explain how the "beam me up, Scottie" thingamajig works?
Alice's visions are supposed to be driven by the decisions people make. Yet she doesn't see Bella in the ballet studio with James. Why is that? James never wavered from his intent to kill Bella. Bella didn't rescind her decision to sacrifice herself in her mother's place. Alice should have seen Bella in danger, and grabbed her. Still a plot hole, but we roll our eyes and let it slide because otherwise SM wouldn't have the dramatic showdown in the ballet studio.
I re-read that part. That's actually not a plot hole because Alice did see the dance studio. She just doesn't see Bella in it because Bella had not yet made the decision to go there at the time that she had the visions. James also does not tell her to go there right away. He tells her to go home and call for the next set of instructions. He knows how to manipulate Alice's visions. I also think Alice actually did see Bella there in her last vision (the one that she has AFTER James' call) but didn't want to frighten her by telling her. Bella also did not formulate a definite plan on how to ditch Alice and Jasper until the last possible minute when the bathroom presented an opportunity for her to do it and even then, she doesn't go directly where she originally intended. She sees a shuttle for another hotel and hops on it and then she sees a cab after that. She's making all of her decisions on the fly.
The Bree Tanner story blows huge holes into the New Moon/Eclipse timeline. Take a look at my review of Bree. For Riley and Diego to be the age that they are, with Riley mature enough to control his thirst around Charlie, Victoria would have had to start making vampires almost before James was killed. That doesn't work, because she's supposed to have gotten the idea to make an army when Edward was chasing her through the South, after he left Bella in September.
I know that she made Riley first and Diego says he's 11 months old right away in Bree's and Diego is older than Raoul. Diego tells Bree that Victoria made them for protection. I think the idea for the actual army came later (after Riley, Diego and Raoul were already made). I was skimming Bree and noticed that Diego was amazed at Bree's control considering that she was only 3 months old. It's not impossible for some Twilight vamps to better at control than others.
It's not a matter of making sense in our world. It's a matter of making sense within the world that SM created. When it doesn't, I consider that a plot hole. You can find far more in the Amazon discussion board: "Most Ridiculous Plot Hole," but these that I've cited are the most clear.
What happens when someone offers an explanation of why it made sense to them and therefore, not a plot hole? You don't have to agree, obviously, but is it fair to still declare your plot hole to be a "proven fact"?
Mochaspresso wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "I think I have a little something for this part of the conversation. :)Obviously, vampires are fictional characters and there's no real world science to them. But we're looking..."
Um, am I reading that right? You don't consider it a plot hole because that would have gotten in the way of enjoying the story? I wish I could say the same for myself. I enjoyed the first three books, and about the first 80 pages of BD. But the baby threw me out of the story and I couldn't get back into it. How could I not consider that a plot hole?
Information is presented that establishes the characterization of the vampires. Later on, events occur that contradict that characterization. And while the information in the guide came out after the books, I believe it still reflected the characterization that SM intended when she wrote the books. In Midnight Sun, Edward speaks about how they had been converted to living stone upon transformation. Alice's hair has never grown back completely from when it was shaved in the asylum. They don't sleep because their brains are not able to change state. Clues like this were there to pick up on, and spoke to me of a being that was inert, even at a microscopic level.
SM introduced vampire tissue as crystallized cells, in order for them to sparkle in sunlight. I was fine with that as a creative re-imagining of the vampire. And it makes sense that that crystallization manifests itself as the lack of growth of hair or fingernails. But the extension of that is the lack of viable sperm cells. I don't think this is a matter of genre. I think this is just a case of SM, not following SM's universe. Basically, she put it in there, she needs to follow it.
Honestly, I didn't read Twilight for it's genre. I didn't care. I just wanted to see if it was appropriate for my girls to read. Unfortunately, I got hooked and had to read the rest of it. So I don't see any requirements of genre that are supposed to be followed or not. All I see is that the author set up something one way, and when she wanted the story to go in another direction, ignored the fact that she'd established the opposite rule. To me that's a contradiction, and I would think that would be a plot hole in any genre.
Now, back to Alice. I still see it as a plot hole, because Bella already knows where she's going:
"I already knew where I would go, and where this would end. But I would follow his instructions exactly." (Pg. 429)
"For I had no choices now but one: to go to the mirrored room and die." (Pg. 430)
James has his plan in place, and his decision has not wavered. Bella has decided to go meet him at this point and knows where she intends to go, so when Alice has her vision on page 433, she should see their fates intersecting. Yes, changes in decision or indecision will affect Alice's visions, but I don't see any of those happening on these pages. Bella is quite determined to fool Alice so she can get away, and is trying to be careful with her emotions so Jasper doesn't get alarmed. This still speaks of intent, so Alice should see her there, with James.
Re: Bree Tanner. SM does put that bit in The Guide as well, about how Victoria originally made them for protection. But the way she treats the newborns in Bree doesn't jive with that. None of the newborns except Riley know who she is. They don't know what their purpose is. That's not how you treat a security detail. If Victoria truly was afraid for her life, and was making newborns to protect her, she'd have them surrounding her little cottage in the woods, not hiding in a basement. She'd make sure they knew their job was to protect her.
Instead, she's keeping them in the dark, not letting them have any information on what their purpose is until the last minute. Now whom would that tactic serve to defeat? Maybe a telepath and a clairvoyant. That's not a security detail. That's an army, and she'd been doing it that way from the very start.
In my opinion, that bit in The Guide was SM doing a bit of retcon. She's said that she didn't really plan her stories, just let the characters lead her where they wanted to go. Bree Tanner wasn't intended to be published at first, it was just a character study - she wanted to explore the darker world of newborns. Problem is, I don't think she looked at how its timeline overlayed the rest of the Saga. If she had, I doubt she'd have published it without some re-work.
If something makes sense to you, even after I've presented my information, so be it. If Renesmee and Nahuel are a good enough explanation for you to enjoy it, more power to you. I don't feel like I'm getting an unbiased examining of the evidence, because it feels like your mind's been made up, but I'm not here to harsh on your mellow. Just trying to meet halfway to have an open conversation. You're right, I can't agree it's not a plot hole because my information still makes sense to me. But it's not a "proven fact", just something I consider a plot hole.
Rel8tivity wrote: "Um, am I reading that right? You don't consider it a plot hole because that would have gotten in the way of enjoying the story? I wish I could say the same for myself. I enjoyed the first three books, and about the first 80 pages of BD. But the baby threw me out of the story and I couldn't get back into it. How could I not consider that a plot hole?No, not really. That is only part of what I said. That part refers only to why I don't consider what she did "bad writing". I liked that she stayed focused on the story that I, as a reader, cared about. I did not have the same reaction to the baby that you did. I wasn't thrown out of the story.
I didn't consider it a plot hole because I don't have my mind set around an old school rule that an author MUST provide plausible explanations. I've read speculative fiction where such explanations are not necessarily always given. I think that SM is being criticized for breaking a rule that doesn't even apply or at least does not any longer. It's like someone criticizing an author like Nicholas Sparks for not giving all of his romances a "happily ever after" ending. That's an old school rule that doesn't necessarily exist for the romance genre anymore. There have been other romance writers that have been breaking that rule for a long time now. There are a lot of die hard readers who prefer the HEA (I love a good HEA)....but the point is that it is no longer considered a MUST or a HAVE TO anymore.
Information is presented that establishes the characterization of the vampires. Later on, events occur that contradict that characterization. And while the information in the guide came out after the books, I believe it still reflected the characterization that SM intended when she wrote the books. In Midnight Sun, Edward speaks about how they had been converted to living stone upon transformation. Alice's hair has never grown back completely from when it was shaved in the asylum. They don't sleep because their brains are not able to change state. Clues like this were there to pick up on, and spoke to me of a being that was inert, even at a microscopic level.
If that is the case, why didn't you have a problem accepting how they were even able to walk and talk? What about the fact that they must "eat" periodically to survive? I don't think SM likening them to stone was originally intended to be taken quite so literally down to their biological make up. She added that later and it works to the detriment of her story.
SM introduced vampire tissue as crystallized cells, in order for them to sparkle in sunlight. I was fine with that as a creative re-imagining of the vampire. And it makes sense that that crystallization manifests itself as the lack of growth of hair or fingernails. But the extension of that is the lack of viable sperm cells. I don't think this is a matter of genre. I think this is just a case of SM, not following SM's universe. Basically, she put it in there, she needs to follow it.
You are selectively applying human physiology to the vampires, though, when it has been made clear that they are no longer human. If you can understand and accept the presence of "CELLS" in a vampire, why not DNA? Why isn't it possible that in the Twilight vampire universe, sperm may not be the only carrier of DNA? Can the venom in their bodies have the ability to carry dna and impregnate? It certainly has a lot of other capabilities. It can transform a human into a vampire. It can be used to reattach a limb that has been lost. It can close and heal a wound.
Plus, even if you do still think that she broke a rule in her universe, exactly who even says that she has to follow that rule anyway? Plenty of authors have successfully broken it.
Honestly, I didn't read Twilight for it's genre. I didn't care. I just wanted to see if it was appropriate for my girls to read. Unfortunately, I got hooked and had to read the rest of it. So I don't see any requirements of genre that are supposed to be followed or not. All I see is that the author set up something one way, and when she wanted the story to go in another direction, ignored the fact that she'd established the opposite rule. To me that's a contradiction, and I would think that would be a plot hole in any genre.
Don't read The Black Dagger Brotherhood series. You'd have a field day dissecting it! I'm not finished with these series yet, but I've heard that Laura Hamiliton and Charlaine Harris do it with the Anita Blake and Sookie Stackhouse series as well. I understand that Tolkien fans have written research papers on plot holes and inconsistencies in his works.
From my pov, I think the "don't break the rules of your universe" rule is probably a very tough one to adhere to without question if you wish to have your characters live in a series. Especially in a long series. Where do you plan to take your characters if you intend to keep them locked into those rules that you've established for yourself as an author? Is it reasonable to expect readers to want to remain in that same stagnant state for multiple novels? Can a series even reach the point of 20+ novels and remain relevant to readers without ever breaking a single one of it's rules? I'm not so certain that it can.
You guys seem to be working with the assumption that an author has to follow a list of rules for their writing yet so many authors have successfully broken all of these rules. I think it's ok for an author to break some or even all of the rules if it works for their story.
Now, back to Alice. I still see it as a plot hole, because Bella already knows where she's going:
"I already knew where I would go, and where this would end. But I would follow his instructions exactly." (Pg. 429)
"For I had no choices now but one: to go to the mirrored room and die." (Pg. 430)
James has his plan in place, and his decision has not wavered. Bella has decided to go meet him at this point and knows where she intends to go, so when Alice has her vision on page 433, she should see their fates intersecting. Yes, changes in decision or indecision will affect Alice's visions, but I don't see any of those happening on these pages. Bella is quite determined to fool Alice so she can get away, and is trying to be careful with her emotions so Jasper doesn't get alarmed. This still speaks of intent, so Alice should see her there, with James.
She does see Bella there in her later visions. She just doesn't see how Bella gets there because Bella herself hasn't formed a plan on how yet. Everything Alice and Jasper are doing from the point that James calls and Alice's visions shift to include Bella are attempts to change the outcomes of her visions and it's not working. It's not working because Bella doesn't have a plan. She knows where she is headed...but since she doesn't know how she is going to get there, neither does Alice and Alice won't know until Bella decides these things. Re-read ch. 22 in it's entirety. On pg 436 Bella suspects that Alice does see her in the room with James and isn't telling her.
As an aside, this chapter might be of interest to Melodic (Jesse?) too as she has problems with Bella's omniscience in knowing what other characters might be thinking. I called it a hunch or intuitiveness but she called it omniscience. Ch. 22 has some good examples of that. Better than the example that was given in New Moon, imo.
Re: Bree Tanner. SM does put that bit in The Guide as well, about how Victoria originally made them for protection. But the way she treats the newborns in Bree doesn't jive with that. None of the newborns except Riley know who she is. They don't know what their purpose is. That's not how you treat a security detail. If Victoria truly was afraid for her life, and was making newborns to protect her, she'd have them surrounding her little cottage in the woods, not hiding in a basement. She'd make sure they knew their job was to protect her.
Instead, she's keeping them in the dark, not letting them have any information on what their purpose is until the last minute. Now whom would that tactic serve to defeat? Maybe a telepath and a clairvoyant. That's not a security detail. That's an army, and she'd been doing it that way from the very start.
I read a book once about a secret service agent who was never told of the president's ultimate final destinations in the event that if he was ever compromised in some way, he wouldn't have info that could potentially help someone else to harm the president.
What you've said above makes more sense in this regard than it does as proof that she was already planning the army.
In my opinion, that bit in The Guide was SM doing a bit of retcon. She's said that she didn't really plan her stories, just let the characters lead her where they wanted to go. Bree Tanner wasn't intended to be published at first, it was just a character study - she wanted to explore the darker world of newborns. Problem is, I don't think she looked at how its timeline overlayed the rest of the Saga. If she had, I doubt she'd have published it without some re-work.
I totally agree. If she is doing what you say she is in this guide, that makes total sense. I've read other series guides before and I like things such as the deeper insight into characters and the author extras, but I don't like the idea of the author ret-conning things that work to the detriment of the series.
If something makes sense to you, even after I've presented my information, so be it. If Renesmee and Nahuel are a good enough explanation for you to enjoy it, more power to you. I don't feel like I'm getting an unbiased examining of the evidence, because it feels like your mind's been made up, but I'm not here to harsh on your mellow. Just trying to meet halfway to have an open conversation. You're right, I can't agree it's not a plot hole because my information still makes sense to me. But it's not a "proven fact", just something I consider a plot hole.
fair enough
Melodic_May wrote: "She did do something wrong. She created a creature that wasn't a vampire and labeled it as such. She did no research on vampires and her vampire has nothing remotely in common with other vampires other than blood drinking.None of this is "wrong", though. These are just things that you did not like. SM doesn't have to base her vampires around pre-existing lore. "Bunnicula" is a children's book about a harmless vampire rabbit that drinks vegetable juice.
Out of curiosity, which vampire lore would you have preferred to see reflected in Twilight?
It is. That is the whole reason why Edward has any interest in her in the first place. If he could hear her thoughts throughout Twilight he wouldn't have been interested in her because her thoughts are just like everyone else's. This is apart of the paranorm and apart of Bella and Edward, it is the reason Edward is intrigued by her, and yet it has no explanation.
You make a lot of presumptions about Edward and Bella that are not consistent their characterization in the books. Actually Bella's thoughts are not like every one else's. She doesn't care about shopping and gossip and finding a date to school dances. If her thoughts were like everyone else's and Edward would have had no interest in her like you claim, he would have discovered that after talking with her.....but that didn't happen. The more that they talked and spent time together, the closer they became.
Also, Bella has no reason to have this power. It's not hereditary, a genetic mutation, it's just there and then expands once she's a vampire. And that is a plot whole that is never explained, only expected to be accepted. Which is another reason why this is commodity, not quality. Because this makes no sense for her, a average human, to have this ability. And no one questions it because this series panders to their other wants while reading, like romance and drama.
It technically could be hereditary because Edward says that he doesn't fully hear Charlie's thoughts either. He only catches intermittent words and phrases. In this genre, it's not necessary for the power to be explained. It's cool if the author does so in a manner that doesn't interfere with the flow of the story....but it isn't mandatory. It's a YA paranormal romance. Of course it is going to pander to a target audience. I also happen to think that it is quite impressive that Twilight managed to cross-over to other audiences as well. Don't most books pander to their given genre and target audience?
Pain is still pain, it doesn't matter the difference in situations between those two. She doesn't have a pain threshold noted on any level to be able to withstand a c-section, which she dies from, and then having to go through the transformation. that is an illogical fallacy that isn't believable because Meyer hadn't set it up to be believable.
Pain is not still pain. That's why when you are in the hospital, the doctor or nurse typically asks you to rate you to rate your pain on a scale of 1 to 10. The pain from a broken bone is not the same as the pain from a headache. Your ability and/or willingness to bare or handle pain can change under different circumstances. Especially, under situations that involve duress or high stress. Why do you think lamaze classes are recommended? The techniques help you to manage your pain. Willingness to bare pain is the reason some women opt for natural childbirth and an unwillingness to bare pain might be a reason why some women go for the epidural.
and this is where science comes in. They sparkle like diamonds? Diamonds sparkle in any light from candle light to a cloudy day. Which is another reason why this book isn't good quality, but good commodity because the majority of people who read and liked this don't care about things like this and whether it's right or not. I don't understand how anyone with a diamond anything can defend this one and say that it's logical or anything of the sort.
That's actually not science. "Sparkle like diamonds" was just a simile. Nothing more. She compared their sparkle to the sparkle of a diamond. You are reading science into it when it doesn't belong there.
I'm not just leaving it at saying it's a fact, what kind of fool would just leave it at that? I'm also proving that what I'm saying is factual, you're just disagreeing with some things while you agreed with the rest of the factual things I've said. Why pick and choose?
The answer to that is very simple. Some things are "facts" and some things are not. That's why I pick and choose.
And nothing you've said has yet to prove that it is objectively a quality book instead of subjectively a quality book, that it isn't a commodity and thus why it was so popular and a bestseller.
I'm not surprised considering that I even don't believe that you can prove quality completely objectively when it comes to creative endeavors. I taught art in an elementary school and was disgusted when the principal told me that I had to establish a rubric for grading the children's work.
Mochaspresso wrote: "None of this is "wrong", though. These are just things that you did not like. SM doesn't have to base her vampires around pre-existing lore. "Bunnicula" is a children's book about a harmless vampire rabbit that drinks vegetable juice. "But it is. One of the worse things you can do as a writer is write about what you don't know and don't educate yourself on. you have no problem with her vampires not being vampires, don't see it as being wrong then that's fine. I can't convince you that it's wrong, but tell you that it is.
" Out of curiosity, which vampire lore would you have preferred to see reflected in Twilight?"
Anything that would've made them not be watered down kiddie version of a vampire. Like actually researched vampires and put her own twist to them, instead of writing what she thinks vampires are because she didn't want to know anything about them because they were too scary for her.
"You make a lot of presumptions about Edward and Bella that are not consistent their characterization in the books. "
you like to say they're presumptions based off of nothing, I like to say they're interpretations that differ from yours.
"Actually Bella's thoughts are not like every one else's. She doesn't care about shopping and gossip and finding a date to school dances. "
this is not what I meant. I don't know how you thought this is what I was referring to but it was not. Let me elaborate. Edward doesn't like all the girl's obsession with him and wanting to be with him. Bella from first seeing him is obsessed with him. If he could have read her mind in the cafeteria he wouldn't have gotten with her because in that aspect she is like everyone else, he wouldn't have been attracted to her, intrigued by her.
"It technically could be hereditary because Edward says that he doesn't fully hear Charlie's thoughts either."
And again, it is never explained, only expected to be accepted. And this can also be explained as Edward not having a bond with Charlie. His powers are explained as him being able to hear people's thoughts the closer (emotionally, in this case) he is with them. But this is besides the point as the main one is that The biggest reason they're together is never explained, only to be accepted.
"Pain is not still pain. That's why when you are in the hospital, the doctor or nurse typically asks you to rate you to rate your pain on a scale of 1 to 10. "
there are different levels of pain but pain is still pain. It is all the same, whether one thing hurts more than the other, it is still all pain. And the pain of her c section doesn't cancel out the immense pain from transforming, since she says that the pain was nothing compared to the pain of the transformation.
"That's actually not science. "Sparkle like diamonds" was just a simile. Nothing more. She compared their sparkle to the sparkle of a diamond. You are reading science into it when it doesn't belong there.
Tell that to Meyer then, not I. I'm saying what she said, not Bella. She posted the whole science on why they sparkle like diamonds. And it wasn't a simile, she said they actually sparkle like diamonds because their cells are crystallized and reflects light. And what does a crystal look like when it's reflecting/refracting light? It looks like it's sparkling. And once again, diamonds -or crystals- sparkle under any kind of light. UV, artificial, candle light. It still sparkles and thus they should sparkle all the time, not when it's convenient for Meyer to mention it.
"I'm not surprised considering that I even don't believe that you can prove quality completely objectively when it comes to creative endeavors."
you're not surprised that nothing you've said has yet to prove that it is objectively a quality book?
Anywhom, not to be deterred by the total disconnection my last sentence and your last one had, I am trying to prove that objectively this series isn't quality but a hot commodity, as is what I've been saying the whole time. If you can't be convinced no matter what proof I show or what I say, especially when you have your mind made up already, how would you believe me anyway? You don't believe me now. You agree that some things I've said are true but still don't see them as why I believe that objectively it isn't a good quality book and instead it's quality comes from it's commodity. That the things I've proven to be bad about the book deters it from being a objectively good quality book.
And the whole point at the end of my last post was that I've yet see you try to prove that it is objectively good instead of you saying that it is subjectively good. I'm trying, you are not and are just disagreeing with me. Which isn't bad, but you disagree because of subjective opinions, while I find that what I've been saying is proof as to why it isn't objectively a good quality book/series when it comes to story telling, continuity, characterization, writing, etc. She gets some slack because she knew what would sell as a hot commodity, but it could've been better in quality.
"I taught art in an elementary school and was disgusted when the principal told me that I had to establish a rubric for grading the children's work. "
Just because art is subjective doesn't mean that it as a subject doesn't need a grading rubric. But that's neither here nor there and I don't care.
Melodic_May wrote: But it is. One of the worse things you can do as a writer is write about what you don't know and don't educate yourself on. you have no problem with her vampires not being vampires, don't see it as being wrong then that's fine. I can't convince you that it's wrong, but tell you that it is.I just think that "write what you know" applies more directly to realistic fiction and real world scenarios than it does to fantasy. If you are writing about a courtroom drama, you need to research courtroom procedures if you don't already have that knowledge. If you are writing a fantasy and are creating your own lore for your world in the process, I don't think you need to research as much or at all if you have no intention of basing your lore on any other existing lore. SM knew that her vampires were going to be different.
Anything that would've made them not be watered down kiddie version of a vampire. Like actually researched vampires and put her own twist to them, instead of writing what she thinks vampires are because she didn't want to know anything about them because they were too scary for her.
"watered down kiddie version of a vampire?" That phrase makes me think of Count Chocula. Well, considering that the book was YA, I actually liked that her vampire lore was age appropriate.
You seem to be stuck in a very old school and one-dimensional notion of what a vampire is supposed to be. I have a hard accepting that vampires are SUPPOSED to be anything. You keep saying that she never researched vampires. Well, my question for those who have researched them, why aren't you aware of how many variations of them are out there and just how many authors there are that have already deviated from the more traditional lore? If such a deviation is so very wrong, why not criticize Tolkien for doing the exact same thing with elves? People clearly accept these types of deviations in works that they like.
you like to say they're presumptions based off of nothing, I like to say they're interpretations that differ from yours.
I didn't say "based off of nothing", but fair enough.
this is not what I meant. I don't know how you thought this is what I was referring to but it was not. Let me elaborate. Edward doesn't like all the girl's obsession with him and wanting to be with him. Bella from first seeing him is obsessed with him. If he could have read her mind in the cafeteria he wouldn't have gotten with her because in that aspect she is like everyone else, he wouldn't have been attracted to her, intrigued by her.
You have a way with words that tends to exaggerate. Bella was not obsessed with Edward from the very beginning. She was curious about him. She does later develop an obsession, but it wasn't like that from the very beginning.
I think I disagree with you about their first interaction. When Bella first sees him, she is curious about him and his family. She only mentions once that he's handsome. The rest of the conversation with Jessica has nothing to do with his looks or with wanting to get with him. Which is the typical thing that goes through the other girl's minds around Edward. Bella never even mentions the idea of getting with him or even thinks about the possibility at that point. Jessica is the one who adds the "don't waste your time, none of us are good enough for him" line. He can't read her mind, but he can hear the conversation that they are having. Even in the context that you mention above, Bella does actually think differently than the other girls.
And again, it is never explained, only expected to be accepted. And this can also be explained as Edward not having a bond with Charlie. His powers are explained as him being able to hear people's thoughts the closer (emotionally, in this case) he is with them. But this is besides the point as the main one is that The biggest reason they're together is never explained, only to be accepted.
First, this is only a problem if you are adamantly insistent that it must be explained. Second, the books actually do explain that the vampire talents tend to be an amplified trait that the human probably already possessed during their human lives. I don't think a more technical reasoning beyond that is necessary to the story. Stephen King did not provide explanations for the origins of Carrie's power either. Finally, none of the vampire traits are explicitly explained in the manner that you are seeking. Why does Alice see visions? Why does Edward read minds? Why does Aro see every thought you've ever had and why does he have to touch you to do it? I don't understand the fixation on Bella's talent above every one else's in the story. You accepted that Edward reads minds and that Alice has visions with no issue or question. Why can't Bella's talent be accepted in the same manner?
there are different levels of pain but pain is still pain. It is all the same, whether one thing hurts more than the other, it is still all pain. And the pain of her c section doesn't cancel out the immense pain from transforming, since she says that the pain was nothing compared to the pain of the transformation.
I don't know how to explain this any other way other than giving birth. You can grit your teeth and make yourself tolerate more pain because of the hope that the final outcome will be worth the pain. (This is pure speculation on my part but re-reading that chapter, I would not be surprised to learn that SM may have had an epidural that wore off too early or wasn't strong enough during the birth of one of her children. Or at the very least, a very difficult delivery. That chapter reads like that type of experience, imo.) Also, re-read that chapter on her transformation. She says that she can't move because of the morphine.
Tell that to Meyer then, not I. I'm saying what she said, not Bella. She posted the whole science on why they sparkle like diamonds. And it wasn't a simile, she said they actually sparkle like diamonds because their cells are crystallized and reflects light. And what does a crystal look like when it's reflecting/refracting light? It looks like it's sparkling. And once again, diamonds -or crystals- sparkle under any kind of light. UV, artificial, candle light. It still sparkles and thus they should sparkle all the time, not when it's convenient for Meyer to mention it.
I will say the same to you that I said to the other poster. I did not read the guide where these explanations are given. If they say this, then they do sound very stupid and I won't argue against that.....but that wasn't in the book and I am glad. I was fine with Twilight the way it was. I read it for the romance. I didn't need or want a scientific explanation of vampiric biology and cellular composition. I didn't care why he glitters in sunlight. SM could have written it so that the sun hurts him and he uses a shimmer sunblock for all I cared.
you're not surprised that nothing you've said has yet to prove that it is objectively a quality book?
My goal was never to prove this as it is not something that I believe can be proven. I believe that quality is or can be very much a subjective concept. My goal was to explain why I feel that some of your objective opinions are not all that objective and are actually highly subjective and not actual facts.
The United States is on the continent of North America is a fact that can be proven. The United States is a great country to live in because....... is not an objective argument. Even if a fact is given as a reason, it is still not objective because there is no general consensus that everyone values that fact.
That is what I am trying to explain. It's a fact that she didn't research vampires. However, that is only a problem, a negative or a flaw in the writing if you actually believe that she has to. The opinion that this is a bad thing is what is subjective.
Anywhom, not to be deterred by the total disconnection my last sentence and your last one had, I am trying to prove that objectively this series isn't quality but a hot commodity, as is what I've been saying the whole time. If you can't be convinced no matter what proof I show or what I say, especially when you have your mind made up already, how would you believe me anyway? You don't believe me now. You agree that some things I've said are true but still don't see them as why I believe that objectively it isn't a good quality book and instead it's quality comes from it's commodity. That the things I've proven to be bad about the book deters it from being a objectively good quality book.
And the whole point at the end of my last post was that I've yet see you try to prove that it is objectively good instead of you saying that it is subjectively good. I'm trying, you are not and are just disagreeing with me. Which isn't bad, but you disagree because of subjective opinions, while I find that what I've been saying is proof as to why it isn't objectively a good quality book/series when it comes to story telling, continuity, characterization, writing, etc. She gets some slack because she knew what would sell as a hot commodity, but it could've been better in quality.
I'm sorry but this is all just pure arrogance. It's interesting how you say that you've "proven" things about the book. I've countered several things that you've said, sometimes even quoting directly from the book (without adding my own interpretive exaggerations and embellishments to the text).....yet your position is still that you've "proven" it and what you've said is fact. I don't see that you've done that at all.....but you are welcome to say and believe that you did and I am welcome to disagree with it. That's what this is all about. We don't have convince each other to come to our side. We can just present our sides so that we can understand each other better. That's what I came away from this discussion with. A better understanding of why some people say the negative things that they say about Twilight. I don't have to agree with them in the end or convince them that they are wrong. I've heard you out and told you what I think about what you've said and what I happen to think about the books. That's all there is to it.
Just because art is subjective doesn't mean that it as a subject doesn't need a grading rubric. But that's neither here nor there and I don't care.
On the HS and college level, I agree with you, but not with elementary students. (grades K-5) I can understand the need with older students but I loathed the idea of grading little kindergarteners artwork as they are only 5 years old. Knowing what I know of child development, I think the very notion is extremely cruel and sadistic. I circumvented it by not grading their actual artwork. Everyone's work was displayed. I gave them very easy little quizzes based around the curriculum to justify a report card "art grade" instead.
If Edward didn't sparkle.Now, I have only read the first book and really the only problem I had with the book was the fact that Edward sparkles. Vampires don't sparkle.
How I understand it is that the main reason that Twilight gets hate is because of the flippin' sparkling vampires. Seriously though, type 'Twilight Funny' in your search engine, press images and look how many sparkling puns there are. There is about twenty million.
This isn't exactly going to make it "better" so to speak, but it would definently (I know that's spelt wrong -_-) receive much less hate, and morepeople would read & watch Twilight, therefore giving it more of a chance in box office, and on books charts.
Josh wrote: "Olivia wrote: "Melodic_May wrote: "Josh wrote: "If it got teens and young adults reading instead of watching the boob tube or cyber stalking each other it deserves some admiration. "I'm a very av..."
I respect this opinion alot. I have actually tried to write plenty of stories and it isn't easy. I think we should congradulate Meyer for her work and how far she has gotten in her career. Although I doo still think a few things could be changed *cough* sparkling vampires *cough* I don't think she should be receiving this much hate.
This question is basically asking if twilight would be better if it were a different book...
Mochaspresso wrote: "I just think that "write what you know" applies more directly to realistic fiction and real world scenarios than it does to fantasy. "And that's fine for you but it isn't fine to me and is what I feel is one of many reasons why Twilight isn't a good quality book.
"If you are writing a fantasy and are creating your own lore for your world in the process, I don't think you need to research as much or at all if you have no intention of basing your lore on any other existing lore. SM knew that her vampires were going to be different. "
But she did not, that is what I'm trying to show you. she didn't create her own lore for vampires when she took everything away from vampires that makes them vampires, and kept blood drinking. One cannot create lore for an already existing creature, especially one as wildly popular as vampires. And even when it comes to fantasy fiction one still needs to do research. One has already failed as a author and writer when they not only don't do research, but flat out refuse to. And it's not only researching vampires, it's researching everything else she got wrong. The history, geography, the science. Do you know how irked I am still that she got the geology of Brazil wrong?? Looking at a map for ten seconds would've told her there's no west coast of Brazil, that it's all inland and that Isle Esme couldn't exist where she put it because there's no west coast of Brazil!
"You seem to be stuck in a very old school and one-dimensional notion of what a vampire is supposed to be."
My old school, one-dimensional notion of vampires are them actually being vampires instead of immortal blood drinkers? That's funny.
"Well, my question for those who have researched them, why aren't you aware of how many variations of them are out there and just how many authors there are that have already deviated from the more traditional lore?"
I am aware. You should toss whatever assumption you've gathered that made you think otherwise. Deviating from lore and ignoring it wholeheartedly to write however one pleases are two polar opposites. She didn't 'add her own twist' she recreated them in her preferred image. This wouldn't be a bad thing if she researched them and wrote what she knew, instead of creating as she went along with it.
"Bella was not obsessed with Edward from the very beginning. "
Oh really? There is a fine line between curiosity and obsession and Bella took a running leap over the line. There was not a moment that went by in the beginning that she didn't think of him. And she thought of him the very same giddy way that Edward hated when it came from the rest of the female population. And throughout the first half of the book her thought process is the very same as what Edward describes comes from the other girls. She doesn't talk like the other girls, but she thinks like them when it comes to Edward.
"First, this is only a problem if you are adamantly insistent that it must be explained."
Oh no, of course not! Why would this be a problem? Its only the very reason why Edward is intrigued by her and doesn't go for killing her immediately. Why would I be adamant that it must be explained? I mean, it's not like I've been saying that this is sloppy writing on her part for this to be one of the main reasons he decides to be with her instead of kill her and yet it's never explained. No, never!
"Also, re-read that chapter on her transformation. She says that she can't move because of the morphine."
Morphine numbs pain, it doesn't render you immobile. Morphine is a narcotic yes, but it doesn't paralyze you or make you unable to do anything related to movement, like scream. If that were so, she wouldn't have been able to breath and would've suffocated. Can't have it the desired way and ignore all other ways that it should work as well.
" Finally, none of the vampire traits are explicitly explained in the manner that you are seeking. "
At this, you are wrong. I can accept why they have their powers, as authors are wont to write vampires with powers like this because it was the powers Dracula had, if I'm not mistaken. The thing wrong with this is that there's no reason for Bella to have this ability pre transformation, and post transformation. And that is another reason why it is objectively bad. There are important bits she puts in the story and then fails to explain them.
"I did not read the guide where these explanations are given. "
Its not the guide, its her website. And if I'm not mistaken, she posted it long before the guide was made. Hence why I said posted it, not published it. And I'm pretty sure it's explained in the books why they sparkle.
I read it for the romance. I didn't need or want a scientific explanation of vampiric biology and cellular composition. I didn't care why he glitters in sunlight. SM could have written it so that the sun hurts him and he uses a shimmer sunblock for all I cared. "
And this is to you subjectively why it's a quality book. You were seeking something and she provided. But what I've been posting is why it's objectively not as quality as you subjectively see it.
"My goal was never to prove this as it is not something that I believe can be proven."
Then why prompt me to do it but try to subjectively disprove what I'm saying, that which can be backed up by facts from the series, but can only be disproved with your subjective point of view?
" It's interesting how you say that you've "proven" things about the book. I've countered several things that you've said, sometimes even quoting directly from the book."
What you see as arrogance is nothing but my polite criticism. But since you will probably continue to see arrogance, allow me to continue it then and point you to what I said before this, as it covers this one already.
"yet your position is still that you've "proven" it and what you've said is fact. "
I'm saying it as fact because it comes from the books.
And like I said, I don't care what you said about art and your job because to reiterate, I don't care.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "Um, am I reading that right? You don't consider it a plot hole because that would have gotten in the way of enjoying the story? I wish I could say the same for myself. I enjoyed ..."Pardon me for summarizing and not quoting you. My intention isn't to take you out of context, but to condense, as I'm getting a little long here. :)
Re: Not fair to demand SM must provide explanations. I'm not sure I'm with you on that. The rule that I see being broken isn't one that is part of 'established' vampire lore or genre. I'm genre agnostic, so she can break as many of those as she wants. But when she sets something down as part of the creation of her world, I do expect her to follow that. Look at it this way. If JK Rowling wrote that a human sacrifice was required to destroy each horcrux, you might be outraged at first, but that's the cost of fighting evil. Then if at a later time, a horcrux is destroyed without the required sacrifice, but there is no explanation, you'd say "Hey! Where's the sacrifice?" There better be some kind of logical support, otherwise it breaks characterization. I'm not criticizing her for breaking a rule of genre. The rule that is being broken is one of her own making.
Re: Total inertia of vampire tissue. Sorry, I should be more specific. Obviously, we don't believe that they are completely inert, otherwise they'd simply be statues. But I don't feel I'm interpreting SM's portrayal incorrectly or selectively. It's simply something she didn't consider when she made her initial description. She's very specific in calling out the lack of new growth, and the non-changing state. She just didn't think it all the way through, when it came to reproductive processes.
I do think that SM intended for the concept of crystalization to extend down to their cells, since that's her original reason for sparkly vampires. She refers to each little cell acting like a prism, so they refract sunlight. That tells me she wanted crystalline cells from the beginning. Otherwise, she'd have to come up with a different reason for them not to go out in sunlight, or stick with the traditional one of going *poof*.
The way she's described her vampires, the human source material has been transformed, but still retains human-like functions. If you look in The Guide or her website about bodily fluids, she states that there is a venom equivalent for most bodily fluids, including semen. She's said it performs the same function as in humans, of carrying genetic material. The problem is, semen itself is not capable of impregnating anybody - it's a transport mechanism.
So this is how she shoots herself in the foot: No new growth means no more sperm cells. No change in state means cells can't split open to spill DNA into the seminal fluid analogue. If sperm existed at the time of Edward's transformation and were converted into vampire cells, they're still subject to the inability to change state, and can't release any DNA contained within to bond with any ovum, human or vampire.
To date, SM has not moved away from her "no growth or change" rule. She's not said anything about how the lack of growth doesn't apply to her vampire's testicles or sperm cells. All she's said is that she has the science figured out and it works for her. But she's still not presented it in The Guide or in any other interviews since. So in the lack of other information, I can only go with the descriptions that she's given before. And they still lead me to the same place: RenFailmee the Plot Hole. Nahuel and his sisters too, for that matter.
Re: Unfair to critcize SM for rule breaking. Hmm, what rule are you speaking of? Of vampires not able to make children? Again, I'm genre agnostic, and there are stories of vampire human half-breeds. I think dhamphir is the term for them. As long as it's built into the story I'm fine with it. But she built them OUT of her story. So she can't break that if she wants her story to make sense. If she doesn't care if it makes sense, then of course all bets are off. Then she can make Edward spontaneously develop the werewolf gene, and become a lycanpire if she wants. She just better be prepared to accept the criticism that comes for making plot holes, and not making sense within the story.
Again, I'm not talking about a list of rules that define a genre. I'm talking about the universe that SM built. She can break as many rules as she wants in establishing the rules of her world. But once she establishes her own rules, SHE HAS TO STICK TO THEM. It has to make sense within that world, or there's no story to hang it on. Even fantasy stories have to make sense within themselves.
Re: Bella doesn't have a plan so Alice doesn't see her. We're not told that people have to have a plan, only that they have to make a decision. And we have two decisions: Bella's and James'. That's supposed to be enough. How does Alice predict the stock market? Based on the outcomes from the decisions of unknown people to buy or sell stock, not on their plans. In Eclipse, Victoria's supposedly keeping Alice guessing by not making a decision. (BTW, I think that's kinda crap, too, because at this time, she's got her army assembled, and her intent is to use it as a weapon. To me, intent is as good as a decision, but I digress...) A plan would obviously make the vision clearer because they're more specific decisions, but she's operated on fuzzier decisions before.
Of course, this makes you wonder about the weather. What the heck is deciding to make it rain, so she can predict that? Maybe global warming is a decision by mankind. :)
I'll grant you that plot devices involving Alice are frequently debatable. She supposedly "sees" Jasper coming to meet her in that diner. But he didn't know that she existed until that point, so how did he "decide" to meet her? She "sees" herself joining the Cullens even though she's never heard of them before. Alice seems like SM's plot device of convenience. Whenever she needs to tweak the story, she reaches for Alice. And there's so much shaky material it's hard to say what is reliable canon with her.
Re: Secret service agent. Well, it's not exactly the same situation. In your example, the character is a Secret Service agent, and he knows what his purpose is: protecting the president. In the case of the newborns, they have no purpose. It's all Riley can do to keep them from killing each other and running amok before he's ready to cut them loose. They're doing nothing that might resemble protecting Victoria that I can see. So I can't accept that explanation of SM's, because the portrayal doesn't match the claim. But I guess at this point we just shrug and write it off as SM not keeping track of her canon properly.
Melodic_May wrote: "And that's fine for you but it isn't fine to me and is what I feel is one of many reasons why Twilight isn't a good quality book.This would normally be fair enough for me IF you appeared to hold all "quality" books to that same standard. Going by your shelves, it doesn't appear that you actually do. You gave Shiver 5 stars. I'll be honest and say that I haven't read it yet. It's on my TBR list, but I've read some positive and some negative reviews. Given some of the criticisms mentioned in the negative reviews that I've read...some of which are exactly the same as those commonly cited for Twilight, I'm curious as to the differences that you see between the two, particularly as it pertains to the things that you criticize Twilight for.
But she did not, that is what I'm trying to show you. she didn't create her own lore for vampires when she took everything away from vampires that makes them vampires, and kept blood drinking. One cannot create lore for an already existing creature, especially one as wildly popular as vampires. And even when it comes to fantasy fiction one still needs to do research. One has already failed as a author and writer when they not only don't do research, but flat out refuse to. And it's not only researching vampires, it's researching everything else she got wrong. The history, geography, the science. Do you know how irked I am still that she got the geology of Brazil wrong?? Looking at a map for ten seconds would've told her there's no west coast of Brazil, that it's all inland and that Isle Esme couldn't exist where she put it because there's no west coast of Brazil!
I totally agree with you about the geography error. I think that is something that should also have been caught somewhere in the editing stage as well. I am not defending that at all.
I also agree about the science but only to a certain extent. The science is not necessary to the story and does not have to be included. However, I do agree that the science definitely needs to be researched if you do intend to include it, though. SM did not include it originally and should have just left it alone. She did that retroactively on her websites and in her guide. I think it was a mistake for her to do that.
And of course one most certainly can create a lore for an already existing creature. It's actually been done many many times. That is precisely what Bram Stoker did. The very notion of a vampire that you are championing is not even the original incarnation of one.
I am aware. You should toss whatever assumption you've gathered that made you think otherwise. Deviating from lore and ignoring it wholeheartedly to write however one pleases are two polar opposites. She didn't 'add her own twist' she recreated them in her preferred image. This wouldn't be a bad thing if she researched them and wrote what she knew, instead of creating as she went along with it.
This "rule" that you have is clearly not being followed in the real world. If that rule truly does still exist, people would be criticizing every single zombie incarnation that is popular right now because none of them follow what a zombie was originally known to be. Applying that same rule mentality, the only zombie lore that would be acceptable would be those rooted in voo-doo. Anything derived from the Romero movie would have been considered a complete abomination and is not a "real zombie". The same could be said for werewolves, ghosts, witches, elves and fairies et al.
These notions of what a good author must do are very antiquated, imo. Antiquated and limiting. Successful authors have been breaking these so called rules left and right.
Oh really? There is a fine line between curiosity and obsession and Bella took a running leap over the line. There was not a moment that went by in the beginning that she didn't think of him. And she thought of him the very same giddy way that Edward hated when it came from the rest of the female population. And throughout the first half of the book her thought process is the very same as what Edward describes comes from the other girls. She doesn't talk like the other girls, but she thinks like them when it comes to Edward.
Actually she did not originally think of him in the same giddy way as the other girls. She didn't automatically jump to the possibility of them dating...."Oh, he's cute. I wish he would ask me out!!" She wasn't crushing on him in that way. That came after they started hanging out. Plus, he was actually crushing on her far far more than she was crushing on him. (ie...the "stalking"?) This is where the feminism argument comes up for me again. Why criticize Bella for a trait that Edward actually demonstrates to a much much higher degree? These types criticisms are full of double standards and are hypocritical.
Oh no, of course not! Why would this be a problem? Its only the very reason why Edward is intrigued by her and doesn't go for killing her immediately. Why would I be adamant that it must be explained? I mean, it's not like I've been saying that this is sloppy writing on her part for this to be one of the main reasons he decides to be with her instead of kill her and yet it's never explained. No, never!
It doesn't need to be....but "never explained" is not actually true. The reasons why he decide to be with her instead of kill her is explained in Midnight Sun. I assume it's probably still available on SM's website or online somewhere.
Morphine numbs pain, it doesn't render you immobile. Morphine is a narcotic yes, but it doesn't paralyze you or make you unable to do anything related to movement, like scream. If that were so, she wouldn't have been able to breath and would've suffocated. Can't have it the desired way and ignore all other ways that it should work as well.
Again with the exaggerated language. Perhaps, it's me. I'm very sorry. That was colloquial and not meant to be taken quite so literally. She wasn't paralyzed or rendered completely immobile in the most literal sense. Large doses of morphine do affect mobility in the sense that you are impaired. (ie feels like it's more difficult to move than it truly is because of the drowsiness and sedation side effects.)
At this, you are wrong. I can accept why they have their powers, as authors are wont to write vampires with powers like this because it was the powers Dracula had, if I'm not mistaken. The thing wrong with this is that there's no reason for Bella to have this ability pre transformation, and post transformation. And that is another reason why it is objectively bad. There are important bits she puts in the story and then fails to explain them.
That's not an explanation of why it's objectively bad because the idea that this lack of explanation is ALWAYS bad is subjective and imo, proven to be inaccurate given the number of authors who have done it. "The Rocking Horse Winner" by DH Lawrence never explains why the boy becomes clairvoyant when he rides the horse. Why not? Imo, the reason is that this is not supposed to be your main concern while reading the story. That's not where Mr. Lawrence wanted the reader to go w/ his story. The focus should be on how the greed of the parents has affected the child.
Its not the guide, its her website. And if I'm not mistaken, she posted it long before the guide was made. Hence why I said posted it, not published it. And I'm pretty sure it's explained in the books why they sparkle.
I don't remember it. I'm not saying that it wasn't there. I just don't remember an explanation being given in the books.
And this is to you subjectively why it's a quality book. You were seeking something and she provided. But what I've been posting is why it's objectively not as quality as you subjectively see it.
You're still giving objective arguments for a subjective opinion. Your objective observations become subjective with regards to what constitutes quality in literature. What I am trying to explain is that not everyone agrees that some of the qualities that you seem to be focused on necessarily prove that literature is "good" or "bad".
I can say that "Popeye" is a terrible comic because it features a damsel in distress. Popeye featuring the damsel in distress is an objective observation. However, the assertion that this makes Popeye bad is what is subjective. Not everyone adheres to a "rule" that comics must not feature a damsel in distress.
I can say that a batch of brownies are quality because they are moist and chewy. The fact that they are moist and chewy is objective. That's a fact that can be proven. However, the notion that moist and chewy is a definite requirement of a quality brownie is subjective. A person who prefers cake like brownies will disagree with that notion.
Then why prompt me to do it but try to subjectively disprove what I'm saying, that which can be backed up by facts from the series, but can only be disproved with your subjective point of view?
First of all, not every thing that you have said was backed up with "facts from the series". I questioned many of your interpretations and statements about the series.
What you see as arrogance is nothing but my polite criticism. But since you will probably continue to see arrogance, allow me to continue it then and point you to what I said before this, as it covers this one already.
I'm saying it as fact because it comes from the books.
...it's not a fact if you are exaggerating, misrepresenting or misinterpreting things from the books, though.
Rel8tivity wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Rel8tivity wrote: "Um, am I reading that right? You don't consider it a plot hole because that would have gotten in the way of enjoying the story? I wish I could say the same ..."Damn SM for stupidly putting that lame ass scientific explanation out there!!! I understand what you are saying about SM breaking her own canon and not sticking to the rules of her world. I do see why that would be a problem for some people. Although, in her defense, she didn't just break it without addressing it. She did write it into the story that it was something that everyone believed to be impossible. I just don't see why it has to be considered bad when so many authors have done it. It's not just literature either. Some video gamers can be zealous about a game franchise breaking canon, too. I think I will always be one of those things about certain readers that I probably will never fully get. Kind of like the obsession about avoiding spoilers. It's not a big deal to me but some people take it very seriously. Hell, I actively seek them out sometimes because I want to know what happens so badly.
Anyway, you lost me here....
So this is how she shoots herself in the foot: No new growth means no more sperm cells. No change in state means cells can't split open to spill DNA into the seminal fluid analogue. If sperm existed at the time of Edward's transformation and were converted into vampire cells, they're still subject to the inability to change state, and can't release any DNA contained within to bond with any ovum, human or vampire.
First, do the VAMPIRE cells actually need to be able to "change state" to release DNA? Second, if there is an inability to change state....how does the process of turning a human actually work then? It seems to me that process would be called into question as well. So would the function and necessity of drinking blood. I think the "inability to change" is being taken way top far and literally. In a very selective manner, to boot. They salivate venom when thirsty. Their bodies metabolize blood. There are clearly changes going on within their bodies. I thought the "inability to change" had more to do with the aging process.
Perhaps I need to read this stuff for myself to understand it better...
Regarding, Alice's visions, Alice does explain that her visions are based on decisions that people make and that any change that is made, no matter how small, shifts the vision. Alice sees James and Bella in the studio, but she can't stop it from happening because neither one has decided how Bella is going to get there yet. If someone knows how to manipulate Alice's visions, they would not make any decisions until the last possible minute and they would also make sure that she was far enough away, thus limiting her ability to react. I didn't assume that the people that she watches for the stock market tips were "unknown". You could watch certain key people and see how their decisions to buy or sell certain stocks affect their futures and invest accordingly. That makes perfect sense to me. So does predicting the weather. I don't think she's predicting the weather in isolation at all. I think she's just paying attention to what the weather is like in her visions.
Regarding the newborn army, they do have a purpose. Victoria has just chosen to keep them in the dark and has enlisted Riley to help keep them in line.
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...
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.
If by "giving them more importance", you mean more important to the romantic story line between Edward and Bella, then I guess we are actually in agreement on something.
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.
just because many people come together and agree on something doesn't mean that something is actually a "truth" or an irrefutable "fact". Especially when pertains to an abstract and subjective concept like "quality". Double especially if holding on to that agreement also hinders one's ability to see or consider a different pov.