Grammatical Errors

[Gerd]

Katie wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I think the main point here is that Stephanie Meyer became famous because her subject matter is trendy. By no means is she a good writer..."

Yeah, she's in a way a writers equviavalent to Lady GaGa in that sense. :)

[Torie]

Julia wrote: "No. Meyer uses bad grammar because she doesn't know better and confusing grammatically structure because she thinks is sounds pretty.i>

Ohhhh and how can you be so sure of that?

[Ariel]

I didn't even notice how it was spelled throughout all four books... I was to busy following the story and have a good time than trying to seem better than SM by trying SO hard to find errors in her writing.

[Ariel]

Kristen wrote: "Paul wrote: "So, a girl who is emotionally enslaved by a man who puts her at risk at every turn while treating her like a "thing" is wholesome entertainment?"

hahaha!
Sorry I found that really fu..."

I agree!

[Ariel]

Meenakshi wrote: "Paul wrote: "Meenakshi wrote: "by good,I mean providing a wholesome entertainment and even motivation to a huge set of audience.
I don't understand why she should be stopped back just because of a ..."

I agree! (lol deja vu?)

[Ariel]

Meenakshi wrote: "Bensley56 wrote: "Stephen King pretty much nailed it: "Stephenie can't write worth a darn. She's not very good"."

That is not fair my friend.No matter how good or how bad she is, at least she is a..."

you took the words out of my mouth! She may not be a good speller but she's a good storyteller (which is what counts for me...) and you may not agree but I believe that us fans enjoyed the story most.

[Ariel]

Kristen wrote: "Hylian Princess wrote: "I find grammatical errors in many books I read; I find typos too. We're all human and it just..."

Yep.

Has anyone seen this?

"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uine..."

lol yes I have seen that! And I have read it perfectly every time! XD

[Lindis]

Next time I read them, I think I'll actually look for the "bad grammar" I guess it didn't bother me. I plan on re-reading Breaking Dawn again before the first movie comes out. I'll have to look. : )

Not that I don't believe you. I do. I'm sure that there are mistakes in the books. And I'm sure that there are more than what would be "normal". I say normal, because is there really a "perfectly written" book out there? How boring would that be?

Would someone please actually quote these mistakes in the books for me? SHOW me what I missed.

[Elaine]

Kristen wrote: "I think I'm gonna have to re-read the book, b/c I don't remember problems with the grammar - not saying they're not there, I just didn't notice them.
I was focusing on the story...."
I agree. I read to enjoy reading not to correct errors, wow. Apparently not many people feel the same way seeing how many she sold within her first year.

[C.D.]

Lindis wrote: "I say normal, because is there really a "perfectly written" book out there? How boring would that be?"

I only read text books. On grammar. :p

To be truthful, I don't remember grammar errors. However, they would have to be glaring for me to notice.

Many books are written in a casual, speaking tone. Since speech patterns are rarely grammatically correct, I wouldn't expect books written in 1st person, or even 3rd person limited, to have perfect grammar.

[P.J.]

I aint seen nuttin wrong wit her durned grammer. sheesh!

[Molly]

Antoinette wrote: "The editors should catch her poor grammar. If they don't there must be a reason for it. BUT,---it does bother me to read books that sound unintelligent."

Editors can advise the author to change to change their grammar and poor sentence structure, but the author is the one who has the final say on changing it. If they don't want to change it there's nothing the editor can do. I think that's probably what happened with these books.

[Molly]

Lexus wrote: "I love when people pick success apart. 42 million readers obviously didn't care about the grammar. Story, it's always about the story ;)"

I don't think so. A number of things go into a good book, and story is only one of those things. The big thing Meyer had going for her was her ability to get the reader's feelings involved. Meyer's book were like emotional porn: There was a lot of emotional stimulation but the plot sucked and most people didn't seem to care about it. Twilight's story was nothing special.

Also, don't forget that of those 42 million readers, roughly a quarter are probably haters (they hate but they'll still buy to keep on hating). Another healthy chunk of them belong to the same camp as me that view Twilight as so bad it's good. I love Twilight, but I also acknowledge that the story is cliche, the writing is painful, the dialogue is unnatural, the main characters are Mary Sues, the relationship is bad, and Meyer needs to end her unhealthy relationship with her thesaurus and become better acquainted with wikipedia.

[Juliet]

Molly wrote: "Lexus wrote: "I love when people pick success apart. 42 million readers obviously didn't care about the grammar. Story, it's always about the story ;)"

I don't think so. A number of things go into..."

I agree except I can't stand Twilight, I would never use the words love and Twilight in the same sentence other than to say "I love to hate Twilight"

[Molly]

Juliet wrote: "Molly wrote: "Lexus wrote: "I love when people pick success apart. 42 million readers obviously didn't care about the grammar. Story, it's always about the story ;)"

I don't think so. A number of ..."

I can completely understand that. Twilight is one of those things people love to hate. It's fun to hate it. I used to hate it too, but somewhere between Edward's "THIS IS THE SKIN OF KILLAH!!11!!!1" *sparkle sparkle* and his attempt to commit suicide by sparkling in public, I just had to laugh.

[Lydia]

Jessica wrote: "Instead of arguing over bad grammar, why doesn't somebody give an example from the book?"

Exactly my thoughts. Seeing as i read the book a while back, can anyone give us some substance for this discussion?
Otherwise i'd feel pretty bad criticising a book- without the faults i'm banging on about.

[Syahira]

Imagine that.... I actually looked all the books and found the books have editors in it... -_-

I like writing. But sometimes I do some grammatical errors since I havent had any english class since I left pre-U college (in university, I took biomedical science) and sometimes I refer to microsoft words to check for grammars which is pretty unreliable in some ways.

I did post a lot of chapters in fiction.net and the same thing come up.. grammar nazis... so everytime I started writing for online writing sites... I gave an excuse : "I am not native english user and I need proofreader", lol

but, for a native english published writer to have bad grammar is rather unforgivable... don't you think?

[Mickey]

Syahira wrote: "for a native english published writer to have bad grammar is rather unforgivable... don't you think? "

There are many writers that aren't strict grammar experts. I've read that Wilson Rawls, who wrote Where the Red Fern Grows, which is considered a classic, was embarrassed to have his wife read his draft of the book because of the grammar and spelling errors and I'm sure there are many other writers who aren't that knowledgeable about proper grammar. The important thing is the ability to tell a compelling story, which is what some people want.

The education system in the US does not focus on teaching grammar, and there are many people about to graduate from the system who could not tell you the difference between an adjective and an adverb. Most students (and teachers, actually) find grammar study to be boring and frustrating. Instead, I think most native English speakers focus on "what sounds right" to their ear. Most of what you are probably being corrected on isn't grammar-based as far as knowing the rules of grammar, but people using their familiarity with English (their 'ear', in other words)to recognize that the way you phrase things doesn't sound "right" to them. It is based more on common usage (which is often ungrammatical) than familiarity with grammar rules.

People don't generally use fiction books solely to improve their grammar skills. Usually, people read to be entertained. I think we would have missed out on a lot of good literature if we were to demand that our authors be grammar experts, or use only perfect grammar in their books (even first person narratives? What about a book like Flowers for Algernon, which is a series of diary entries from a person who is (sometimes) mentally retarded? Or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which uses ungrammatical dialect throughout the story?). If there are people that prefer perfect grammar to good story-telling, let them find authors who cater to that desire and let those who like compelling stories find books that cater to theirs. I'm not sure why people want to tell others what to like, or how they shouldn't like what they already like. Find authors and stories that you enjoy and want to discuss, isn't that what this website is set up to do?

[Gerd]

Molly wrote: "and Meyer needs to end her unhealthy relationship with her thesaurus and become better acquainted with wikipedia..."

Ha, that's comedy gold. I'll now dread the day we have to put up with solely wiki educated authors. :D

[Juliet]

Gerd wrote: "Molly wrote: "and Meyer needs to end her unhealthy relationship with her thesaurus and become better acquainted with wikipedia..."

Ha, that's comedy gold. I'll now dread the day we have to put u..."

lol

[Molly]

Gerd wrote: "Molly wrote: "and Meyer needs to end her unhealthy relationship with her thesaurus and become better acquainted with wikipedia..."

Ha, that's comedy gold. I'll now dread the day we have to put u..."

I hope and pray that never happens. Half the little problems in this book could have been solved with a quick google search though. That's what's so painful.

I don't know what her aversion to researching is. I love research, it's my favorite part of writing anything.

[Molly]

Mickey wrote: " I think we would have missed out on a lot of good literature if we were to demand that our authors be grammar experts, or use only perfect grammar in their books (even first person narratives? What about a book like Flowers for Algernon, which is a series of diary entries from a person who is (sometimes) mentally retarded? Or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which uses ungrammatical dialect throughout the story?)."

Ok, I have a big issue with this. In Flowers for Algernon and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and regional spelling and pronunciation of words were for characterization. It was intentional and true to character for the people telling the story. Meyer's mistakes are clearly not for that reason. In fact, Meyer's narrations don't reflect character at all because they all sound the same.

In the Short Second Life of Bree Tanner she has all these kids from the "dregs" and ghetto speaking like middle school kids by using substitute cuss words and calling each other things like whiney losers. That's not how kids from the ghetto speak. If these were the dregs of society they should act like it. Bree was living on the street, but she sounds like someone who grew up in a comfortable middle class home. Not to mention, Bree and Bella sound exactly alike at times when they shouldn't. The same thing happens in Midnight Sun.

There are times where the narration sounds like Bella, but it's Edward narrating. Edward has had a very different life from Bella and very different experiences. His narration should be uniquely his, written in his voice, not Bella's.

[[deleted user]]

Everyone will have grammar issues sometime. So don't dwell on this specific person. You probably have grammar issues, I probably do too.

[Library Lady 📚]

"Cheers to her for stabbing teens in the heart with horribly written vampire lust and making millions."

Lol...

I can see both sides of this argument, so I'll just state my opinion. First of all, there's not an editor in the world who gets paid enough to rewrite an author's sentences. They usually look for inconsistencies, giant plot holes, etc. The word choice, sentence structure, and spelling should all be as close to perfect as humanly possible BEFORE the manuscript crosses an editor's desk. It is not the editor's fault if the flow is off or if the author wants to use six adjectives per sentence. And no, I'm not an editor. But they don't get paid nearly enough to rewrite an author's manuscript like that. They might say something like "too much passive voice," and they expect the author to fix it. If she doesn't, that's her choice.

And obviously from SM's sales numbers, no one really cares about grammar. (Except other writers, who might read books or take classes that teach how to write "correctly"). When I read these books (years ago) I didn't care about bad writing. I've become intolerent to it so I'm afraid to attempt a reread based on what I've heard about the writing.

[Mickey]

Some responses to Molly's responses:
Molly wrote: " In Flowers for Algernon and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and regional spelling and pronunciation of words were for characterization. It was intentional and true to character for the people telling the story. Meyer's mistakes are clearly not for that reason. In fact, Meyer's narrations don't reflect character at all because they all sound the same.
Do you really find no difference between the narration of Bella's chapters and Jacob's chapters in Breaking Dawn? I think it's obvious that Jacob's voice is much more informal, less mature, and that the phrasing is completely different. As far as knowing an author's intention, that's a difficult thing to say definatively.

In the Short Second Life of Bree Tanner she has all these kids from the "dregs" and ghetto speaking like middle school kids by using substitute cuss words and calling each other things like whiney losers. That's not how kids from the ghetto speak.
A lot of YA literature consciously substitutes cuss words. Look at S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, which is now regularly taught in middle school. These kids are from the poorest part of town and often get into fights, drink, and carry weapons. Yet their language is tame. Another good example is Louis Sachar's Holes, set in a juvenile detention camp, where it would be realistic to have all sorts of colorful language. There isn't any. Why? Parents would object to it on those grounds, and there are creative ways around it. The majority of parents, in my experience, will flip through a book, if that, in "checking" a book for appropriateness. Writers get away with all sorts of violence and bleakness because those things aren't easily caught without reading the book.

Bree was living on the street, but she sounds like someone who grew up in a comfortable middle class home. Not to mention, Bree and Bella sound exactly alike at times when they shouldn't.
"
Some middle class children end up living on the street. I have a problem with calling them 'dregs of society'. Criminals are dregs. Homeless children are not necessarily dregs. I've had students who have been homeless and I wouldn't refer to them as dregs or necessarily think badly of them for that.
When shouldn't Bella and Bree sound alike? Is there some rulebook somewhere that says no girls of roughly the same age and from the same region can share characteristics? I personally wish Meyer had made Bree vastly different from Bella, but that was not her vision. It is her choice after all.

[Dawn]

It was told in first person. How do you know the grammar errors weren't because she's an unreliable narrator as well as uneducated? As far as I'm concerned, the fact she ended up with Edward proved both those.

[Mickey]

Dawn wrote: "It was told in first person. How do you know the grammar errors weren't because she's an unreliable narrator as well as uneducated?"

Grammar mistakes don't imply that you are uneducated. Many highly educated people make grammar mistakes. A high number of grammar mistakes might be an indication of little schooling, but not necessarily.

An unreliable narrator is someone who can't or won't show things as they happen or whose reasoning is suspect. A first person narrator is obviously a limited perspective. I don't think Bella fits the textbook definition of an unreliable narrator.

[C.D.]

Mickey wrote: "Syahira wrote: "for a native english published writer to have bad grammar is rather unforgivable... don't you think? "

There are many writers that aren't strict grammar experts. I've read that W..."

I agree. I also agree with your post about education and grammar. I'm an engineer (which I think most assume is highly educated-ish). My education certainly did not focus on grammar, and all of the writing classes I had in college were for technical writing. Have you ever read a technical paper? Borrrring. I'll take an interesting story with grammar errors anyday over dry and correct.

That being said, I try very hard to write as grammatically correct as possible.

[Library Lady 📚]

Lots of authors use incorrect grammar. It's the intent that makes it sound authentic or not. If the author uses grammatical mistakes intentionally, then it's part of her style. But you can usually tell when it's intentional or not.

[Molly]

Do you really find no difference between the narration of Bella's chapters and Jacob's chapters in Breaking Dawn? I think it's obvious that Jacob's voice is much more informal, less mature, and that the phrasing is completely different. As far as knowing an author's intention, that's a difficult thing to say definatively.

I forgot about Jacob’s narration, and you’re right. There is a difference between them. But I stand by what I say for the author’s intention when it comes to this book. It’s clear that Meyer wasn’t intentionally giving Bella bad grammar, word choice, and syntax. Bella is being portrayed as very intelligent. She’s way ahead in her AP english class, she makes straight A’s despite never doing any school work at home, and she writes papers about things that are way over the other students’ heads even thought their in the same AP class. Meyer wants us to think that Bella is intelligent and well read, so why would she intentionally give Bella poor grammar?

Some middle class children end up living on the street. I have a problem with calling them 'dregs of society'. Criminals are dregs. Homeless children are not necessarily dregs. I've had students who have been homeless and I wouldn't refer to them as dregs or necessarily think badly of them for that.
When shouldn't Bella and Bree sound alike? Is there some rulebook somewhere that says no girls of roughly the same age and from the same region can share characteristics? I personally wish Meyer had made Bree vastly different from Bella, but that was not her vision. It is her choice after all.

“Dregs of society” was Meyer’s description, not mine. I know most people living on the street aren’t bad people. The few that I’ve met were in bad situations at home and had nowhere to go when they left, or they were forced on to the street by circumstances beyond their control.

It’s possible for Bella and Bree to sound alike, but my problem is that Bella and Bree sound so much alike that they might as well have been same character. People’s experiences in life shape who they are, but I don’t feel like Bree’s life prior to becoming a vampire had any impact on the character because she still ended up being exactly like Bella. I guess wanted to see Bree act in a way that reflected her background somewhat, but she didn’t and that felt unrealistic to me

[Mickey]

Molly wrote: " It’s clear that Meyer wasn’t intentionally giving Bella bad grammar, word choice, and syntax. Bella is being portrayed as very intelligent. She’s way ahead in her AP english class, she makes straight A’s despite never doing any school work at home, and she writes papers about things that are way over the other students’ heads even thought their in the same AP class. Meyer wants us to think that Bella is intelligent and well read, so why would she intentionally give Bella poor grammar? "

I should start out by stating that I don't think Bella's grammar is in any way remarkable-good or bad. Much of YA literature is written in a colloquial style, especially when written in the first person. As I've said before: many smart people make grammar mistakes, especially teens. Look at the entries here. In my opinion, Bella doesn't have poor grammar. This is coming from an English teacher.

About your assessment of her education, I have come away from the books with a completely different view. Several times, she mentions studying or having homework to do. She does homework on her birthday in New Moon and also tries to fill her time with work when Edward leaves, stating that her grades have improved (which stands to reason that they weren't A's to begin with) with the amount of time she spent studying. She often downgrades her own abilities in all things, including her academics, but she is obviously intelligent. However, I don't think she was ever portrayed as a misunderstood genius. Where are you getting that? As a student, I think Bella would be dutiful and conscientious, though not inspired. She would excel at things that interested her, such as books with a strong romantic theme, and she would do well enough with the rest. I would consider any teenager with favorite books like Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights as being well read.

Molly wrote: " Bella and Bree sound so much alike that they might as well have been same character. People’s experiences in life shape who they are, but I don’t feel like Bree’s life prior to becoming a vampire had any impact on the character because she still ended up being exactly like Bella. I guess wanted to see Bree act in a way that reflected her background somewhat, but she didn’t and that felt unrealistic to me "

I just re-read The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner and I have to disagree with the idea that Bella and Bree have the same experiences as vampires or that they act the same. Throughout her story, it's apparent that Bree is much more cagey and wary of people than Bella. She spends her time hiding out from the others. Although she puts forth an effort to know who the other vampires are and figure out how they relate to each other (as a defensive gesture), the others don't seem to know her name and refer to her as "the little girl". In contrast, Bella had an entire support system in the Cullen clan. Bree's turning was a fit of bad luck, and could just as easily been avoided. Victoria was unhappy with her because her size was not formidable, but treats the whole matter in an off-hand way. Bree's wants and desires are peripheral to the events that happen. In stark contrast, Bella's turning was a topic of discussion and negotiations for months. I thought that the difference in the way those two were turned was telling of the difference between the "haves" and the "have nots".

[Lindis]

Mickey wrote: "Molly wrote: " It’s clear that Meyer wasn’t intentionally giving Bella bad grammar, word choice, and syntax. Bella is being portrayed as very intelligent. She’s way ahead in her AP english class, s..."

Thank You Mickey, well said! I do get tired of people complining about the "grammar" in these books. I agree with what you've said 100%.

I've been away from the feeds for a while. I'm always surprised with the different views that people come away with when they read the same books that I do.

I don't see how anyone could say that Bree and Bella had the same expierence. For one, they started in completely different circumstances, from completely different lives. Bella had come from a life and family where she was loved and cared for. Bree, well, I doubt that anyone noticed that she was gone. Bella knew of vampire life before she was changed and she chose to be changed. Bree knew nothing, and had no choice. I could go on, but. . . . . . . . . .

[Molly]

Mickey wrote: "Molly wrote: " It’s clear that Meyer wasn’t intentionally giving Bella bad grammar, word choice, and syntax. Bella is being portrayed as very intelligent. She’s way ahead in her AP english class, s..."

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. We came away from books with two very different views of Bella, and that's what this whole thing comes down to. I see Bell as a shallow, immature, self smei-elitist whose good attributes are more informed than displayed, and you clearly don't.

Also, I wasn't trying to say Bella was a misunderstood genius. I was saying that she's ahead in her course work to the point that the other kids in her class don't seem to know what she's talking about sometimes, like with her essay topic in the first book.

[Mickey]

Molly wrote: "I wasn't trying to say Bella was a misunderstood genius. I was saying that she's ahead in her course work to the point that the other kids in her class don't seem to know what she's talking about sometimes, like with her essay topic in the first book."

Where is it exactly? I'm curious now.

[Natalie]

I can’t say I noticed a lot of spelling errors, but that was probably because I was paying attention to the action of the book. Also, the fact that it is in first-person I might have ignored it more. As an advanced English major and Honours student you would think I would have noticed that? I noticed some errors, but not the amount that others have. I think it’s best to say that it’s a preference of style. I myself know this from submitting papers to different English faculty members: some hate when you ‘overuse’ commas and some love it. Some hate over-the-top words and some like to-the-point jesters. Everyone has their own preference in what they read. If you have read the classics you will even notice spelling/grammatical errors as well, but we tend to ignore them because a lot of people can’t understand the different language from another era, so it goes unnoticed.

Hemmingway is one of my favourite writers and he’s made many mistakes; but I still love him.

I did read a few of SM interviews and she has admitted she has made a lot of mistakes and wishes she had more time.

We will all agree to disagree, but that is because we have different ‘tastes’ in styles. I myself enjoyed it along with the (approx) other 30 million (assuming 10’ish million didn’t like it)

Ps: someone show quotes please, so we can get a sample of the ‘bad grammer’

[Merri]

Hylian Princess wrote: "I find grammatical errors in many books I read; I find typos too. We're all human and it just happens. The author won't find all of them and the editor won't find some. Even most of the readers won..."
I do the samething! I'm shocked most of the times that I caught a mistake. I suck at spelling and grammatical stuff.

[Irwin]

In many books I may find a mistake here or there and that is fine for me.

[MeMe Belikova]

Ummm since when do you have to use "proper grammer" when your writing a comment on the computer?. I, mean come on we are'nt writting a book, but, i do expect an author to knw there grammer when writting a book,.Im just saying #Shutup lol -(yes i had alot of grammatical errors on purpose) So what? -get a grip the book was good anyway :)

[Ashley]

I believe that when Stephanie was writting the book she felt it was okay to make the same grammatical errors that Bella would, since the book is from Bella's perspective.

[Liza]

English teachers, students of creative writing, Grammar Girl, and successful published authors are all guilty of breaking grammar rules.

(view spoiler)[Some do it for aesthetic purposes. However, in this scenario it's called being human. And if the grammar errors were intentional, that's very astute, because I have seen brilliant students who dismiss any grammar lesson taught to them as they pass notes, text messages, and the like. Teens love to break grammar rules when writing and speaking. (hide spoiler)]

I know I try very hard to make sure all my reviews are grammatically correct and even after proofreading them an error will be glaring, forcing me to edit it right away.

I sometimes make grammar errors in comments.

Any writer will tell you, published or otherwise, that when working on a specific piece you begin to skip over the errors. You become more engrossed with the telling of the story, the flow, stylistic choices that will dictate any revision and edits you may be inclined to do later on.

Take for instance The Time Traveler's Wife. I caught two minor typos that would have been missed if I skimmed the book instead. Audrey is suppose to be a professor for a creative writing program. You would think she of all people would not have typos...but they happen to the best of us.

Even with copy editors and a whole flank looking over a manuscript, when you look at the same material over and over again, you are bound to miss something. Editors and those who work for them are ordinary people, not grammar tyrants.

If we're complaining about her word choice or the lengthy sentences flowered with adjectives, that's not so much grammar as it is preference.

There's a lot to critique when talking about Twilight, such as the unhealthy relationship and the role that women play in Meyer's novels. Grammar is the least of my concern.

[AlbertaJenn]

You know, there are so many people with their fingers in the book publishing pie (editors, copy editors, printers, etc.) that it is no wonder there are so many errors in so many books out there. Everyone thinks themselves an expert, when none probably are! And there does come a time where too many people making changes can lead to even more mistakes being made.

I was watching this auction show a while ago, and learned that one way experts tell different editions of novels apart is from the different errors in the book. Later editions often just have different mistakes.

[Too Many Thoughts]

Joshua wrote: "I think it should be the law to pass fourth grade English before you write a book. Seriously, she has more grammatical errors then my dog would have writing a book. I don't know if she has an edito..."

MY GOSH! I CANNOT believe that you said that, not the fact that you said the book had grammatical errors (I haven't come across them but most books have some kind of error), but that you said that this book is making teens dumb.

DUMB? DUMB?! My fucking Gosh! This book worked WONDERS for my writing, it boosted my English levels almost immediatly, had I not read Twilight my writing would be nowhere NEAR the standard that it's at now!
Wow. The lengths at which people will go to criticise a piece of writing. I'm sorry, but that statement was so wrong, and there's NO doubt about it.

[Gerd]

Too Many Thoughts wrote: "DUMB? DUMB?! My fucking Gosh! This book worked WONDERS for my writing, it boosted my English levels almost immediatly, had I not read Twilight my writing would be nowhere NEAR the standard that it's at now!
Wow. The lengths at which people will go to criticise a piece of writing. I'm sorry, but that statement was so wrong, and there's NO doubt about it..."

Actually:
http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/07/resea...

It seems there that books can have a negative influence on readers, that if you, say, read solely Bukowski you will turn by time into a proletarian.

[Liza]

That's why people, specifically teens, discuss books with one another or their teachers. When Twilight mania was at its highest I remember girls asking several questions about love and romance and remember specifically several teachers who admonished the co-dependence that Bella seemed to display.

Books can have a negative influence, but so can music, people, news, etc.

I wouldn't say Meyer has taught legions of teens to improve their grammar or improve their creative writing, but it definitely sparked a conversation as to what love is. Any reasonable and responsible adult and even friends from their own peer group would have quickly stepped in and said, "You know Johnny hanging out by your window watching you sleep all night isn't exactly romantic."

The best thing about Twilight is that it got people to read again, specifically teen girls.

I also seriously doubt that Meyer set out to harm teens, though I would love to debate her one day about Bella and the role she plays.

The article also shows how reading about uneducated people can have positive or negative results depending on the context.

So assuming the Twilight series is plagued with grammar errors, people with poor grammar would just pick up more of it, and those who have a strong foundation of grammar will notice it and either write it off or complain about it.

[Torie]

Gerd wrote: "Too Many Thoughts wrote: "DUMB? DUMB?! My fucking Gosh! This book worked WONDERS for my writing, it boosted my English levels almost immediatly, had I not read Twilight my writing would be nowhere..."

To be fair though, that research seems skewed. People in one group could know much more than those of the other group. I don't know if it necessarily had to do with the books they were reading prior to the test.

As for "Too Many Thoughts'" post, seriously. As Linden said in the other thread, it's getting people to actually read! It's a terrible book (IMO) and doesn't have any real literary merit, but it's at least pushing more people to read and gain an interest in books. I'd much rather have someone read Twilight than watch an episode of Jersey Shore.

...fist pump.

[Gerd]

Agreed, given the state TV "entertainment" is in, having young people reading any thing is preferable.

And true, the study is inconclusive, more over it seems simply to underline the fact that we can (and likely do) use our reading/viewing habits to enforce personal traits. Which makes twilight only a danger to people which are already threatened.

But there's another one that is more interesting which comes down to that it is healthy for personal development to be able to identify with a greater group (regardless if that group is comprised of Harry Potter fans or twiheads) because the sense of community creates positive feedback.
Okay, that's not that new an insight either. :D

[Lilly]

Joshua wrote: "I think it should be the law to pass fourth grade English before you write a book. Seriously, she has more grammatical errors then my dog would have writing a book. I don't know if she has an edito..."

I've been an avid reader since grade school, read hundreds of books, at least, and every one of them has had grammatical and spelling errors. Nobody is perfect but, if you are, you should have a job as an editor. Good luck with that.

[Jack]

Too Many Thoughts wrote: "MY GOSH! I CANNOT believe that you said that, not the fact that you said the book had grammatical errors (I haven't come across them but most books have some kind of error), but that you said that this book is making teens dumb.


DUMB? DUMB?! My fucking Gosh! This book worked WONDERS for my writing, it boosted my English levels almost immediatly, had I not read Twilight my writing would be nowhere NEAR the standard that it's at now!

Wow. The lengths at which people will go to criticise a piece of writing. I'm sorry, but that statement was so wrong, and there's NO doubt about it. "

If the books helped you as much as you say they did, I would absolutely hate to see how you wrote before reading the books. Your spelling and grammar must have been simply atrocious.

First off, the underlined words have spelling errors. You do not spell 'immediately' the way you did. I also believe the word 'criticize' has a 'z' instead of an 's'.

Next, the emboldened parts are one of the following: punctuation, capitalization, or grammatical errors. You do not need to capitalize every single letter of a word to make it stand out on a screen. Just add a single exclamation point, or underline it if you're feeling fancy, and the job will be done. The second sentence you posted (if you include the, "MY GOSH!" as a sentence) is a run-on sentence. Try this, if you can't comfortably say the entire sentence in one breath, add a period in there somewhere. 'Gosh' is not a name, it is not a place, and it is not the first word of the sentence; therefore, it should not have a capital 'g'. The sentence after "My fucking Gosh!" is also a run-on sentence. Try this, if any part of the sentence can stand on its own, try making it its own sentence. Finally, "... that statement was so wrong, and there's NO doubt about it." When you add the word 'so' into a sentence, you are either going to explain something in more detail, or give a reason for something. Otherwise, you are the stereotypical 16 year old.

There may be something I missed, and there may be errors in my post. I just wanted to point out something I thought was funny.

[Ashley]

Mickey wrote: "The education system in the US does not focus on teaching grammar, and there are many people about to graduate from the system who could not tell you the difference between an adjective and an adverb. Most students (and teachers, actually) find grammar study to be boring and frustrating. Instead, I think most native English speakers focus on "what sounds right" to their ear. Most of what you are probably being corrected on isn't grammar-based as far as knowing the rules of grammar, but people using their familiarity with English (their 'ear', in other words)to recognize that the way you phrase things doesn't sound "right" to them. It is based more on common usage (which is often ungrammatical) than familiarity with grammar rules. "

Greeting again,

I am unfamiliar with American education as I live in Australia, but as a teacher do you think it is a problem that the US education system is neglecting teaching basics of english like grammar? Here it is given a lot of attention and even through university studies. I don't think a teacher should neglect teaching something simply because it is boring or frustrating.

Also on a completely tangent side note, can you explain what year junior and sophomore is? Which one comes first? I assume freshman is year 9 and senior is year 12. But At my school we had primary school which was k-6, middle school 7-9, and senior school 10-12, before we graduate at 17. It always messes me up when I watch US TV shows.

[Ashley]

Jack wrote: "I also believe the word 'criticize' has a 'z' instead of an 's'."

In Australia and England (I think), 's' is used instead of 'z' in words like criticise and specialise etc.

However I agree with everything else you wrote.