Grammatical Errors

[Eva]

Hi, I'm sorry but when I read a book I don't look for grammatical errors, I get into the story. I think it's really sad that some people are doing this, why? Unless you are an editor stop telling an author how to do ther job. You wouldn't like an amateur to tell you how to do yours, right?

[Beth]

Eva wrote: "Hi, I'm sorry but when I read a book I don't look for grammatical errors, I get into the story. I think it's really sad that some people are doing this, why? Unless you are an editor stop telling a..."

So true!!! Put down the red pen, get a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy the world the author created. Grammar, yes it is important but not critical in creating an awesome story.

[Amy]

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 Wil..."

I don't think all American teachers have thrown grammar to the wind. I teach grade 7-12 English in a small, rural community, but I don't focus on rote exercises from a grammar textbook. I give my students individualized grammar instruction within their writing. I use Microsoft track changes so they can see any grammatical changes I make. Then, I can use the comment "bubble" to give a little instruction about the grammar rule. Then, the students have to look through their writing to find other instances where they made similar mistakes. I believe the whole language approach to grammar instruction within the scope of writing is more beneficial than rote exercises.

[Anna]

Too bad people are just focusing on its stupid "grammatical errors". Seriously, if you still understand the thought, then what's the matter?

Everyone commits the same old mistakes, especially in terms of grammar... but the difference is, Stephanie still get to publish her novel, despite of the mistakes you're proud of.

[Will]

The problem with the grammatical errors in this book is that they're coupled with terrible prose. When you have sentence after sentence of awkward word placement, repetitive adjectives, and a narrow vocabulary, the grammatical errors become more and more obvious.

[Natalie]

Jack wrote: "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 erro..."

Who cares that she is using the wrong style of writing on a website. Also, a lot of people deal with spelling and grammar issues so, it is just rude to point that out to someone. You don't have to be well educated to have good grammar either. I have two degrees and will be doing my MA in English and I (at times) suck with spelling and grammar. I also have worked with a well established editor who has done work for Margaret Atwood and other writers and even she has issues at times. Nobody is perfect.

Also, if you think she is only sixteen than maybe you shouldn’t be so arrogant. I didn't know how to spell or write well at that age. I get what you’re aiming at that Meyer has terrible grammar, but don’t take it out on someone. yeesh

Another thing: some people (like myself) do not over analyze/proof read all of my online posts. Sometimes I don't even capitalize words when I should.

I won't lie...I didn't proof read this either.

[Natalie]

Will wrote: "The problem with the grammatical errors in this book is that they're coupled with terrible prose. When you have sentence after sentence of awkward word placement, repetitive adjectives, and a narro..."

I agree.

[Natalie]

I completely understand if someone doesn’t like Meyers book based on the grammatical/prose issue. On the other hand it limits your reading material: if you are a person who acknowledges that you mark up your books with a red pen then I daresay you are missing out. Sure, some of the word choice annoys me, but so does Bella. It goes hand and hand. I would find it weird if Bella (who is flawed) has perfect dialect. Come up with reasons why you think the author writes in a particular way and you will be able to enjoy something that is seemingly flawed. I’ve learned to just let it go..sometimes the best stories are the ones that are terribly written.

[Mickey]

Ashley wrote: "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?"

It is not necessarily that teachers are not teaching it. The problem, as I see it, is that students think grammar is something they already know for the most part. Kids who have grown up speaking English rely too much on their "ear" (if it sounds right)when studying grammar. I discussed this in an earlier post responding to a woman who was learning English and saying that she was corrected all the time:

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.

Most people can tell you what is right, but they can't come up with the reason why. If it is something ungrammatical that is a common mistake, they probably will not recognize the mistake or see the need to correct it.

Students study grammar until the end of middle school where I am and there is talk of extending it into high school. But seeing as how exposure doesn't ensure learning, I don't see the need for the extension. (Editing, especially peer editing, is still popular in high school.)

I think the best way to learn grammar is to take away the supports that the students rely on to get them through the year's grammar study. I think they should be taught grammar (not spelling and punctuation, which would still be in the English teacher's domain) in second language classes. I think the study of a second language should be given much greater importance than it receives now. If students are made to study a language like Latin or Greek or Russian (all of which have strict rules on cases), they really learn their grammar. They would be forced to in order to say even a simple sentence. I think the language learning should start in elementary school and continue until graduation. This is my personal solution to the grammar problem.


Ashley wrote: " Here it is given a lot of attention and even through university studies."

Give me examples of the grammar lessons you have at the university level. I'm curious as to how that works. You don't mean just editing your papers, do you? You have actual grammar lessons?

Ashley wrote: "I don't think a teacher should neglect teaching something simply because it is boring or frustrating."

It is probably more boring for the students and frustrating for the teacher. In reality, a student can have 12 years worth of grammar study and still be bad at it. You can correct students over and over again on the differences between "your" and "you're" and some will learn and others won't.

Part of the problem is the way we teach things. We teach the same things every year and there's never the expectation that the kids know it or remember it. So we reteach it again, boring the kids who learned it the first time they were taught it and not getting many of those that missed it the last year. I think that there should be a deeper study of things once and then holding them accountable for it until it becomes second nature.

Back to Twilight, I don't think that grammar is that important in a work or should be. I've known students with wonderful grammar who can't write at all and I know others who have horrible grammar and they manage to write something truly beautiful. If you are really a stickler for grammar, then don't read books that you feel aren't up to your standards. It's very simple. I've never liked flat, simple writing (like Hemingway's), so I don't read books like that. Everyone has different hangups, I just don't think anyone needs to be bashing anyone else's tastes.

[Mickey]

Amy wrote: "I don't think all American teachers have thrown grammar to the wind."

I didn't mean to imply that all American teachers don't teach grammar. But I think every English teacher would probably agree that a lot of students graduate high school not knowing much grammar. Wouldn't you agree? I also think most, if not all, would agree that there isn't a direct correlation between intelligence and good grammar.

Amy wrote: "I teach grade 7-12 English in a small, rural community, but I don't focus on rote exercises from a grammar textbook. I give my students individualized grammar instruction within their writing."

I agree that correcting their mistakes and particularly reinforcing the lesson by having the students finding other instances of the same mistakes is solid teaching. But how do you teach things like direct object/indirect object when there is no difference in the English language (so you wouldn't be able to catch them at it)? Or even things like recognizing prepositional phrases or the different cases using editing?

[Sandra]

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..."

AWESOME!

[Tammy]

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...."

What is with these people? Jealous because they have not written a best selling book? It's a STORY for goodness sake! If they don't like it, they don't have to read it. End of story ;)

There are books I didn't care for, but I wouldn't waste my time on a site criticizing them.

[Amy]

Mickey wrote: "Amy wrote: "I don't think all American teachers have thrown grammar to the wind."

I didn't mean to imply that all American teachers don't teach grammar. But I think every English teacher would pr..."

They learn terminology in elementary and middle school. They naturally write using subordinate phrases and clauses, DO/IO/PN/PA, etc., so is it important that they can identify these different elements or use them correctly to enhance their writing? Considering very few of my students will go on to careers in writing, I think it's more important they they write well with few to no errors than know a gerund when they see it.

[Carina]

I think that part of the reason "Twilight" is so harshly criticised is due to the (in some opinions) stupidly insane fanbase that it has.

I will freely admit that when I first read the books I didn't notice as many errors as I did on my second read through - however, as other posters have stated before on this topic, I am sure many books have grammatical/typographical errors etcetera. It may just be that the poor plotlines and characterisations make the errors more glaringly obvious than in other books.

[Tina J]

Does it really matter?

Stephenie Meyer is currently sitting on a mountain of millions - so she must be doing something right.

Whether you like it or not, Meyer has become very successful due to her books.
She may suck at writing, frankly I didn't notice, as I focus more on the story rather than if it was written 'well'.
People might not like the story and that's okay!
Because how does the saying go?
Each to their own!
Now all everyone has to do is accept it and move on!
PMSL

[Cat]

Amanda wrote: My dear Joshua, if you are going to criticize someone else's grammar, first be sure you yourself are using proper grammar. It should have read 'more grammatical errors thAn my dog'. I understand that with computers it's probably a typo. However, it still makes you look bad.

As for the book, Hemingway himself used poor grammar in his writing. And from what I've learned, as a student studying English, nothing in fiction is an accident. Writers use it to emphasize a point or to stir our imaginations.


Okay, I love you now!

[Amanda]

I definitly agree that she isn't the best writer in the world in regards to dialogue. I find her language very basic but I don't think that's a bad thing either. Who says you have to have really descriptive language to write a good book? But the pages and pages of cheesy dialogue absolutely does my head in. It's extremely repetitive and nauseating. Other than that though I don't mind her writing at all and actually quite enjoyed it.



http://divaliciouzbookreviews.blogspo...

[Mickey]

Amy wrote: "They learn terminology in elementary and middle school."

About what percentage of your students do you think still know the terminology when they get to you? I'm not advocating grammar studies in high school. My point was that many American students leave school not knowing grammar rules or conventions.


Amy wrote: "They naturally write using subordinate phrases and clauses, DO/IO/PN/PA, etc., so is it important that they can identify these different elements or use them correctly to enhance their writing? "

If your end goal is for your students to write well (as in having few mistakes), then you aren't going to bother with more grammar than you have to. You'll probably just spend time going over common spelling and punctuation mistakes, but you won't be teaching in-depth grammar. This is fine, but it's not teaching anything more than survival grammar. I think that's what most English teachers end up doing.

Amy wrote: "Considering very few of my students will go on to careers in writing, I think it's more important they they write well with few to no errors than know a gerund when they see it."

I studied languages in college. It was at that time that I needed to know what a gerund was. (I had never been taught it at all, and I was in every English class my rural school offered.) Grammar isn't formally taught anymore outside of university level language classes. (Although it may be taught in higher level literature classes at university, I never took any.)

I have this feeling that I'm coming across as a rabid grammarian, which isn't true. In my experience, English teachers fall into two categories- reading teachers and writing teachers. It's usually pretty easy to tell them apart. I usually look at what they do with any extra time and also what sort of long-term goals they have for their students. (I have noticed that newbie English teachers are often more obsessed with projects than with either writing or reading, but they usually turn into one or the other over time.) You sound like you're more writing-centered. I'm reading-centered. I think both types generally knuckle through formal grammar lessons. That's just been my personal experience.

[Amy]

Mickey wrote: "Amy wrote: "They learn terminology in elementary and middle school."

About what percentage of your students do you think still know the terminology when they get to you? I'm not advocating grammar..."

I guess I base my success on the incredibly low percentage of students I've taught for their entire high school career needing remedial composition when they enter college - a small handful over the last nine years. Considering I have to teach ALL students - college-bound to special education in the same classroom, no I cannot get into "in-depth grammar" and apparently am doing a disservice to my students by only teaching "survival grammar." I guess I shouldn't get my feathers ruffled over an online critique by someone who has never stepped foot into my classroom. I measure my success when former students call/text/visit me later after their first year of college, thanking me for preparing them to breeze through freshmen composition. The way my state's board of regents sets up English courses, I'm only given one semester per year to composition and one semester per year to literature. The state divides literature instruction from composition instruction. Do I think that's the best practice? No. Do I think it gives continuity to transfer students? Yes. It's easy to say students leaving high school today are poor, shallow writers, but there are also graduates who are poor at math or poor at science. Not every individual can write with a sophistication of language usage as a published author. Can I make sure every student I teach leaves high school knowing how to write in complete sentences that are varied and punctuated correctly? Yes, I can do that, and I don't feel like I have failed them.

[Mickey]

Amy wrote: "I guess I shouldn't get my feathers ruffled over an online critique by someone who has never stepped foot into my classroom."

I'm not sure why you're taking what I'm saying is the general state of things personally, Amy. I'm not critiquing you at all. My point is that American students don't know grammar. I'm certainly not pointing fingers at any particular person or style of teaching. I'm remarking on what I've found to be true.

You sound like an awesome teacher.

[Amy]

Mickey wrote: "Amy wrote: "I guess I shouldn't get my feathers ruffled over an online critique by someone who has never stepped foot into my classroom."

I'm not sure why you're taking what I'm saying is the gene..."

Sorry, I didn't mean to take it personally. I get so frustrated when I hear criticisms of teachers. It seems like people try to blame American students' failures and inadequacies on the teachers without also pointing any fingers to the parents who do not support the teachers and do not push their own kids to do their best. I have had many students over the years that I know I cared more about their academic success than their parents, and that is sad to me. Granted, there are a lot of poor teachers out there that need to leave the field, but I know there are a lot more teachers who try their hardest. Again, sorry I reacted poorly to your posts.

[Andrea]

I personally think she wrote the book as if someone where talking, rather than telling us the story. That is why, there may seem like there are grammatical mistakes.

[Natalie]

Amanda wrote: “…Hemingway himself used poor grammar in his writing. And from what I've learned, as a student studying English, nothing in fiction is an accident. Writers use it to emphasize a point or to stir our imaginations. nothing in fiction is an accident"

Thank you for that post. I've been trying to tell that to people for years now. Whenever I used Hemingway as an example of someone who doesn't use proper grammar people would lose their minds as if I committed English Lit blasphemy. I have an advanced degree in English and doing my MA in ENGL next fall, so apparently I know nothing about Lit and aesthetics…. *rolls eyes* lol

I’m not saying that Meyer did everything on purpose…but, people seem to forget that this is a teens perspective, therefore making it a reflection of Bella’s character, thereby her mind and how it functions.

Some people say that Meyer is a shitty writer, but she is able to captivate millions from her story rather than good grammar. You can get away with having style without technique, but you cannot by any means have just technique and no style. That would be terrible. It would be like watching a rigidly technical dancer on stage without any style of personal flare=boring and I daresay that dancer would not have a great dance career. I would much rather be annoyed by bella’s internal dialogue than read something flat and lifeless.

[Amy]

Natalie wrote: "Amanda wrote: “…Hemingway himself used poor grammar in his writing. And from what I've learned, as a student studying English, nothing in fiction is an accident. Writers use it to emphasize a poin..."

Excellent points. The narrator's voice is a teenager - people sometimes forget that while trying to find reasons to hate Twilight. I've found typos/errors with Jane Austen even. They happen. Usually more the fault of the editor and copyeditor than the writer.

[Shanna]

Amy wrote: " I've found typos/errors with Jane Austen even."

I think much of the "errors" in Jane Austen are period spellings and grammar.

[♥ Alexia -Team Malec ♥]

Well, if there was bad grammar-I didn't notice it.

[Joyce]

Ha! I love how people get so worked up about how bad someone's book is somehow when they themselves have never written a book.

[Ange]

A. Safdar wrote: "Firstly, Kirsten, I've gotten over "Twilight" almost five years now. I am contributing to the discussion; I don't have any desire to provoke anything or anyone.

Secondly, grammar is the structure..."

I would be interested to see how all of you "grammar critics" feel about Faulkner's writing then, or James Joyce. There is no right or wrong way to write. Writing is a very personalized gift/talent/hobby.

[Shanna]

Ange wrote: "A. Safdar wrote: "Firstly, Kirsten, I've gotten over "Twilight" almost five years now. I am contributing to the discussion; I don't have any desire to provoke anything or anyone.

Secondly, gramma..."
Or even Margaret Atwood, Ulysses was probably the hardest thing I ever read, the stream of consciousness writing took some getting used to.

[QR]

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..."

Have you read Hemingway? Steinbeck? Hugo? Voltaire? Shakespeare? Carroll?

Suzanne Collins is by far the WORST grammatically correct writer I have ever read.

All of those authors have made plenty of gramatical errors errors as Meyer. I doubt I could find a book without a mistake or an edit I could make. To be frank, I don't care, as long as I understand what they're trying to say and are clear writers, then I have no problem.

Suzanne Collins was so bad though, I couldn't understand what she was saying some of the time, it lacked some clarity, I hated the two word sentences. I'm no real fan of the Hunger Games, the writing was atrocious.

But hey, if good grammar what you need to enjoy a piece of writing why not just occupy yourself with the news/hard journalism?

Maybe I sound a little harsh, but I'm just so sick of people critisizing mainstream authors for "bad writing" when in reality, there are several "classic" books that have plenty of mistakes.

www.nineteenreviews.blogspot.com

[Tina J]

Joyce wrote: "Ha! I love how people get so worked up about how bad someone's book is somehow when they themselves have never written a book."

Totally agree!
pmsl ;D

[♥ Alexia -Team Malec ♥]

Agreed.

[Ange]

Shanna wrote: "Ange wrote: "A. Safdar wrote: "Firstly, Kirsten, I've gotten over "Twilight" almost five years now. I am contributing to the discussion; I don't have any desire to provoke anything or anyone.

Sec..."

I know! There are so many literary critics "above" who know absolutely nothing about literature. It makes me laugh. Especially having read of so many of the Classics and yes, definitely stream of consciousness takes some getting used to. Being an English major in college teaches you that there really are no errors in fiction - there may be typos here and there but each and every writer (whether good or bad) has his/her own style. Personally, I enjoyed these books for the originality and just the unlikely love story - but I would never insult another author (as Stephen King did). That's just poor character, in my opionion. But, I also do not care for King's writing at all ;-)

[Ange]

Nazzy wrote: "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 s..."

Agreed! I don't even understand why people waste their time criticizing Meyers so much. She has obviously done something right to have so many fans and just as many "haters."

[Ashley]

Ange wrote: "specially having read of so many of the Classics and yes, definitely stream of consciousness takes some getting used to. Being an English major in college teaches you that there really are no errors in fiction - there may be typos here and there but each and every writer (whether good or bad) has his/her own style. Personally, I enjoyed these books for the originality and just the unlikely love story "

I agree that stream of consciousness takes some getting used to and when using it sometimes colloquial langue is used to portray character and authors frequently bend and break grammar/structure rules, basically 'literature' rules. But one of things I was taught was that if you are going to bend/break rules you have to understand them first and I feel like SM just doesn't. To me it feels like she just wrote, with out a great deal of skill. I can see why the books were successful the themes like forbidden love and the love triangles and the ordinary girl being noticed by super hot guys is all basically girl crack.

One of my major issues with the novels, more so than the grammar, was the redundancy and repetition in the writing, in the first book Edward is compared to marble something like 6 times. I do disagree with your comment on originality, yes SM reworked vampire mythology to suit her purpose which is totally fine (although I have always wondered why they sparkle? what causes this?) But I found the stories very very predictable, and I actually wonder did any readers really think Bella was going to end up with Jacob? or that she would die/ not get turned?

I think it is very nice and admirable that you don't insult other authors, but I also think Stephen King is well with in his rights to comment. He was asked a question and he responded honestly, but I'm probably biased as I am a King fan...mostly ( you write 49 books and some of them aren't going to be brilliant). I mean the guy has sold something like 350 million books he's probably got more insight into being an author than most people.

[Ashley]

Joyce wrote: "Ha! I love how people get so worked up about how bad someone's book is somehow when they themselves have never written a book."

Does that mean I can't get worked up about paying for a terrible meal at a restaurant because I didn't make it?

Or I can't get worked up about a shitty movie because I have never acted/ written/ starred in a film?...Are you telling me I can't complain about the Adam Sandler movie 'Jack and Jill'??

[Joyce]

Well its your opinion against others, Ashley. Maybe to you it was terrible to others good. Maybe to you it was a shitty movie but I actually loved that movie. If you don't have anything nice to say. Do not say it at all unless it really is terrible. Thats actually very rude to the people who wrote the movie...an it was a number 1 movie..or the person who MADE your meal..that others MAY have liked.

[QR]

Joyce wrote: "Well its your opinion against others, Ashley. Maybe to you it was terrible to others good. Maybe to you it was a shitty movie but I actually loved that movie. If you don't have anything nice to say..."

Keeping opinions to herself?

Ever heard of freedom of speech that is part of the Canadian, American, and Australian constitutions?

"If you don't have anything nice to say. Do not say it at all unless it really is terrible."

People like that make me sick. There's common courtesy and then there's censorship, and I find that with political correctness and the fear to offend, this line between manners and censorship and free speech has really been blurred.

In short, it's a discussion, let Ashley state her opinion, even if you don't agree with it and it offends you.

www.nineteenreviews.blogspot.com

[Ashley]

Joyce wrote: "Well its your opinion against others, Ashley. Maybe to you it was terrible to others good. Maybe to you it was a shitty movie but I actually loved that movie. If you don't have anything nice to say. Do not say it at all unless it really is terrible. Thats actually very rude to the people who wrote the movie...an it was a number 1 movie..or the person who MADE your meal..that others MAY have liked. "

Yes it is my opinion and I'm allowed to have it and to share it. It's great that you loved that movie, thats totally fine and you're welcome to share your opinion about it, but I am also allowed to share mine.

You said not to say anything mean 'Unless it really is terrible' but who decides that? The reason I chose 'Jack and Jill' as my example is because not only did I despise it, it was hated by critics, has 3% rating on rotten tomato, a 3.4 on IMDB and won every category at the Razzie's. So it's pretty widely regarded as terrible. I am not saying you can't enjoy it though, that's totally your right.

I love the movie 'Boondock Saints' but lots of people hate it and I can see why it's technically not a great film, but I love it. Most of my favourite movies are terrible films, I love them but I am not blind to their faults. That is a problem with Twilight people love it but refuse to see any problems with the writing or the themes or even the basic story.

[Joyce]

Nazzy wrote: "Joyce wrote: "Well its your opinion against others, Ashley. Maybe to you it was terrible to others good. Maybe to you it was a shitty movie but I actually loved that movie. If you don't have anythi..."

I never said you (Ashely) couldn't state your opinion. Just state it in a way so that it isn't harsh or mean. Thus the saying 'if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all'. Really? Because everyone makes mistakes and that isn't their fault. Is it necessary to point out the mistakes an then criticize it rudely? When EVERYONE makes mistakes no matter what, we just do. :) Its all about the way you put it, an the 'people like that make me sick' wasn't necessary either because it was kinda towards me an offending because you know nothing of me, except what I have wrote here.

[Ashley]

Joyce wrote: "Nazzy wrote: "Joyce wrote: "Well its your opinion against others, Ashley. Maybe to you it was terrible to others good. Maybe to you it was a shitty movie but I actually loved that movie. If you don..."

I never said 'people like that make me sick' that was someone else commenting on your comment. Your comments read like you were saying that if your opinion of the book is negative then you are not allowed to express it. This was perhaps not your intent but that it how it sounded. And your original comment that I responded to sounded like you were saying that unless you have written a book you are not allowed to criticise Twilight, something I really disagree with.

What I am criticising is a book, yes I am saying that SM is a very poor writer but I am not attacking her. My major issues with the writing is beyond the grammar to the repetition, redundancy and the unoriginal plot. But I also do not think SM bad grammar is not her making a mistake, I think she does not know about good grammar or how to properly construct a sentence.

Plus this is a discussion board, what good would the discussion be if we all agreed.

[Joyce]

Lol Ashely! It wasn't you who said that. And that cool the way you said it. But I'm just saying an not to YOU that people shouldn't go around saying she has horrible writing etc. The first comment for example. And the way you said that made me happy because it wasn't harsh it was a real opinion an not you trying to make it a fact.

[Carina]

Joyce said: But I'm just saying an not to YOU that people shouldn't go around saying she has horrible writing etc

I kind of hate to step in here as I can see this degrading into an argument, however the above sentence really irritates me.

If it is someones opinion that the Twilight books are horrible then that is their opinion and they should be free to say it. I personally think that any opinion really ought to be backed up with facts. For example, in my previous post on this topic I stated that it may be the poor plot and characterisation that has led to such a discussion on the subject of the authors grammer. However, I am aware that a lot of people do not see the need to back up their opinions.

Just because we may not like the way someone posts or what they say in the post doesn't mean we can say that they should not do it.

[Shanna]

Carina wrote: "Joyce said: But I'm just saying an not to YOU that people shouldn't go around saying she has horrible writing etc

I kind of hate to step in here as I can see this degrading into an argument, howe..."

The problem with backing up your opinions in this context is that they're subjective. I might come up with a plot point that I think is brilliant and you think the same is a load of horse s***. It's not objective, like grammar, but there is leeway in that, in creative writing and it's something that evolves.

[Ashley]

Carina wrote: "If it is someones opinion that the Twilight books are horrible then that is their opinion and they should be free to say it. I personally think that any opinion really ought to be backed up with facts"

I agree that backing up an opinion with facts is a good idea, specially in regard to specific complaints about a novel. I think there is a problem with people saying 'Twilight is terrible' I agree with the statement but there is no information behind it, it is just a generalisation.

In SM case I think it's ok to say that from a technical perspective her writing is bad, the grammar, sentence structure etc. But as I have stated in other boards I have lots of dislikes with this book, the themes, representation of women, the unhealthy relationship, predictable plot. But I feel justified in stating why I dislike the books because I can supply evidence.

More people should take your advice and not just say they like it/hate/think the writing is poor they need to back up their argument.

And I agree everyone has the right to say they like/hate the book, the comment doesn't have to be nice but it does help if people justify their responses.

[Carina]

Shanna - that is my point though. Everyones opinion on a book is going to be subjective, but surely it is better for someone to go "I hate Twilight because of x,y and z" than to simply say something like "Twilight sucks". At least with the former there are discussion points and it allows you to understand the reasons behind the opinion. You rated this book 5 stars whereas I only rated it as 1 so in my opinion it would be good (in an appropriate topic of course) to understand why you think it is so good and for what reasons it is so bad. We will most likely continue to disagree but without discussions and considering other viewpoints how can we be expected to expand our minds and opinions?

Ashley - that is my point exactly. Thank you :)

[Ashley]

Shanna wrote: "The problem with backing up your opinions in this context is that they're subjective. I might come up with a plot point that I think is brilliant and you think the same is a load of horse s***. It's not objective, like grammar, but there is leeway in that, in creative writing and it's something that evolves."

True, but at least it helps other people understand your opinion. We don't all have to agree but just stating why you think what you think makes it easier to see from another perspective, but again you don't have to agree with it.

Perhaps a good example is in the second book when Edward leaves and Bella gets all mopey and sad. To me that was pathetic and she needed to grow up and get on with her life because getting borderline suicidal about a break up is too over the top for me. But I have encountered other people who interpreted her response as clinical depression and thought she coped realistically. Because they explained their idea I can understand how Bella cliff jumping, motorbike crashing and isolating were symptoms of that, I disagree but their idea and perspective make sense if that is how they interpreted the book.

[Shanna]

I don't know if you'll get that though, people are clearly not always disposed to, or capable of rationalising their opinions or analysing the book. As evidenced by the rabid fangirls and haters who seem quite irrational about the whole thing. It'd be nice but a bit of a pipe dream if you ask me. And then of course there are trolls...

[Kirby]

Ashley wrote: "I love the movie 'Boondock Saints' but lots of people hate it and I can see why it's technically not a great film, but I love it."

ooh, I loved that movie, too! it's been a long time since I've seen it, but I do remember absolutely lovin' it! and I'm usually so critical of movies that I can't even enjoy them, so I'm surprised to hear that other people thought it was a terrible movie...

[Ashley]

Kirby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I love the movie 'Boondock Saints' but lots of people hate it and I can see why it's technically not a great film, but I love it."

ooh, I loved that movie, too! it's been a long ti..."

Yeah, I love it, but a lot of complaints come from the idea that it is a rip off of Guy Ritchie/ Tarantino. Plus there are some gaping plot holes, like why can they shoot so well? what is that rope hooked onto when they fall through the air vent? why are they ok with their friends gang affiliations? Plus some people find it over acted..."THERE WAS A FIRE FIGHT!!"...but I still love it, and I think a part of my enjoyment comes from the plot holes.