Twilight
discussion
Grammatical Errors
I didn't notice any grammer errors. And I notice them, alot. I've read the books three times, and still haven't noticed.
Okay, so what if there are a couple? it' a big novel and it's hard to catch them all. I've seen smaller books with so many more. I don't understand what the issue is. And I have, like Madilynn, read all the books at least twice if not more.
you can complain and moan and groan about it all u want but it comes down to if u wanna bitch about her writting style write ur own book and enlighten us on what we are missing with the "PROPER" ways of writting. and if wanna talk about bad editing read fifty shades of grey u'll wanna claw ur eyes out :D
"if u wanna bitch about her writting style write ur own book"This is such a ridiculous thing to say. You're saying no one is allowed to criticize an author unless they write a book first? This makes no sense. I don't need to write my own book to see that the writing style and grammar used in this book is amateurish.
Guys can you give an example because i dont remeber any erors in the books
Will wrote: ""if u wanna bitch about her writting style write ur own book"This is such a ridiculous thing to say. You're saying no one is allowed to criticize an author unless they write a book first? This ma..."
I must agree with you Will, if we cant criticize author before writing a book it means to me we cant criticize anything we havent done. i.e. unfair sentence for a criminal because I havent studied law, or that a song has stupid lyrics because I havent written a song or that the singer cant sing becuase I cant sing, or that they didnt repair my car adequatly because i'm not a mechanic, or even bad food in a restaurant because i cant cook that meal (or almost any meal)
Amanda 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..."Amanda 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..."
So somebody is saying Hemingway and Meyers are on the same playing field?
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."It seems to be a trend lately. I've been seeing more and more typos and grammatical mistakes in books in the past few years. On the Kindle or e-books, it's horrific. The last book I read seemed to have five every other chapter.
Errors that a copy-editor should catch. I know that many publishing houses rely on literary agents and authors to do the editing and no longer do copy-editing. Cheaper.
But it has become prevalent of late. The .99 cent books on Amazon are the worst.
Where is Faulkner when we need him? That's when I believed it was intentional. He would check every comma, period, run-on, etc. in the galleries before he would approve it. There are just too many people justifying crap.
Will wrote: ""if u wanna bitch about her writting style write ur own book"This is such a ridiculous thing to say. You're saying no one is allowed to criticize an author unless they write a book first? This ma..."
its a figure of speech, meaning no one is perfect and even if they wrote their own there would be errors
of course there sometimes are errors on the other hand if we pay for someting we expect some level of quality (cant think of better wording)
we pay for the story line and plot we pay to be excited and to leave our boring lives behind for awhile and like i said no one is perfect. we all have errors even the best well known authors have slip ups
for me it's about grammar too, if there are many errors I just cant enjoy it that much because I get caught up thinking things like - are they stupid or am I? in english it's especialy to - too, you're - your, then-than it is not my first language so things like syntax are not much of a problem since i never really studied it but some things give me pause and i have to think if what is there is right or not. So for me, some errors I dont even see but some of them really irritate me
William wrote: "Where is Faulkner when we need him? That's when I believed it was intentional. He would check every comma, period, run-on, etc. in the galleries before he would approve it. There are just too man..."He was also a modernist; trying to play up his wit, etc etc. Everything had to be perfection and of high aesthetic value to be "good" during this time, so yes, brillance emerged, like faulkner, joyce, woolf,pound,eliot, etc.
...But, it is within this context (of planned errors) that someone might assume certian issues are there for reasons, but this is not to say that it justifies all errors. In regards to the Hemingway post: no they are not even in the same ball park in regards to aesthetic value, instead its just a comparison: a great writer such as Hemingway can make mistakes as well...and he makes a lot of them. Meyer is not ranked on the same level, but again, just a mere comparison.
Okay the entire 4th book was based on sex!!!That I will agree on because it's true. The only reason Bella agreed to marry Edward was so she could get some when she's human. What a sicko!
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..."
Oh yes!!!I completely agree. The errors were offensive.
Oh yes!!!I completely agree. The errors were offensive.
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..."
Hahaha love this!! I also loved the series. I didn't notice many errors, but I was mostly focused on the story.
I dont really give a crap about grammer- I love these books, to hell with grammer! Gosh, get off your high horse.
Alana wrote: "I dont really give a crap about grammer- I love these books, to hell with grammer! Gosh, get off your high horse."
You're not on a high horse if you got an education and you know proper grammar from incorrect grammar. And anyway the publishers paid someone to edit this book, probably several people and they failed. Waste of money and it makes the publisher look bad. Also some of us had to reread lines because they were wrong. That is no fun and it pulls you out of the story.
You're not on a high horse if you got an education and you know proper grammar from incorrect grammar. And anyway the publishers paid someone to edit this book, probably several people and they failed. Waste of money and it makes the publisher look bad. Also some of us had to reread lines because they were wrong. That is no fun and it pulls you out of the story.
Alana wrote: "I dont really give a crap about grammer- I love these books, to hell with grammer! Gosh, get off your high horse."Saying you don't care about grammar in a book is like saying you don't care about the beat of a song. The taste of the food you eat. When you pick up a book that has been published and has had an editor you expect it to be grammatically correct. If we continue to lower our standards on what books should be like before you know it books are going to be written like we text.
Having a couple errors is human, but continuing to make up words like SM did is just embarrassing to all writers out there.
Baylor wrote: "Alana wrote: "I dont really give a crap about grammer- I love these books, to hell with grammer! Gosh, get off your high horse."You're not on a high horse if you got an education and you know pro..."
I have a degree in English. I really didn't think it was as horrible as you are dramatizing about. I had no problems reading or comprehending a single sentence.
LMAO
"...as horrible as you are dramatizing about."- wow that was so not grammatically correct. Where did you get that English degree?
"...as horrible as you are dramatizing about."- wow that was so not grammatically correct. Where did you get that English degree?
CD wrote: "Their are to many errors in book like this sort of.( :large silly grin: )
This was the best bad grammar I could generate this morning. Yikes, there I go again."
I'm looking for the "like" button. Oops, this isn't Facebook. ;-)
This is interesting, I never knew the twilight series books are full of grammar mistakes :D (perhaps because i read and speak english as a second language)
Kierra wrote: "Having a couple errors is human, but continuing to make up words like SM did is just embarrassing to all writers out there."Making up words is a perfectly respectable habit for writers. Look at Shakespeare, Orwell, Carroll, Nabokov.
Also, Baylor, dramatize is a word. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dram...
I wish people would stop comparing great authors to Stephanie Meyers. I'd love to have her money, but be serious, the books are just entertainment. If that's all you want, Great! You're home free. You don't have to attempt to raise her status to justify your guilty indulgence.
William wrote: "I wish people would stop comparing great authors to Stephanie Meyers. I'd love to have her money, but be serious, the books are just entertainment. If that's all you want, Great! You're home free. You don't have to attempt to raise her status to justify your guilty indulgence."Many of the critics of Twilight lately appear to be pretty young or inexperienced with literature. To ream Meyer out for making up words as if it is a crime against literature is an example of this. Authors make up words all the time. That characteristic by itself does not make a writer or a piece of literature good or bad. It's not a question of quality, in other words, which is where I think you're mistaking my point, William. (If that post was directed at me, and it may not have been.)
A lot of the criticism of the book by younger (and sometimes not so young) posters centers on things that are perfectly acceptable and often seen in literature. Another example would be the criticism of the blank slate character (aka everyman character). Many posters are convinced that such a character is a new low in literature and is a sign of literary incompetence. This isn't true at all. There are many everyman characters in literature by authors that are considered great.
What I worry about ultimately is the hardening of prejudices against things in literature that will limit new readers as they go out and experience new books. If you've seen some of these kids who finally branch out in other non-Twilight, non-YA threads, some use the exact same phrasing and focus while talking about other books. I think when you are starting to form into a reader, it's important to be open to different literary experiences and I wonder if this much tearing and biting over a YA book is not ultimately detrimental. It reinforces several ideas about what literature should be in people that haven't read enough to develop any frame of reference yet. In other words, it doesn't seem like it results in the right sort of 'critical'.
No, I was not directing my comment at you, and I agree with everything you said about young readers "getting started." I began with comic books myself, and my friends and I saw "deep" underlying meanings in characters like the Silver Surfer and Doc Strange. However, I do find the age of these "young" readers a little disturbing, but it's better late than never and it would be nice if these books could pull in a few more boys. Oh my, the sighing complaints of a retired English teacher.
Okay guys, yes there are tons and tons of grammatical errors in Stephanie Meyers book but seriously, get over it. Its done. Printed and copied, sent out, bought and read. Its. Over. Sure we can all talk about every single error but whats the point? Personally I loved the Twilight series and errors or not the story is what matters and the story is the most important thing above all else. And hell. I loved the story.
I read the book a few years ago, found it better than I thought it would be, but couldn't get into the second one, possibly because I had watched the first movie and couldn't erase images of the actors. Are they perfect? No. But I don't recall a lot of grammatical errors, and I tend to be picky. So perhaps I was interested enough in the story itself not to find myself picking it apart. Or perhaps I went in with low expectations because I don't usually like vampire stories, and was surprised that I didn't absolutely hate the book.
The problem (and I'm not saying this to be critical of Meyers) is that the publishing industry has changed. In the age of instant gratification, Youtube, and anything goes, agents only want to represent authors who have already proved themselves. You need an agent to get publishers to even look at your book. And publishers don't edit. Pay-for-editing services have popped up, but who has thousands of dollars to shell out to have a 500 page book "professionally edited"? Certainly not a budding young author who is struggling to tell a story.
Personally, I chose to self-publish after hearing an agent talk about how her sixteen year old son, interning for an agency, rejected 75 letters of inquiry in one day. I had my well-educated friends (including a journalist) read the book for me and try to catch any errors I might have missed. I'm sure it still has some, or at least things that someone determined to tear it apart can find to criticize.
My point in all of this? It's sad that grammar is being tossed aside. It's happening everywhere, not just in popular novels. However, Mickey is right - if you go through and read some of the classics, you'll find that many of them contain some sort of grammatical error somewhere in the book. The reason they are classics isn't because they were perfect, it's because they told a story that engaged people's minds, touched people's hearts, or in some small way changed the way a person viewed the world. They are books that take us outside of ourselves for a while and return us changed.
Baylor wrote: "LMAO"...as horrible as you are dramatizing about."- wow that was so not grammatically correct. Where did you get that English degree?"
Check your grammar book. Ending a sentence with a preposition is not really a hard and fast no-no, especially in an informal setting. Where did you get your English degree?
Kate wrote: "I read the book a few years ago, found it better than I thought it would be, but couldn't get into the second one, possibly because I had watched the first movie and couldn't erase images of the ac..."But one must ask, how did editing work in the times when those classics were written? I dont think that it's really comparable, especially Shakespeare and none of them had computer and internet, I think if I had to write by hand or use a typewriter I would give up trying to find mistakes which would mean rewriting whole pages
Mickey wrote: "Kierra wrote: "Having a couple errors is human, but continuing to make up words like SM did is just embarrassing to all writers out there."Making up words is a perfectly respectable habit for wri..."
I think Baylor was referring to my use of a prep at the end of the sentence, which is now okay, especially in an informal setting? I could care less. I've done editing for several science and GIS labs, so I'm not too worried about my skills :)
I think that Stephenie Meyer and her millions of dollars dont really care about her grammar errors.
Amy wrote: "I think Baylor was referring to my use of a prep at the end of the sentence, which is now okay, especially in an informal setting?"I'm not so sure. Baylor regularly uses interjections without a comma and starts sentences with the word "and". With that level of grammar knowledge, I don't think we can assume that she knows about the preposition rule.
As a rule, I usually think it's bad form to correct people's grammar mistakes online. If you can understand what they mean, you should let it go unremarked. It's more difficult with ones who come in here with the attitude that they do not make mistakes or start correcting others, of course. The "and" rule (which I break often myself) doesn't really affect understanding, but when someone doesn't use commas for interjections, I often have to reread their posts in order to understand what they're saying, because the comma serves a purpose in the rhythm of the sentence.
This goes back to my earlier point that those who complain about the grammar haven't necessarily taken the time to understand grammar rules themselves. I was surprised when I first came to this site by the amount of criticism against the book. However, I thought that at least this meant that people may be getting a better understanding of grammar and literary concepts. I don't find this to be the case, though.
If I could pop in here, the grammatical error in the sentence "I really didn't think it was as horrible as you are dramatizing about." is not the preposition being at the end, it's the actual presence of the preposition itself and the tense switch (from past to present).The sentence would correctly read, "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are dramatizing."
This is great stuff :)
Will wrote: "The sentence would correctly read, "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are dramatizing.""Actually, your sentence is incorrect, Will. Dramatize is a transitive verb and needs an object.
The object is understood. If you want a more formal correction, it would be, "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are dramatizing it to be."Substitute to see what I mean, "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are presenting it to be."
See: "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are presenting about."
"About" just makes no sense.
If you wanted to keep "about," the preposition needs an object, so you could say, "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are dramatizing it to be about."
If you are editing other people's sentences to be grammatically correct, you can't say, "The object is understood". Grammatically, a transitive verb requires an object. As I've said before, in this forum, I don't think people should start jumping on others for grammar mistakes as long as what they are trying to say can be understood. However, when people either start correcting others or rewriting other people's sentences, they really need to make sure that their corrections or rewritten sentences are grammatically sound.
Well, I was not "jumping" on her for it, merely pointing it out since it was brought up. Also, yes, I can say "the object is understood" because... well, it is. If you offered me a grape, and I said, "I refuse," The object is understood: I refuse *your offer. While it is informal, the object is still "understood."
When I read Twilight, I didn't see too much of a problem with the grammar so much as writing inconsistencies. For instance, sometimes I would see a paragraph or a section written as if it were a diary-entrance or the narrator's thoughts, and other instances I would see very formal, basic storytelling sentences and bits.
Some of the writing was purple prose, but one persons vivid description could be purple prose to another person, so it might just be me. I liked most of the writing though, every book or piece of writing has flaws.
I like Meyer because to me she is a VERY clear writer, the reader can easily make sense of what she is saying. I can even compare her to a more raw version of Hemingway, except they wrote about very different things.
www.nineteenposts.tumblr.com
Will wrote: "Also, yes, I can say "the object is understood" because... well, it is. If you offered me a grape, and I said, "I refuse," The object is understood: I refuse *your offer. While it is informal, the object is still "understood.""Of course, you can leave off the object (as in, the police will not break in your door and haul you to jail), but leaving off the object means that it is no longer strictly grammatically correct. If you are portraying your sentence as the grammatically correct way to write that sentence(which you did), it'll obviously be held up to higher standards.
As to your problems with Amy's use of the word "about", I thought it was understood that she used it as part of a phrasal verb. (She's allowed the more informal tone because she was not claiming the sentence was grammatically correct.) Your sentence used it as a transitive verb, and, as such, it requires an object.
Yes, I agree. I should have used the 100% grammatically correct form to complete the sentence when correcting it. You are right in pointing that out. I probably would have caught that if I had proofread better. Note to self: Always proofread carefully when you are being formal!"(She's allowed the more informal tone because she was not claiming the sentence was grammatically correct.)"
This is not true. If she hadn't claimed there was nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence, I wouldn't have brought it up. She said, "Go ahead and explain my error."
I was not trying to be critical, only pointing out the error that "Baylor" might have been referring to. I completely understood her sentence, though. And like I said, would not have pointed this out if a discussion about it hadn't been raised.
Also, like the "made up" rule about ending in a preposition, it is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with And or But. Usually, however, there is a more efficient and concise way to communicate what you are trying to say. There are occasions where it can be more effective than the alternative, though.
No, I don't agree with that. "And" and "but" are conjunctions. They join things together. It doesn't make sense to have a period and then either word (excluding "but for", of course, which is different). That being said, I use both at the beginning of sentences, but I don't consider that strictly grammatically correct. (I know we can both find links to back our views up, so let's just skip that part.)
Grammar, despite how it's often taught, is not as objective and set in stone as most people imagine.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Associated Press Stylebook 2009 (other topics)
The Elements of Style (other topics)
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns (other topics)
Common Sense (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (other topics)The Associated Press Stylebook 2009 (other topics)
The Elements of Style (other topics)
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns (other topics)
Common Sense (other topics)
More...
I completely agree.
I always look for reasons why an author chooses to write the way he/she does and portray a character in a particular way.
For example, I actually like the way meyer describes the marble-like quality of the vampires because I can see a parallel to Shakespeare’s poem "Not Marble, Nor the Gilded Monuments". Sure, she’s repetitive, but remember its bellas personality shining through the text. So, yes it is deemed to be annoying and repetitive at times lol. I can understand if this is annoying, but I also find Bella annoying. Falls hand and hand. This is why I can completely understand why someone would not be able to enjoy the book, but if you can attach meaning to it (such as the text as an extension of bellas mind) then you may have enjoyed it more. Or, perhaps not. Bella is quite annoying at times.
I don’t agree with the way Edward is always portrayed, but I can see how meyer created Edward historically because he speaks differently at times. As degrading as it sounds when he calls Bella “silly” or “little___”, it also connects to the late 19th early 20th century ways of speech. If you are familiar with playwrights such as Wilde, Strindberg, or Ibsen you will see such talk (or in any other early modern works). I find these things fascinating (partly because I’m a big English academic nerd) even though it may be degrading. We can really see the essence of Edward and his old characteristics merging with the modern world.