# Books that defy all (or most) rules



## SinJinQLB (Mar 11, 2014)

I don't know what to calls these sort of books. Would postmodern be the correct term? I also can't think of a ton of examples. But two very clear ones come to mind - American Psycho and Infinite Jest.

The first one, American Psycho, is one of my favorite books. I love getting into the mind of Patrick Bateman. I love the lists he presents us, the lists of items he owns and buys. But if you try to apply any sort of rules that we all talk about on this site to the book, it would not pass. There are a billion characters in the book, most of which don't even have any scene time. There are lengthy portions that have nothing to do with much, except setting the tone/theme. There is barely a plot, if any. 

And yet the book was very successful. Did it just happen to get lucky? Did it win a ton of free publicity just for being so over-the-top? Or is it all an enigma?

Infinite Jest, I must admit, I only got to like page 100. But I sense it defied many of the same rules, an over abundance of characters, scenes going nowhere but to enhance it's flavor, copious amounts of detail no one would ever need to know. Infinite Jest has one extra rule breaker in that it's not even that enjoyable to read, what with all the end notes.

Again, both of these books were widely successful. What's your take on this? Do you think they just got the luck of the draw? Is there enough room for only a few rule-breaking books to come out? And most importantly, is it viable to try to write a book like this? All signs point to the fact that you need plot, manageable amount of characters, reasons for happenings... and yet obviously you CAN go the opposite direction and still be successful. If you're extremely lucky I guess.


----------



## popsprocket (Mar 11, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with breaking and ignoring the 'rules' of writing. You just need to keep in mind that although you might have the vision to enjoy reading and writing that sort of thing, the market buys based on predictability. They expect certain things from the books they read, and if you don't deliver them then you run the risk of being unpopular.

In that sense it's a gamble to write something completely out of the box - a bigger gamble than spending time writing a book with marketable appeal anyway.


----------



## bookmasta (Mar 11, 2014)

Haven't ran into any like that, but I was at the bookstore the other day and for once in my life, risked opening one of the Harry Potter books. I only skimmed a few pages, but I noticed she uses a lot of dialogue tags and adverbs. Perhaps this is just an inaccurate assessment, but from what I saw, I didn't see anything that stuck out or had that 'wow factor.' I'm still trying to figure out how Harry Potter turned in a multibillion dollar industry.


----------



## Kepharel (Mar 11, 2014)

Hmmm... The Complete Works of Shakespeare and the Bible are all time best sellers. Some literature transcends the rules I guess. I bet not many have read them covet to cover though  Now there's a thought for a competition.. pick a 20th / 21st Century topic to be written in the style of Shakespeare Yay!!


----------



## popsprocket (Mar 11, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Hmmm... The Complete Works of Shakespeare and the Bible are all time best sellers. Some literature transcends the rules I guess. I bet not many have read them covet to cover though  Now there's a thought for a competition.. pick a 20th / 21st Century topic to be written in the style of Shakespeare Yay!!



There's nothing about either of those works that defy the rules.


----------



## Kepharel (Mar 12, 2014)

I maintained that these works transcend the rules of works of fiction not that they break them. I was just suggesting that examining the reasons for that may be more important to consider.  Maybe we should get a clearer focus on what rules a book may break.  There are all the rules of grammar of course; those books that do not obey the conventions of prose and dialogue yet achieve greatness such as ‘Last Exit to Brooklyn.’ Yet surely the influence upon us is transitory, almost superficial, to the point of being a fashion statement of literature, a passing fad.  I have to ask myself is there any merit in holding out such works as worthy of consideration for this fact alone over and above the story they tell.  The answer has to be no because however unconventionally you present the story there has to be a story worth telling in the first place.

So how do Shakespeare and the bible break all the rules?  Shakespeare may have been all about death and revenge for some but his views on the transition of power in his historical plays resonates globally even today. Anyone care to name a writer out there who will be capable of the same.  Authors come and Authors go but anyone who can keep his work more or less in print since 1600 has not played fair by us mere mortals.  As I say, some books transcend the rules.

The bible, on the other hand, has been successful in dressing up fiction and parable as fundamental fact so successfully that a good proportion of the human race live their lives by it even when authorship cannot be attributed to much of it. Not only that it has been doing it for nigh on 2000 years  Like it or not, the world is still full of creationists who believe in the literal truth of Genesis.  Such a work for that reason alone transcends the rules of fiction.

Okay....I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2014)

What rules? 

Let's be clear on this: There. Are. No. Writing. Rules.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 12, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> Haven't ran into any like that, but I was at the bookstore the other day and for once in my life, risked opening one of the Harry Potter books. I only skimmed a few pages, but I noticed she uses a lot of dialogue tags and adverbs. Perhaps this is just an inaccurate assessment, but from what I saw, I didn't see anything that stuck out or had that 'wow factor.' I'm still trying to figure out how Harry Potter turned in a multibillion dollar industry.



I have a theory that is twofold on this.

1) Her publisher saw the immense merchandising potential.

2) It filled a gap. Before the Harry Potter books, YA literature was boring, and very dumbed down. It was much more like MG literature is these days, almost. Nancy Drew was the queen of the YA world. Harry Potter afforded a YA solution that was a bit more complex and, for lack of a better word, mature. It also had fantastical elements, allowing her to give dark themes a cartoony feel. If you kill someone with a knife in a YA book, it can be tough to really express that without upsetting parents. Killing someone by saying "Expelliamous!" (or whatever they say) gives much more of a childish feel, while retaining a still inherently violent act. Honestly, it probably wouldn't do half as well as it did if it were released today. Rowling struck the iron when it was glowing hot, and it paid off big time. Without her, people probably wouldn't have taken a chance on books like The Hunger Games or Twilight (which is good evidence for someone to go back in time and terminate her like John Connor) and this YA phenomena wouldn't be happening. It'd probably be something else. I don't know, maybe Goat Lit.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 12, 2014)

What I find odd is that, unlike with the Twilight series, the Harry Potter books haven't spawned (that I have seen) a billion wannabe young wizard writers.

Everywhere I look, I see crappy vampire stories trying to piggyback the dreck that is Twilight. 

Yet I don't see anyone doing that with HP.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 12, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> Haven't ran into any like that, but I was at the bookstore the other day and for once in my life, risked opening one of the Harry Potter books. I only skimmed a few pages, but I noticed she uses a lot of dialogue tags and adverbs. Perhaps this is just an inaccurate assessment, but from what I saw, I didn't see anything that stuck out or had that 'wow factor.' I'm still trying to figure out how Harry Potter turned in a multibillion dollar industry.



My guess is that people began reading it before they'd be aware of such things, and once they started reading, it was hard to stop.  Once you've been hooked, you'll put up with a lot for the sake of finding out how things end.

I've only had two actual experiences with HP, and one anecdotal one.  I read the first book while I was at summer camp, because my tentmate had it and I was bored.  This was probably when I was about 10, so of course I wouldn't have noticed the things you mentioned.  I remember liking the book but not gushing over it.

The second HP experience I have was when I hung out with some friends, and they suggested we go see the Order of the Phoenix at the local theater.  I was bored out of my skull, and nothing made any sense.  Of course, afterward they all mumbled, "Yeah, I guess that's not really the best book to start on...probably one of the worst of the series."

My anecdotal experience was when I read a chapter-by-chapter summary of the final book.  Apparently the main characters spend a lot of time in a tent.

My theory is that you get a sort of Stockholm Syndrome with long-running series like HP, or A Song of Ice and Fire, or any other doorstoppers.  Something got you hooked early on, so you keep reading, telling yourself, "It's going to get better...it's got to get better."  When you talk about it with your friends, you remember all the high points, forgetting how long it too you to get to them and how much you had to put up with for those few bright spots.  You can say things like "Oh, you see how this thing in Book 6 was set up by this thing in Book 2!", completely ignoring that books and characters should stand on their own, and that the parts should just as valuable as their sum, if not more.

In short, your only fallback is, "Yeah, I guess all those things are wrong with it...but I still like it.  I just do."  Well, okay I guess.



T.S.Bowman said:


> What I find odd is that, unlike with the Twilight series, the Harry Potter books haven't spawned (that I have seen) a billion wannabe young wizard writers.
> 
> Everywhere I look, I see crappy vampire stories trying to piggyback the dreck that is Twilight.
> 
> Yet I don't see anyone doing that with HP.



Probably because there are higher goals to shoot for.  If you're doing fantasy, you don't want to write the next Harry Potter.  You want to write the next Lord of the Rings.

With Twilight, what else is there?


----------



## Bishop (Mar 12, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> With Twilight, what else is there?



I just feel really bad for Dram Stoker, who wrote a fantastic book (that broke many rules by its own format) and now his legacy... what he really created and brought to the world... has been dumbed down to "Vampire Academy."


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2014)

I believe you mean _Bram _Stoker, short for Abraham.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 12, 2014)

Bishop said:


> I just feel really bad for Dram Stoker, who wrote a fantastic book (that broke many rules by its own format) and now his legacy... what he really created and brought to the world... has been dumbed down to "Vampire Academy."



Don't get me wrong; I don't think that Twilight is the only vampire literature out there.  It's just the only one most of the target demographic is familiar with.


----------



## Robdemanc (Mar 12, 2014)

I don't think HP broke "rules". It was a children's book and using adverbs and lots of colorful description is ideal for children.

Twilight didn't seem to know about the "rules" because it was just a long winded moan about a girl meeting the local bad boy. There were grammar problems, the writing was dull, the character's were flat, the plot was...where? And yet everyone loved it.

Fifty shades of Grey was a poorly written porn/mainstream romance that for some reason half the world loved!

Who knows why certain things become massive.


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2014)

Bishop said:


> I just feel really bad for Dram Stoker, who wrote a fantastic book (that broke many rules by its own format) and now his legacy... what he really created and brought to the world... has been dumbed down to "Vampire Academy."



I understand what you're saying, but in no way shape or form did Stoker create the vampire genre. The first vampire (or vampyre/vampir) novel was written by Heinrich Ossenfelder way back in 1748, a whole 149 years before Stoker's Dracula (1897), and was called _Der Vampir. _The one that Stoker drew inspiration from was Sheridan Le Fanu's _Carmilla _(1872).


----------



## Bishop (Mar 12, 2014)

Sam said:


> I understand what you're saying, but in no way shape or form did Stoker create the vampire genre. The first vampire (or vampyre/vampir) novel was written by Heinrich Ossenfelder way back in 1748, a whole 149 years before Stoker's Dracula (1897), and was called _Der Vampir. _The one that Stoker drew inspiration from was Sheridan Le Fanu's _Carmilla _(1872).



I understand all of that, and studied all of that, but for the purposes of most popular ideas of vampires, _Dracula_ is the work that people reference the most. The enduring legacy of vampires as they're seen now traces back to him, mostly because of what the gothic literary period represents. It just fit the times, and fit the style.

Either way, Bram, Ossenfelder, and Le Fanu would all be ashamed to see their beloved creatures of the night distorted into teenage girls running around the countryside, blushing about boys.


----------



## Apple Ice (Mar 12, 2014)

Back to Twilight bashing again. It happens at least once a month. I've said it before but I really don't mind the franchise doing well. If that's what people want to read, let them read it. Looking down your nose isn't going to make you anymore successful or the franchise any worse off. 

A book I read fairly recently didn't have speech marks for dialogue which I thought was odd. It worked to his credit. I was thinking I may do the same, I find speech marks clumpy and they can sometimes disrupt flow.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 12, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> Back to Twilight bashing again. It happens at least once a month. I've said it before but I really don't mind the franchise doing well. If that's what people want to read, let them read it. Looking down your nose isn't going to make you anymore successful or the franchise any worse off.



I agree. Stephenie Meyer is just a normal person who wrote a story that happened to resonate with millions of fans.

If only we could all be so lucky.


----------



## Tettsuo (Mar 12, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> Haven't ran into any like that, but I was at the bookstore the other day and for once in my life, risked opening one of the Harry Potter books. I only skimmed a few pages, but I noticed she uses a lot of dialogue tags and adverbs. Perhaps this is just an inaccurate assessment, but from what I saw, I didn't see anything that stuck out or had that 'wow factor.' I'm still trying to figure out how Harry Potter turned in a multi-billion dollar industry.


Harry Potter is very simply a great story.  Each book, although obviously part of a whole, were great stories singularly.

Just because you can create fantastic prose doesn't mean you can write a great story.  *Prose is only a vehicle for getting the story across.*


----------



## Bishop (Mar 12, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> I agree. Stephenie Meyer is just a normal person who wrote a story that happened to resonate with millions of fans.
> 
> If only we could all be so lucky.



It's not so much her success--my hatred for her is only like, 30% jealousy. It's that I worked very hard to study great literature and become a good writer. I'm by no means great, and some might not even think very good, but I'm definitely a competent writer. I idolize great works from Chaucer to King, stories that truly define the human experience and beyond. Then I talk to someone and they ask about me, I mention in passing that I write and play music, and the response I'm given is either about how they read all the time, and love the Twilight books, or how they love music and think Katy Perry is just the best singer. It makes me mad not because of these people's poor taste, but because it's all they have for taste. We all have guilty pleasures. I love BAD movies. I mean, really bad movies, like Chuck Norris movies. But I would never think of them as good movies, and whenever I mention that I like them, I laugh at myself as much as the person I'm talking to does. The difference is that people truly believe that Twilight is great writing. I know, I've met these people.

There's nothing truly wrong with books like Twilight. But there's nothing really right with them either. I think it's important for every person to take in culture of all types, good and bad, things they like and things they don't like. You need to experience as much of the breadth of human creativity as you can in order to understand your own creativity, and frankly, your own humanity. When people limit themselves to Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey, they're dismissing a major part of the human experience. The first time I read Romeo and Juliet, I had no idea what it was. It took three real readings over about a decade to truly understand what I was seeing. I honestly feel I'm a much better person for having come to understand that subtlety and mastery. At the same time? The most recent book I read was Star Trek Voyager: Homecoming. It was _okay_ at best. But I still loved and enjoyed it (mostly because Star Trek is god). 

So if I'm bashing Twilight, it's not because I'm upturning my nose and thinking it a lesser piece of writing, but it's more that I dislike what it does to people who honestly could learn and read a great depth of things, but instead decide that since Stephanie Meyer stopped writing it, it was time to pick up "Vampire Academy." They're limiting themselves, and missing out on truly great works that are now turned into Cliff's Notes so that people don't have to actually understand anything above the reading level of Twilight, or whatnot. It's not that it's bad and I hate its success. It's that it's bad and no one that likes it wants to admit that.

Bishop


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Mar 12, 2014)

Bishop said:


> IThey're limiting themselves, and missing out on truly great works that are now turned into Cliff's Notes so that people don't have to actually understand anything above the reading level of Twilight, or whatnot. It's not that it's bad and I hate its success. It's that it's bad and no one that likes it wants to admit that.


At least they're reading, right? Besides, some people who think it's great will try to find other books they love, and they may well branch out to better and more interesting things. I think it's more productive to try turning people on to other things than to tell them their favorite book sucks. 

When I was 13 I really enjoyed V. C. Andrews, and that is some awful tripe, without a doubt. But I turned out okay, and so will most of the people reading _Twilight_ today.

Anyway, a book that defies some of the so-called "rules"--_Gravity's Rainbow_ by Thomas Pynchon. Starts with a dream sequence, for chrissakes. Somebody throw that man in jail. "A screaming comes across the sky" indeed.


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2014)

Wouldn't really call _Twilight _'reading'.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Mar 12, 2014)

Sam said:


> Wouldn't really call _Twilight _'reading'.



Now there's the upturned nose attitude that was mentioned earlier. I'm not a fan of the series either, but I wouldn't look down on someone who reads it. I wouldn't accuse them of doing anything less than reading.


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2014)

As a student of English, my job is to look at literature in a way that most people do not. I am a voracious reader, at a rate of approximately two decent-sized novels a week. I am also an avid writer, penning upwards of ten thousand words a week. I've read Shakespeare, Proust, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Orwell, Golding, McCarthy, Faulkner, Beckett, Joyce, Conrad, and dozens more of the masters of the English language. I strip them down to their core and analyse them to see what they do and how they do it: religious scepticism, deep introspection, technical and formal experimentation, cerebral game-playing, linguistic innovation, self-referentiality, misanthropic despair overlaid with humour, philosophical speculation, cultural exhaustion, inversion of time, duality in mind and body, Kafkian situations, Orwellian nightmares, dystopic landscapes – it's all part of the analytic approach to writing in general, and it's found in the aforementioned writers' work. 

_Twilight_, in comparison, is about a Mary Sue who falls in love with a sparkly vampire with amazing pecs. He proceeds to stalk her, slash her car's tyres, and turn her into a vampire. Hardly what I'd call 'reading'. But, it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 12, 2014)

> _Twilight, in comparison, is about a Mary Sue who falls in love with a sparkly vampire with amazing pecs. He proceeds to stalk her, slash her car's tyres, and turn her into a vampire. Hardly what I'd call 'reading'. _



From a narratological perspective, one can say that the emptiness of the prose in Twilight limits the reader to either self-indulgent fantasizing or complete boredom, with no alternative supported by the writing style; thus, it does not support the positive reading experience that most other stories support. But that's off-topic. 

As for 'rules', it makes a lot more sense to call them 'norms' or conventions. There are no rules for telling a story, but there are things that work well together and trends that emerge as a result.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 12, 2014)

lasm said:


> At least they're reading, right? Besides, some people who think it's great will try to find other books they love, and they may well branch out to better and more interesting things. I think it's more productive to try turning people on to other things than to tell them their favorite book sucks.



Yes, I agree that at least they're reading, but they're not reading diversely. That's my big issue. Many of my favorite books are terrible. Thin characters, over the top story lines, total lack of subtlety... I love them because they inspired me to write cheap sci-fi, because that's what my imagination likes best. But it's far from the works of Asimov or Bradbury, and I know that.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Mar 12, 2014)

Cadence said:


> From a narratological perspective, one can say that the emptiness of the prose in Twilight limits the reader to either self-indulgent fantasizing or complete boredom, with no alternative supported by the writing style; thus, it does not support the positive reading experience that most other stories support. But that's off-topic.
> 
> As for 'rules', it makes a lot more sense to call them 'norms' or conventions. There are no rules for telling a story, but there are things that work well together and trends that emerge as a result.



But aren't you using your imagination when you read, regardless of the prose? Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly.

As for your comment about no rules for telling a story, I would imagine the term "story" implies that there must be a plot? I could be wrong, perhaps a story does not necessitate a plot.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 12, 2014)

> I would imagine the term "story" implies that there must be a plot? I could be wrong, perhaps a story does not necessitate a plot.



Watch a performance of Waiting For Godot. 

'Story' is just a series of events. People naturally augment it with terms and philosophies that don't apply to the entirety of storytelling.



> But aren't you using your imagination when you read, regardless of the prose? Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly.



It depends _how _you're using it. The prose affects the mechanics of your mind as you read.


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> But aren't you using your imagination when you read, regardless of the prose? Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly.
> 
> As for your comment about no rules for telling a story, I would imagine the term "story" implies that there must be a plot? I could be wrong, perhaps a story does not necessitate a plot.



Do you accept the premise that there is such a thing as a horrible film that stimulates no emotion and evokes no reaction from a person whatsoever? If the answer is 'yes', why is it so hard to accept that a book can be of little to no value to a reader?


----------



## SinJinQLB (Mar 12, 2014)

Sam said:


> Do you accept the premise that there is such a thing as a horrible film that stimulates no emotion and evokes no reaction from a person whatsoever? If the answer is 'yes', why is it so hard to accept that a book can be of little to no value to a reader?



Fair enough. And good point!

Let me ask you this. And this is purely out of curiosity. If you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose - to either be the writer of Twilight, or be a writer who never gets published and never has their material read by anyone? This question goes for anyone, by the way. Not directed at anyone in particular. And don't feel ashamed to answer out of pure material gain.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 12, 2014)

All of this hate for _Twilight_ is worse than the series itself. Cmon you butthurt writers, you fiends and bullies, the time has come to find a new literary punching bag.


----------



## stormageddon (Mar 12, 2014)

I've realized that I was indoctrinated into my love of Harry Potter. It's been in my life since I was two, and while with age I have become a little disillusioned, it will always hold a special place in my heart, simply because it dominated my entire childhood. How many nights I dreamt of recieving my acceptance letter. And when it finally came- best day of life 

On the subject of breaking literary rules...I have little to say v.v certainly it's acceptable to a certain extent, but too much and you may find your novel only appeals to a niche audience. Of course, some would consider that a good thing. So, it seems there are rules about breaking rules. Rather, guidelines.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 13, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> Fair enough. And good point!
> 
> Let me ask you this. And this is purely out of curiosity. If you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose - to either be the writer of Twilight, or be a writer who never gets published and never has their material read by anyone? This question goes for anyone, by the way. Not directed at anyone in particular. And don't feel ashamed to answer out of pure material gain.



Fair enough question I suppose.

I would be happy to take a small portion of the success she's had.

If I thought Side Worlds could be pretty much a complete waste of words that millions of people would go bonkers over, I'd finish it right now.

Fortunately, I am not deluded enough (although it does get close at times) to think that will happen. So I will continue to work on it and make it as good as it can possibly be. THEN I will accept the millions of adoring fans. 

- - - Updated - - -



Jon M said:


> All of this hate for _Twilight_ is worse than the series itself. Cmon you butthurt writers, you fiends and bullies, the time has come to find a new literary punching bag.



I'm sure that will happen as soon as one big enough and bad enough comes along.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 13, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> Let me ask you this. And this is purely out of curiosity. If you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose - to either be the writer of Twilight, or be a writer who never gets published and never has their material read by anyone? This question goes for anyone, by the way. Not directed at anyone in particular. And don't feel ashamed to answer out of pure material gain.



As much as I hate to say it, I would take being the writer of Twilight (with all its monetary benefits) over never having published anything at all.  I know, "artistic integrity" and all, but if I had her money, I would quit my job and never work again.  It would be amazing.

I don't write for the money, but you'd better believe I would be okay with earning a decent paycheck for it.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 13, 2014)

I'd be the writer of Twilight in a heartbeat. I said it's a bad book, not that it's something to be ashamed of. My fiction is cheap sci-fi, as I've said before. Nothing more, nothing less, and it's just made to entertain. I imagine I'm not writing better than Meyer (certainly less whiny, but not necessarily better) but I love what I write. That being said, if I wrote Twilight, I'd also take it as a challenge to improve on it throughout the rest of my life, so there's that.


----------



## Sam (Mar 13, 2014)

I don't like to make posts on WF with errors in them. Having my name attached to an error-ridden, plotless, and egregious novel would be more mortifying than any amount of money could compensate for. 

Money is not the be all and end all.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 13, 2014)

> All of this hate for _Twilight is worse than the series itself. Cmon you butthurt writers, you fiends and bullies, the time has come to find a new literary punching bag._



For those who know what they're doing, it's not hate. It's criticism, and very worthwhile.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 13, 2014)

Stephenie Meyer herself said that she wishes she could rewrite _Twilight_, now that she's learned more as an author through experience.

To put things in perspective: it was, by her own admission, the first story she'd ever written. 

I remember the first story I ever wrote in my adult life. It was quite horrendous (and only spanned one page). _Twilight_, as vilified as it may be, blows my first attempt completely out of the water, not only in success, but also in competency.

I vaguely remember Stephen King mentioning that he considers one of his earlier published stories so atrocious he refuses to look at it ever again.

A lot of authors' first attempts really highlight how much they still had to learn. Meyer was both fortunate and unfortunate enough to have her first attempt at writing spotlighted for all the world to see.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Mar 13, 2014)

Cadence said:


> For those who know what they're doing, it's not hate. It's criticism, and very worthwhile.


Oh c'mon now. None of us are doing a detailed analysis of the thing. Most of us probably haven't even read it (I haven't). And Jon is right. _Twilight _was first published in 2005. Surely there's some newer, hipper, more happening whipping post available.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 13, 2014)

> None of us are doing a detailed analysis of the thing.



I am. Think about it; loads of people hate it, but loads of people read it. It's a gold-mine for literary exploration.

A critic shouldn't be confined to 'great' literature; if many are saying that something is terrible, their hatred is the critic's gain.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 13, 2014)

Cadence, to throw a wrench in your gears (not maliciously, but in good spirit ): I know you are a fan of _The Hunger Games_, if I'm not mistaken.

There are people who hate _THG_, who think it's poorly written, a rip-off, et cetera. I'm not one of them (I liked the series. It had some flaws, but overall was a fun page-turner.) but they exist in droves.

Given that position—of you liking a book that many hate and think didn't deserve to be published—does it give you any insight into how fans of _Twilight_ may feel?

I know there is some literature I love (pulpy superhero fiction) that many writers/readers would scoff at, but I like it for my own reasons. If I like it, that's all that matters to me.

Sometimes you like something, and any attacking points the critics have (valid or not) become irrelevant.

A food critic can tell me that a veal cutlet is superior to my ham and cheese sandwich. But if I like my ham and cheese sandwich and think it tastes better than the veal cutlet, then that's what I'm going to eat. 

Critics, in my opinion, sometimes miss the bigger picture: that what the reader thinks trumps all. Reader reaction trumps prose deficiencies, it trumps plot holes, it trumps any and everything about writing a critic may throw at it. 

If the fans like it—case closed. That's all that really matters. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Mar 13, 2014)

I have read _Twilight. _To condense the plot into a couple of  sentences: it was a four hundred pages of back-and-forth "I love you" and "no, I love you more!"; then one hundred pages of a completely new storyline involving a 'bad' vampire who arrives in town and becomes the antagonist, even though no one had ever heard of him in the first four hundred pages, as though Meyer suddenly realised that there had to be _conflict _and _conflict resolution _before her heretofore plotless story became a novel; and finally an ending for which the word 'anti-climactic' does not do justice; and all of this while remarking about Edward's 'perfectly toned' pecs every second page. 

As far as new hobbyhorses go, there is nothing that could ever take the place of _Twilight. _Sorry to you _Twilight _fans, but expect your novel to be the brunt of jokes until hell freezes over. I'm not butt-hurt about it at all. She made a lot of money and achieved more fame than I will ever dream of. So what? I'm a writer with misanthropic traits. To wit, I would hate being famous. Having money would just make me buy things I don't need. Contrary to what 90% of the world believes, *there are more important things in life than fame and money. *


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 13, 2014)

Sam said:


> [...] She made a lot of money and achieved more fame than I will ever dream of. So what? I'm a writer with misanthropic traits.[...]



I had to google misanthropic just so I could post it up, not because I don't know the word, but because I remember laughing at the definition the first time I saw it:

*mis·an·throp·ic*
ˌmisənˈTHräpik/
_adjective_


*1*. disliking humankind

Sam, to me you're one of those guys who is unintentionally funny.  (That's a compliment. Don't go disliking my humanity please.)


----------



## SinJinQLB (Mar 13, 2014)

Sam said:


> Contrary to what 90% of the world believes, *there are more important things in life than fame and money. *



I think that everyone has a their own idea of what is important to them. Everyone has their own dream. You can criticize that it may make them shallow if their only dream is money, but that's another story.

I will say that there is a difference between "earned fame and fortune" and "given fame and fortune". I have experienced both, and when I feel I have been given fame and fortune out of pity or respect or just accidentally fell into it without earning it, it is very hollow and unrewarding.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 13, 2014)

Just popping in to note that some folks forget that readers of "Twilight" (or "Hunger Games" or Harry Potter) are not necessarily stuck reading only those books. Caveat - I haven't read any of them. But just because someone enjoys Twilight does not make them, automatically, a moron - and that's certainly what many negative comments about the book are strongly implying. I mean, do people know, by some osmosis, that readers of Twilight read nothing else? That those readers have never even considered reading anything more "intellectual"? 

Poorly written? Possibly - but what about the _story_? That's what readers want more than anything - and will forgive tremendously "poor writing" if the story captivates them. I've seen many technically well-written books that were boring as all get out. Would that we all could give readers the _story-telling_ that catapults us to such success.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 13, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Just popping in to note that some folks forget that readers of "Twilight" (or "Hunger Games" or Harry Potter) are not necessarily stuck reading only those books. Caveat - I haven't read any of them. But just because someone enjoys Twilight does not make them, automatically, a moron - and that's certainly what many negative comments about the book are strongly implying. I mean, do people know, by some osmosis, that readers of Twilight read nothing else? That those readers have never even considered reading anything more "intellectual"?
> 
> Poorly written? Possibly - but what about the _story_? That's what readers want more than anything - and will forgive tremendously "poor writing" if the story captivates them. I've seen many technically well-written books that were boring as all get out. Would that we all could give readers the _story-telling_ that catapults us to such success.



I was talking about people who I've met, and people who I know on a fairly regular basis who read exclusively books in the vein of Twilight. They refuse to try anything outside of that comfort zone and when they talk to me, I'm the weirdo for having read anything else. It's a very small, specific population that causes my anger, but they're a constant annoyance in my life 

That being said, I still hate it less than I hate The Scarlet Letter. As an English major in college, hating the Scarlet Letter was like being Chief Brody in Jaws 2. I kept pointing out the horrible shark that was trying to eat everyone and everyone looked back at me like I had two heads. "How can you not like the Scarlet Letter?" they'd say, "It's a classic!" they'd say... And then I'd be laughed at and ridiculed, because no one understood! NO ONE KNEW THE EVIL OF HAWTHORNE!

>.>

Sorry, that got a little too real.


----------



## spartan928 (Mar 13, 2014)

THG, HP and Twilight get discussed, debated, praised and vilified ad infinitum on writing forums. But typically, the discussion revolves around the merits (or lack of merit) for the astronomical success of these books and I don't think the writing itself has much relevance to that success. Much of it is faddism. These books were "gotta have" for various reasons and young adults (primarily, not exclusively of course), many who probably read books rarely for pleasure, rush out to pluck the books up. Fans identify with the characters relationships and their plights. But aside from that, there could be 100 new novels on the streets just as good, with just as interesting characters and equally unique plots and they will sell zilch. Why? Because publishing fads are exceptionally rare and are always going to be. It's pointless to examine the writing of any of those books in relation to their sales figures because the analysis will never stack up to the piles of money they brought in.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 13, 2014)

> I know you are a fan of _The Hunger Games, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> There are people who hate THG, who think it's poorly written, a rip-off, et cetera. I'm not one of them (I liked the series. It had some flaws, but overall was a fun page-turner.) but they exist in droves.
> 
> ...



I'm not making attacking points to undermine the views of a book's readership. Rather, I'm using their views as a factor in my study. I'm not trying to change their opinions; that would be counter-intuitive. Their opinions fascinate me; not because I view them as wrong (they can't be if they're honest), but because such opinions are not usually assigned to other work that is critically 'attacked'.

You never know, I may uncover a very positive revelation. I'm actually hoping for something like that.


----------

