# Reasoning With Vampires: entertaining scrutiny of Twilight



## Foxee (Oct 18, 2010)

Someone had this blog linked on their Facebook page and I thought I would post it here as it does pertain directly to what makes good (and not so good) writing. 

Plus, it was really pretty funny. 

Reasoning With Vampires

Enjoy.


----------



## Kat (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm haven't even gotten past the first page and I'm already laughing so hard that I'm crying. My husband is looking at me like I'm insane. 

*THAT’S NOT WRONG. IT’S JUST HER STYLE.*
Fine. Her style is tacky.

LOL!


----------



## Tom88 (Oct 19, 2010)

Thank you for this, couldn't think of a better way to spend 20 minutes! Hilarious!


----------



## Sam (Oct 19, 2010)

Hallelujah and praise the Lord! There's a female who isn't completely mired in the world of _Twilight. _

I'm glad someone has finally decided to promulgate the myriad of errors and woeful sentence constructions that are rife throughout Meyer's "magnum opus". Oh, by the way, in case you couldn't hear it, I said those last two words sarcastically.


----------



## Scarlett_156 (Oct 19, 2010)

I thought I was gonna be angered or bored, but I was neither.  (That means I found it quite entertaining.)


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 19, 2010)

This may have been funny if it wasn't so pathetic. The perpetrator missed nearly as many errors as were found. Perhaps if their energy was expended providing thorough and reasoned critique somewhere where it's needed, instead of playing aound with graphics on a blog, it would have been time well spent.


----------



## Like a Fox (Oct 19, 2010)

Bleh. Bitterness is so passe.

The real problem with the novels is  that they weren't edited well.
All those errors are editing errors. Twilight's first draft was written in mere months. Then they put her under the pump to write the other three. With, apparently, no arduous editing period. 

All the successful novelists I've met this year said the editing process on their first novel was a huge learning curve. To me the Twilight books just seem to have never been put through this process. If they had been, they'd be okay.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 19, 2010)

Aww, Ox, take your sense of humor with you when you read the blog. You need that sort of thing. 

I couldn't stop chuckling over it myself and I've never read the books.

Edit: C'mon, Fox, you can write better than the examples on that blog drunk and with one hand tied behind your back. Well, maybe not but it would be a fun experiment to try. In any case you could write a better rough draft than Stephanie's finished opus and you know it.


----------



## Loulou (Oct 19, 2010)

My ten-year-old daughter LOVED these books. I think possibly this is the true age group. And even then, I too might harshly tighten up some of the weak prose. I've only skim-read (to check it was appropriate for my daughter, which is ironic since what was most _*in*_appropriate was the fairly weak language.) I think these books are what they are. To critique them as though they were great literary works is pointless. They're pulpy, teenagey, coming-of-age, schmaltzy novels. I do mirror Like a Fox in that they seem to have been rushed and missed some much-needed editing.

_Hilarious_ blog though. A novel could be written on such a subject.


----------



## Sam (Oct 19, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> Bleh. Bitterness is so passe.
> 
> The real problem with the novels is  that they weren't edited well.
> All those errors are editing errors. Twilight's first draft was written in mere months. Then they put her under the pump to write the other three. With, apparently, no arduous editing period.
> ...



Honestly, I've heard every excuse imaginable for why _Twilight _is crap. From it being "about the story", to it being "badly edited". The problem is: It _wasn't _edited. Any editor who could let stuff like "the rain fell through the trees greenly" and "I ate my breakfast cheerily" into a finished manuscript needs to be taken to a secluded locale and shot. First of all, how can rain fall _greenly_? What does that even mean! Secondly, how the hell does someone eat their breakfast _cheerily_? What, after every mouthful of cornflakes she broke into song and dance? 

As for her pressure to write three more novels: Her four _Twilight _books were written in 2005, '06, '07, and '08. That's _one _novel a year. Hardly what I'd call pressure when you consider that Tom Clancy, after his mammoth _Hunt for Red October, _received the biggest advance in the history of books (one million pounds; unheard of) to write six novels in three years. That's what I call pressure. A professional author who can't write one novel a year really needs to start questioning their commitment.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 19, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> Bleh. Bitterness is so passe.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 19, 2010)

Loulou said:


> I think these books are what they are. To critique them as though they were great literary works is pointless.



Just happened to run across a post on this very subject Reasoning With Vampires - I posted a link of your Tumblr on my Facebook page. [Because it absolutely makes sense!] And I got this response:


----------



## Loulou (Oct 19, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Just happened to run across a post on this very subject Reasoning With Vampires - I posted a link of your Tumblr on my Facebook page. [Because it absolutely makes sense!] And I got this response:


 
Could certainly agree that if Bella refers to literary works (I only skim-read) it would be 'in voice' to write in more of such a style.  And I totally agree that the prose is weak.  Sadly, if there's a market for this kind of thing then it will always be written and produced and do well.  Not saying that's_ right_, just that it's what'll happen.  Again, these books are what they are.  The only way to make a stand is not buy them.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 19, 2010)

I agree with you, Loulou. Obviously the books (and movies) overcame this drivel. I had heard they were pretty bad but didn't realize just how bad until I read these excerpts.

No, there are some unfortunate realities of writing and we're all aware of them. I don't think this blog was a stand against Twilight, just an entertaining look at bad prose.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 19, 2010)

> First of all, how can rain fall _greenly_? What does that even mean! Secondly, how the hell does someone eat their breakfast _cheerily_? What, after every mouthful of cornflakes she broke into song and dance?


The writing serves a purpose Sam, the target audience has not developed their critical faculty in the way you have and to mix sensations as in the rain falling to a colour or to eat "cheerily" still makes sense to them. Cereal manufacturers know that when they call their product "Cheerios" or put early morning cock crow images on the packet. It is the same sort of logic that says "Sale, up to 15% off", "Down by 15%" might be more accurate but it simply won't get the same reaction. Some one like you writing for an adult, literate audience will avoid hyperbole, some one writing for a teenage audience will use certain types, just like the hairdressers I saw this morning who were celebrating their new stylist by giving a "Discount of 15% reduction". You and I both know that discount and reduction is a redundant usage, but to catch the eye of a passer by you use both.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 19, 2010)

I see what you're saying, Olly, but isn't that a little insulting toward younger readers? That their critical faculties are undeveloped so they don't rate good writing? I would argue that what a young audience reads will become their accepted frame of reference. People learn by going to school and sitting in class but they also learn by reading for enjoyment and that should reinforce good writing, not bad.

After all, their critical faculties are undeveloped. Don't abuse them by passing off an indifferent effort as 'all right for younger people'.

Simpler prose, yes. Bad prose, no.


----------



## Sam (Oct 19, 2010)

Okay, I'll put it to you like this, Olly: I write thrillers. A lot of the time the action is fast-paced, the characters oftentimes violent, and the plot not exactly what I'd describe as suitable for teenagers. The kind of books I write are not for that age group, and I make no allusions otherwise. However, Meyer's books, which contain a self-obsessed hundred-year-old vampire who stalks a seventeen-year-old girl, are being devoured by teenagers. The storylines border on abuse, neither Bella nor Edward are role models for anyone, and the themes are adult. Yet, Meyer's selling them to a teenage market.


----------



## Kat (Oct 19, 2010)

That is what bothers me most about the books. Not the horrendous writing or bad editing. The fact that the relationship between the two main characters is so screwed up but presented as ideal. And that teenagers are believing that. If some guy told me that he followed me, snuck into my room to watch me sleep, I'd think he was a weirdo freak. That is normal behavior. To think that his stalkerish tendencies are romantic is complete nonsense. There are teenage girls who say "I want a love like Bella and Edward." What you want a relationship where the boyfriend is possessive, controlling and stalks your every move. A romance where you are submissive and whiny and have your needs and wants completely subjugated. 

Yes, what a fine role model of a healthy honest relationship. I would be happy to have my daughter read your books and base her future and current relationship on them. 

I mean seriously!!!! My daughter came home with a friend from school the other day, the friend happened to be a boy. I could care less the gender of her friends. But her 'boyfriend' has told her and the other boys in her grade that they are not allowed to be friends with her, go over to her house, or talk to her. This is what happens! So I chewed her a new one about respect and boundaries and how no man can tell you who you can or cannot be friends with. 

So yes, let us have a new future full of controlling men and submissive women. 

Okay rant over.


----------



## caelum (Oct 19, 2010)

That's what scares me the most about Twilight, how such bad ideas on relationships and English composition are being sold to the young on such a large scale.  For the same reason Harry Potter makes me sigh with relief, because those are books that have a very positive message and rather exquisite writing and wit.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 19, 2010)

Kat, I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 19, 2010)

Kat said:


> So yes, let us have a new future full of controlling men and submissive women.



Sounds great! When do we get started?


----------



## Eluixa (Oct 19, 2010)

Since when do our characters have to be role models? Damn. We are speaking of not dumbing things down for kids and yet we can't trust them to come to their own conclusions? Those discerning will choose better books in the future. 
The question of whether we as writers have the responsibility to mold our readers is one for debate, methinks.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 19, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Okay, I'll put it to you like this, Olly: I write thrillers. A lot of the time the action is fast-paced, the characters oftentimes violent, and the plot not exactly what I'd describe as suitable for teenagers. The kind of books I write are not for that age group, and I make no allusions otherwise. However, Meyer's books, which contain a self-obsessed hundred-year-old vampire who stalks a seventeen-year-old girl, are being devoured by teenagers. The storylines border on abuse, neither Bella nor Edward are role models for anyone, and the themes are adult. Yet, Meyer's selling them to a teenage market.


 I stick by what I say, the books are serving the purpose for which they were written, they are making shed loads of money, I don't hold that up to be moral or admirable, but they are doing what they were designed for in a way that good writing of the sort the teenagers "should" be reading very rarely can, in the same way that rubbish television will attract an audience of millions and a good production of a play by a serious playwright will only get a minority one. Basically it comes down to what you mean by 'good' and 'bad'. Generally if something does what it is supposed to it is considered good. That may not be your or my personal assessment but it is based on an objective reality of sales figures.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 19, 2010)

Another thought, whilst it might be preferable for people to read "good" books the level of literacy for many is such that reading anything in reasonable quantities will improve their fluency in reading, without which they will miss a large part of what makes a good book good. I know I read a lot of rubbish very quickly when I was young and I believe it served that function.


----------



## Sam (Oct 19, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> I stick by what I say, the books are serving the purpose for which they were written, they are making shed loads of money, I don't hold that up to be moral or admirable, but they are doing what they were designed for in a way that good writing of the sort the teenagers "should" be reading very rarely can, in the same way that rubbish television will attract an audience of millions and a good production of a play by a serious playwright will only get a minority one. Basically it comes down to what you mean by 'good' and 'bad'. Generally if something does what it is supposed to it is considered good. That may not be your or my personal assessment but it is based on an objective reality of sales figures.



Sales don't mean jack, and they certainly don't equate to talent. The only purpose _Twilight _serves is to delude teenage girls with the notion that they can achieve perfect happiness if they find their Edward Cullen, a stalking, self-obsessed control freak who happens to be good-looking. Just because they sell shed-loads doesn't mean anything. I can say _Big Brother _is watched by millions of people; does that make it any less crap? 

Lest someone says I'm jealous, I'm not. Meyer's making millions of a flawed and mediocre series. Good luck to her. But the way I look at it is this: I call an apple an apple. If I think it's crap, I say it's crap. Sales demographics aren't going to change my mind on that.


----------



## caelum (Oct 19, 2010)

Eluixa said:


> The question of whether we as writers have the responsibility to mold our readers is one for debate, methinks.


This same issue I saw come up in an interview with John Grisham (youtube).  He talked about how, with the kind of pedestal he has where he can reach the lives of so many people through his writing, he struggles with not preaching.  I think our prejudices will come out one way or another in the writing.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 19, 2010)

Is it really 'molding' our readers to avoid showing a destructive relationship in an unabashedly glorified light? Or is it being truthful?


----------



## Kat (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't see it as providing positive role models more as not idolizing negative ones. Children, teens it seems more so than younger children, are incredibly impressionable and yield to peer pressure and pop culture. I would want to put out a product that I could stand by and feel proud of. And if I wrote a book for children then I'd want my children to be able to read it. 

If you do it just to make money, fine. There are plenty of other people out there in the world screwing us all over for a buck. If you can put out a piece that not only fulfills your artistic sensibilities but also adds some kind of goodness to the world why would you settle? 

Speaking for myself alone I don't expect my characters to be role models. Often I want them to be un-role models, a bit of a what not to do. I do not want someone to look at me and my life and say "I want to be a teen parent just like Elaina." or "I want to drop out of high school my sophomore year just like Elaina." I wouldn't want anyone to do half the things I've done in my life so far. Why idolize the errors, screw ups and wrongness in the world?


----------



## Eluixa (Oct 19, 2010)

I think we mostly are on the same page with not glorifying. 
Let me reword that last bit though. Are we responsible as writers for any effect on the populace that our influence might have? As a person I was always taught that books were not Gods and I was to take what I read and decide for myself what was truth. And so I guess I expect that of others too. Just because someone murders out of passion in a book and gets away with it, it does not give me the go ahead to do so myself. It would seem though, that many a people don't necessarily make that distinction. Some will surely see the dominant/submissive relationship that is someone's fantasy and not realize that it does not work like the fantasies much of the time. 
The story though far from great writing, *is* about an obsessive relationship. I can see how it has come to be glorified. I just am not sure it is Myers responsibility to change her story to show a healthy happy couple of teens in love for the sake of her readers. And she'd probably not have the gobs of money either.

While I do believe that we are very influenced by what we read and think, sometimes with negative effects, and I know both can affect us deeply at times, I still find my favorite books are those of authors that are not afraid to explore hard subjects honestly, even with humor on occasion. 
I am really tired too, and I think I am getting sick, so hope I made sense.


----------



## Kat (Oct 20, 2010)

I do think that books should take on hard subjects, do not disagree with you there. The world would be a very boring place if we didn't challenge ourselves, as writers and readers. But where SM failed was glorifying the couple. Not necessarily in the initial book but in consequent interviews and such. Rather than say something along the lines of "I wrote this but don't feel that it portrays a normal healthy relationship. It works for Bella and Edward but in the real life these kind of relationships don't often work." Some kind of disclaimer, rather than say that their love is a love for the ages. That they will go down in history as one of the most romantic couples. 

I'm not feeling well either. Woke up all congested with a sore throat and then the kids come home from school with a notice saying that hand, foot and mouth disease is going around. Well fantastic. 

I hope that you feel better soon.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 20, 2010)

This is a more in-depth discussion than I expected of this thread which is excellent. 

I'd like to put these two quotes together for consideration:


Olly Buckle said:


> ...the target audience has not developed their critical faculty in the way you have...





Eluixa said:


> Some will surely see the dominant/submissive relationship that is someone's fantasy and not realize that it does not work like the fantasies much of the time.


Some may...but of the target audience it sounds like a lot won't.


> I just am not sure it is Myers responsibility to change her story to show a healthy happy couple of teens in love for the sake of her readers. And she'd probably not have the gobs of money either.


And well said. I don't think that's the answer at all. What struck me as being a better solution is what Kat said:


> Speaking for myself alone I don't expect my characters to be role  models. Often I want them to be un-role models, a bit of a what not to  do. I do not want someone to look at me and my life and say "I want to  be a teen parent just like Elaina." or "I want to drop out of high  school my sophomore year just like Elaina." I wouldn't want anyone to do  half the things I've done in my life so far. Why idolize the errors,  screw ups and wrongness in the world?


Forget Twilight for a moment. Let's say I posted a story in the Writer's Workshop where a young woman, abused by her drunken father and then later abused by her drunken husband was portrayed as thriving on the lousy treatment she received. If I had glossed over the actual difficulties of such a relationship and portrayed her as having an epic love for the ages with this guy I'd get some pretty sharp and well-deserved critiques.

Does that mean that I shouldn't write about a dysfunctional relationship of that kind? That's not the idea at all. Young women who marry or live with a guy like their father, right down to the alcoholism and abuse happen every day. However, the truth of that kind of situation isn't transcendent, it isn't beautiful, and it's far from healthy. Real life tells us that it's a sad parody of a marriage.

Fiction is a kind of lie but it is a lie supported by truths in order to get the reader to suspend their disbelief. You may pick up a novel knowing that what you're about to read never happened but there is an implied promise bound up in it that says that the author will still be telling you the truth. The more cynical and experienced the audience, the more difficult it is to get them to buy in to what you're writing. 

It isn't my intent to say that teen-agers as a whole can't perceive the inaccuracy of Bella and Edward's relationship (plenty of them do and they really hate the series) but many are naive enough about life to mistake a controlling creepy S.O.B. for a strong and caring guy. It's mixed up and maybe it's not Stephanie Meyer's responsibility but it would be nice if she had enough respect for her audience to admit the truth.

I know, it'll never happen. She's sailing on her boatloads of cash and why should she care? In my opinion, though, she richly deserves the criticism that her carelessness has generated.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 20, 2010)

> Sales don't mean jack,


Sam, whatever you high moral standards you actually live in a capitalist society. For the majority of people out there in the "real" world of commercial enterprise sales figures are the Holy Grail and in the entertainment industry Big Brother was a brilliant concept and Simon Cowell a genius who has saved their bacon. I am not saying this is right or good in our terms, but the people producing this c**p are doing exactly what they set out to do and doing it very successfully. You can criticise their intent, but their methodology is working exactly as they would wish so criticising their method is pretty pointless. In our eyes it may be badly plotted, badly written and badly a dozen other things but in the eyes of those that produce it it is excellent, and they will repeat it ad nauseum until they find another gravy train, then jump on that. The quest for wealth is the king pin of our social structure, not culture.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 20, 2010)

I can’t worry about everyone else’s children and I can’t influence what kind of TV shows, movies or books are out there. We can only make the effort to influence our children by exposing them to quality reading early on, but more importantly, by providing a positive example. Parents are the role models that have the most influence -- especially when it comes to relationships.

We won’t forbid reading it, but hopefully our children will make other choices.  If it’s not Twilight, it’s going to be some other thing. Otherwise, I’m not going to give it any more thought than it deserves.


----------



## Loulou (Oct 20, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Parents are the role models that have the most influence -- especially when it comes to relationships.


 
Absolutely. This is why I'd no problem with my daughter reading Twilight. (The first two anyway since the later ones are a little too old for her at present I feel.) Children (within reason, I'd obviously not permit my kids to read fully adult material too young) won't be harmed by what they might read in a book if in the rest of their lives they witness secure relationships, love, sensible boundaries, open discussion. Kids learn by living. That said, I do _prefer_ it when my daughter chooses well-written classics (which she also does) but I won't stop her indulging in 'lesser' stuff if she so wants.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 21, 2010)

Loulou said:


> Absolutely. This is why I'd no problem with my daughter reading Twilight. (The first two anyway since the later ones are a little too old for her at present I feel.) Children (within reason, I'd obviously not permit my kids to read fully adult material too young) won't be harmed by what they might read in a book if in the rest of their lives they witness secure relationships, love, sensible boundaries, open discussion. Kids learn by living. That said, I do _prefer_ it when my daughter chooses well-written classics (which she also does) but I won't stop her indulging in 'lesser' stuff if she so wants.



Ten seems young to me, but you know the books and your daughter. I'm thinking along the same lines, though, and my gut feeling is the books wouldn't really influence my girls one way or the other. I tend to give kids more credit. And trying to shield them usually backfires at some point.

And come to think of it, how relationships are depicted in some classic novels probably isn't very good either, by today's standards.

 What I’ve seen time and time again is how the influence of a group of kids or even one kid, can undo a lot of good parenting -– the proverbial “falling in with the wrong crowd.” It can happen, despite any due diligence on the parent’s part. 

  I think that scares me more than anything, far more than books or movies or TV etc, because short of locking them in the attic, there isn’t much you can do to prevent it. Unfortunately, whether or not your kids turn out OK has a lot to do with luck. And we’ve got our fingers crossed.


----------



## Loulou (Oct 21, 2010)

Interesting point Joseph about how relationships are often no more favourably portrayed in classic books. Like take _Wuthering Heights_ – the whole debacle (it’s the most over-rated ‘classic’ of all time in my humble opinion) is about jealousy and revenge and obsession. 

Okay, it’s not a kid’s book essentially but we had to read it in school from being thirteen or so. And look at some of Shakespeare’s plays, which are standard text in schools here. Most involve incest and obsessive relationships and revenge. 

The subject matter of the Twilight books is really no better or worse. It’s just the standard of writing that is at times offensive, and as I joked this was the thing that concerned me more when skim-reading before letting my daughter read. But I’m aware she’s able enough to figure that out for herself. The later books in the series I feel are indeed too old for her. But I was happy with the first two. She’s a pretty mature ten-year-old, already beginning puberty. I think a lot of it is that she handles life with a serious condition maybe.

And yes, for all you do as a parent, once they’re free to roam the world you just have to pray they make wise choices. My son is nineteen and I never sleep for worrying.


----------



## Like a Fox (Oct 21, 2010)

I was talking to Joe about this, and the books are loosely based on a few classics. Wuthering Heights being one of them.
Having actually read the books, I feel I'm in a position to say that they're not as harmful, at least thematically, as everyone bangs on about.
You know Stephenie Meyer is a Mormon. Edward won't touch Bella until they're married. And he's all about protecting her. And letting her choose.

Bah. So many things get blown out of proportion when coupled with ignorance and assumption. I can see how the relationship within the book got skewed that way. But it didn't have to be. 

Kids aren't stupid, and probably nowhere near as cynical.

God, look at Pride and Prejudice -My absolute favourite growing up. 
Is it just me, or does Elizabeth suddenly decide Darcy ain't so bad once she sees his lovely house at Pemberly?

And I turned out okay. No money-driven pursuit for a husband for me. 
In fact, I like starving artists who don't like me back. Haha.


----------

