# Moral Quandary - Throwing a (Bad) Novel Under the Bus for the LOL's?



## Man From Mars (Mar 28, 2012)

So if you haven't heard of Alex Read's Twilight, then I strongly suggest you check it out at least one or two episodes on youtube before giving your final answer.

[video=youtube;2L253VLwH3w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L253VLwH3w&amp;ob=av3e[/video]

But my question is this: if one made a similar video of reading a poorly-written novel for laughs, either published of self-published, would such an action be in bad taste or would it be fine if it were intended as harmless lulz?


----------



## felix (Mar 28, 2012)

In principle it's only acceptable with books like Twilight because so many people love or hate them that the corresponding love and hate becomes faceless and impersonal. Judging by the video that you've shown (I watched the first two parts) I'd say that he's doing better than I expected, but he's still hopelessly biased, and seemed determined throughout to ridicule every letter of the book. 
Granted, the prose is weak and the plot undeveloped, but not every piece of Twilight is the colossal pile of manure that he seems compelled to convey. 

My other problem with it is that if you make a video on a 'poorly-written novel' then I'd never just base that on your opinion and then ridicule it for two hours. There must be at least a consensus from a large group of people that it was poorly written, as your personal taste may lead you to think that you're reviewing something terrible, when in fact it may be a perfectly serviceable novel. 

Finally, I'd say that making a video for the express purpose of making fun of something which a fellow writer has cried, bled and slaved over for what must have been many months, if not years, is just wrong. I cannot imagine how crushed I would feel if I published a novel and then somebody did that to me. I can understand critics and the media trashing a novel, but not Average Joe with a video camera. It's too personal, too mean-spirited. 

However, there's nothing wrong with a satirical, decidedly unbiased review. If you find something terrible, or all of it terrible, then that's great, but make sure that you're not just clawing at it.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2012)

I’m sure Stephanie Meyer is crushed. Probably boo-hooing all the way to the bank.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Mar 28, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I’m sure Stephanie Meyer is crushed. Probably boo-hooing all the way to the bank.



Good question by Mars but not a book I wish to read nor a vid I would care to watch. 

Felix makes excellent comment and hopefully you are right about the author good Sir Joseph.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2012)

I couldn’t care less about the author and I doubt she cares all that much that someone is making fun of her books on YouTube. The only reason he’s doing it in the first place is because of the success of the series. A backlash of some kind often comes with success -- that’s just part of the deal. No one is being harmed by this – the author or her fans. I don’t see that there’s any “moral quandary” or that it really deserves much consideration.


----------



## felix (Mar 28, 2012)

I'd say that any writer who isn't an utter sellout would care enormously, and that it would hurt them deeply. Yes, Meyer is probably one of them, but to say that in principle writers won't care about somebody picking apart their novel and scoffing at it for kicks is quite wrong...

Backlash comes with success, from media professionals who make their living from it. Not from bored kids. Condoning it just isn't excusable.


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 28, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I’m sure Stephanie Meyer is crushed.


Yeah, crushed under her fat stacks of cash.


----------



## wyf (Mar 28, 2012)

can somebody expain to me in real terms the difference between a poorly written book and a good one. 

Twilight is supposed to be poorly written and it has sold millions. the average booker prize winner sells a fraction of those numbers but are apparently well written.

Is it that people actually dont like 'well written' books and just like books with a good story regardless of how well they are written?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2012)

felix said:


> I'd say that any writer who isn't an utter sellout would care enormously, and that it would hurt them deeply. Yes, Meyer is probably one of them, but to say that in principle writers won't care about somebody picking apart their novel and scoffing at it for kicks is quite wrong...
> 
> Backlash comes with success, from media professionals who make their living from it. Not from bored kids. Condoning it just isn't excusable.



Once you’ve put something out there, it’s fair game for parody or even ridicule. YouTube or other viral media gives everyone an opportunity to get in on it -- and I don't have a problem with it. If an author cares enormously or is deeply hurt by some kid on YouTube, I’d say he or she needs to grow a thicker skin or find another line of work.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Mar 28, 2012)

...googled the thing after you used the word "series"

According to Wikipedia, "*Twilight* is a series of four vampire-themed fantasy romance novels by American author Stephenie Meyer"

O.K. HOSAY ...we live and learn.


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 28, 2012)

Man from Mars, thank you for bringing Alex Reads Twilight to my attention. It's awesome.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 28, 2012)

Apart from a public demonstration of envy, is there a point to this thread?


----------



## felix (Mar 28, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Once you’ve put something out there, it’s fair game for parody or even ridicule. YouTube or other viral media gives everyone an opportunity to get in on it -- and I don't have a problem with it. If an author cares enormously or is deeply hurt by some kid on YouTube, I’d say he or she needs to grow a thicker skin or find another line of work.



I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen, or that author's should take criticism to heart. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't just condone something like that when it's being done for no reason other than spite. 

It's one thing to acknowledge it as an inevitability and quite another to say that it's fair and just.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 28, 2012)

IanMGSmith said:


> ...googled the thing after you used the word "series"
> 
> According to Wikipedia, "*Twilight* is a series of four vampire-themed fantasy romance novels by American author Stephenie Meyer"
> 
> O.K. HOSAY ...we live and learn.



Aww, come on, man. You can't say that you've never heard of Twilight before now. Do you live under a rock, haha? There are already four films, the fifth out soonish (the last book split into two). They're advertised ridiculously, and the internets has so many jokes revolving around the series that you must have heard about them.

I also believe that if Meyer has seen this, she might get annoyed at the guy for his personal attacks (he says she can't write at all, at one point) but other than that, probably doesn't care. Let's face it, she's made a lot of money off of this.

She's been so successful that she must feel validated to some degree, even though she has probably heard all of the attacks the series has received too.

And, let's be honest here... even the bad press is making people buy the books. Just look at this Alex guy, he bought it even though he'd heard so many bad things about it.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 28, 2012)

Let's see:

Stephanie Meyer is a New York Times Bestselling author, ranked by Time Magazine as one of the most influential people in the world, her books have been made into movies that literally _shattered_ box office records, she's a Forbes List ranked multi-millionaire as a direct result of the success of her novels..

And we have an unknown nobody vlogging to mock her writing? Hah!

Sorry, I don't respect people who attack the success of others. I'm not a fan of the Twilight series, but I respect Stephanie Meyer's results enough to recognize the intelligence in her craft.

Her prose is simple, in my opion, intentionally (not from a lack of talent). The average public generally responds more positively to simple writing than flowery or complex sentences. Writing plainly is a profitable move.

Love triangles are also highly popular, so is the teenage age group. Combining werewolves and vampires in a Montagues v. Capulets fashion builds upon classically succesful romantic archetypes... There are so many brillaint marketability moves in Twilight, that's why it is so successful.

But the average critic (read: those who don't know what they're talking about) point to Meyer's sentences and say "Hah! She's a crappy writer. I can write better than that!". No you can't. No, you can't.

If you can, prove it. Match her success. I dare you.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 28, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I don't respect people who attack the success of others.


Same. It's kind of like ridiculing someone's taste in music. You just look like a douche.


----------



## Man From Mars (Mar 28, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> Apart from a public demonstration of envy, is there a point to this thread?



You could start with reading the thread, Bloggsworth. This is the second time you've come onto a thread of which I've asked for consensus and you've not bothered to put in anything constructive, on top of that making personal attacks at me. If you don't see a point to it then don't respond. Stop wasting my time.

Moving on.

This thread was not supposed to be about Stephanie Meyer writing a good vs bad piece. The video and her work are only used for example's sake. I'm wondering if it would be in bad taste to do something similar for other published works, even if the intent is for light-hearted humor or instruction. I understand what felix is saying that it could very well hurt someone's feelings. And I understand JosephB is saying as well. Now *you *can go ahead and give your opinion if it isn't too much to ask instead of inserting your empty quips. Thanks.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2012)

felix said:


> I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen, or that author's should take criticism to heart. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't just condone something like that when it's being done for no reason other than spite.
> 
> It's one thing to acknowledge it as an inevitability and quite another to say that it's fair and just.



Poor taste, bad manners, sour grapes, a waste of time -- maybe. By saying it isn’t “fair” of “just,” you're attaching way too much importance to it.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 28, 2012)

Man from Mars said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if it would be in bad taste to do something similar for other published works, even if the intent is for light-hearted humor or instruction.



I'd be okay with it if it were done in an entertaining or creative way.

But just filming oneself talking isn't interesting (at least, not to me). Everybody does that on youtube. 

I'd say act out a parody, or show a hand-drawn animation, or something clever. Or if it's just for instruction, a white board so you can illustrate your points would be nice. Just be warned that then your unique approach opens itself up to ridicule, as well!


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 29, 2012)

felix said:


> Backlash comes with success, from media professionals who make their living from it. Not from bored kids. Condoning it just isn't excusable.


So it's ok for some media git to pour manure on something, but not ok for anybody else to do it?
Interesting...


----------



## felix (Mar 29, 2012)

It's not excusable, but understandable, as they have motivation. But that kid in the video was just sour.



JosephB said:


> Poor taste, bad manners, sour grapes, a waste of time -- maybe. By saying it isn’t “fair” of “just,” you're attaching way too much importance to it.



It has nothing to do with the relative importance of the matter or whether anybody gets hurt. Somebody asked whether it would be a good idea to make a similar video as the one posted, and the answer is no, it's probably not.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 29, 2012)

After watching all of this YouTube series, it's pretty easy to see that he at one point decided, "Yeah, I'm going to hate on this book cause it's funny to." In the first video, he kind of seemed open minded. Open minded enough to actually consider reading the book... but eventually he does just get pointlessly spiteful... and makes some errors as the basis for his comments.

I'm very glad that he actually read the book, though. Because there's nothing more infuriating in the world than someone who says, "Nah, that book is awful", when they haven't read it. They're going on what other people have actually told them. It's preposterous, gahh!

I actually own the books... no idea why I bought them instead of lending... either way, I had to read them to see what the fuss was about. I don't like the way they're written, because I'm not at the general reading level of the teens/plebeian public the intended audience clearly occupies, but, I definitely liked particular elements within the four novels. I can easily see why it got so much attention. Anyway, that's off topic.

The videos were in bad taste... and probably only used as a scheme to get more subs from rabid anti-fans of Twilight. If he'd done in something more creative with it, like mister Colorado pointed out, it would have been better.


----------



## Chaeronia (Mar 29, 2012)

Reasoning With Vampires:

No doesn't mean no

Melodramatic slime

Why Bella loves Edward so much, so irrevocably, that she's willing to turn herself into a vampire


----------



## JosephB (Mar 29, 2012)

felix said:


> It has nothing to do with the relative importance of the matter or whether anybody gets hurt. Somebody asked whether it would be a good idea to make a similar video as the one posted, and the answer is no, it's probably not.



Then why did you use the words “just” and “fair?” By using those words, you are suggesting someone is getting hurt in a way that actually matters.

And I think it does have something to do with the relative importance of it. Some obnoxious kid making fun of a fad doesn’t really seem like something people should be all that worried about. I know I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Love triangles are also highly popular, so is the teenage age group. Combining werewolves and vampires in a Montagues v. Capulets fashion builds upon classically succesful romantic archetypes... There are so many brillaint marketability moves in Twilight, that's why it is so successful.



Twilight is a fad that caught on for reasons that people can only explain in hindsight. There’s no evidence to show that the success of the books are a result of Meyer’s marketing savvy or any kind of “brilliant marketability moves.” She says she was largely inspired by a dream – and then she did what most authors do – she wrote the book she wanted to write. 

Give credit where credit is due – but the whole thing is about luck more than anything else. Her publisher didn’t even promote the book much differently than other books until after it started to catch on virally -- so they didn’t see it coming either. If authors and publishers could apply mix and match formulas and have the same kind of success – they’d be doing it. But it’s not happening -- certainly not on any level that approaches the Twilight phenomenon -- and it may never happen again.


----------



## felix (Mar 29, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Then why did you use the words “just” and “fair?” By using those words, you are suggesting someone is getting hurt in a way that actually matters.
> 
> And I think it does have something to do with the relative importance of it. Some obnoxious kid making fun of a fad doesn’t really seem like something people should be all that worried about. I know I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.



Because the question asked of us was, 'Is it a good idea for one to make a video such as this?' and the answer, clearly, is no. 

But your post was on the relative importance of the act, excusing it as a minor and trivial slight on madly successful authors, which it is, I agree. But, at least in the manner that I've interpreted it, it seems that you think that because it's just some kids, it's just fine and dandy to ridicule authors out of spite for no reason other than entertaining oneself on a rainy day...It isn't 'just' or 'fair' to do that. 

It doesn't really matter, I agree. But that doesn't mean that it's a good thing to do.


----------



## Sam (Mar 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Let's see:
> 
> Stephanie Meyer is a New York Times Bestselling author, ranked by Time Magazine as one of the most influential people in the world, her books have been made into movies that literally _shattered_ box office records, she's a Forbes List ranked multi-millionaire as a direct result of the success of her novels..
> 
> ...



The amount of books an author sells has no bearing on the quality of the writing. That's like equating the amount of car sales to the the quality of being the best vehicle on the market. It doesn't work that way. Big sales just means better marketing, not to mention a story that appeals to the biggest demographic currently in the market: young adult. 

As for Meyer's writing: It is not simple; instead it reads as though it was written by a simpleton. Here are a few examples from the series: 

_Aro started to laugh. "Ha, ha, ha," he chuckled. _*So 'laugh' and 'ha, ha, ha' isn't enough to convey the action of laughing? She needs to add the redundant 'chuckled' as well? 

*_His perfectly toned pecs dazzled in the light. _*Pecs don't 'dazzle'. They may 'glisten' with sweat. What's more, she refers to Edward's pecs about once a page for most of the book. Imagine a male writer talking about 'curvaceous' breasts for an entire novel. He'd be called a sexist. 

*_He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. '_*Incandescent' chest? Seriously? So his chest is emitting light because it's on fire, despite the fact that he doesn't have a heartbeat? 'Scintillating' arms? So now his arms are shining brightly too? So he's a ghost? An angel? Wait, a vampire that sparkles? From what, the beat of his cold, dead heart? 

*_I could smell the unbearably sweet fragrance coming off his chest. _*What, sweat? 

*_The meadow, so spectacular to me at first, paled next to his magnificence. _*There's one of these almost every page: references to how perfect Edward is. Yeah, we get it. No need to keep referring to his angelic, seraphic, heavenly features. 

What's more, Edward Cullen has lived for 108 years. He's depicted as this ridiculously gorgeous man who could make any girl faint. So why the heck would he enroll in a high school full of teenagers? Wouldn't he have better things to do with his time? 

I often advoate the policy of no rules in writing, but there are so many unnecessary adjectives, boring sentences, and over-written phrases throughout the first book (never mind the rest) that to class the writing as anything more than mediocre is extremely generous. *


----------



## Terry D (Mar 29, 2012)

I'd like to think I can write a more technically proficient book than this series.  I believe that I can.  But I won't begrudge Meyer's her success.  Wouldn't we all love to catch lightning in a bottle?

But, as to the videos, isn't it just one guy exercising his right to free speech?  If an author puts a work out in front of the public he/she has no right to complain if someone doesn't like it, or if someone uses whatever means they choose to disparage it.  It's really no different than fan-clubs and fan-fic, is it?  Personally I feel the best way to handle bad writing is to ignore it.


----------



## patskywriter (Mar 29, 2012)

Man From Mars said:


> … But my question is this: if *one* made a similar video of reading a poorly written novel for laughs, either published of self-published, would such an action be in bad taste or would it be fine if it were intended as harmless lulz?



I think it depends on who that "one" is. Professional humorists have always poked fun at pop culture. I remember watching talk-show host/comedian Steve Allen reading from the James Brown songbook. Once, he said "Par-ar-ar-ar-ar—" and held it for several seconds while turning pages of a 'songbook' before ending with "—ty!" It was hilarious. And even though some music fans were aware that Allen was a songwriter himself, he did this as a comedian, and it was fine.

Now, some random kid doing this would look lame in comparison because he hasn't built a reputation of being an objective funnyman.

I would caution any writer against doing something like this because it could look like spite or jealousy. Someone could then turn around and make fun of anything the writer wrote, just to be funny. And I assure you, the writer would probably not take it lightly.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 29, 2012)

Sam W said:


> The amount of books an author sells has no bearing on the quality of the writing. That's like equating the amount of car sales to the the quality of being the best vehicle on the market. It doesn't work that way. *Big sales just means better marketing, not to mention a story that appeals to the biggest demographic* currently in the market: young adult.



The bolded, underlined portion is what I feel qualifies as "smart writing". Most avid writers can write sentences competently and perhaps even prolifically, but unless your premise is marketable and your story has broad appeal, it's not likely to be super successful. At least, not at Stephanie Meyer's level.

I understand that writing quality is not dependent on high sales figures, but on the other hand, I don't believe high sales figures happen with poor writing.

Stephanie Meyer didn't sit down and write "Rock go bad. Fall down go boom. Bella smile. Kiss kiss, hug hug. Bloopledop. Wee. The end" and get paid millions for it. She crafted a series based on specific elements and themes that she (I believe) knew would sell. She's a college graduate of English, so I don't believe she's a simpleton.

There's a lot more to writing than basic sentence structure, which of course you know. And I agree that her writing style is a bit superfluous and "cheesy". But beyond that she does what most successful writers do: tell a story that captivates and entertains the intended audience. That takes skill. It's not something a simpleton can do.

Many intelligent and educated writers fail to write stories that resonate emotionally with readers in the way Meyer's series does. Why? Surely they are more intelligent and "better" writers than Stephanie Meyer. So why don't they have the same level of success?

Perhaps it's because she's a better writer than surface glances indicate.

You could have a basketball player who's a mediocre dribbler. Some might even argue he's lousy at ball handling. But when he shoots, he scores. He scores big, in fact. Now chances are you'll have people scratching their heads, saying "Look at how awkwardly he dribbles the ball! He's a terrible basketball player!" But when it comes to what matters (scoring), the guy gets the job done.

I view Stephanie Meyer as one of those types of writers. Writing style? I'm not a fan. Her sentences could even be considered "poor" at times. But the woman can definately write.


----------



## Sam (Mar 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> The bolded, underlined portion is what I feel qualifies as "smart writing". Most avid writers can write sentences competently and perhaps even prolifically, but unless your premise is marketable and your story has broad appeal, it's not likely to be super successful. At least, not at Stephanie Meyer's level.
> 
> I understand that writing quality is not dependent on high sales figures, but on the other hand, I don't believe high sales figures happen with poor writing.
> 
> ...



No, J.K. Rowling can write. Stephen King can write. Tom Clancy can write. Stephenie Meyer can create a story that appeals to a mass demographic. She can't write to save her life. It doesn't matter what kind of success she's had. Success does not indicate talent. To say _Oro started to laugh. "Ha, ha, ha," he chuckled _is both redundant and of a level that a ten-year-old would be expected to produce. You can call her ability to pander to the market 'talent' if you want, but in the harsh light of day Meyer's work wouldn't hold a candle to a vast number of published authors out there. She's successful because escapism and love stories sell. When you have millions of teeny-boppers out there, most of whom aren't aware of what constitutes good writing, you're bound to have sales. It's like saying Paris Hilton is a good writer because everyone has bought her book. It just doesn't equate. 

If you want a writer whose sales eclipse (pun intended) Meyer's and who is renowned worldwide for being the best in his chosen genre (which Meyer writes too), you need to look no further than Stephen King. Even the man himself has called Meyer a 'talentless hack'. Now surely he knows what he's talking about? He is the most successful horror novelist of all time, with sales and fans that Meyer could only dream of. Is his opinion as worthless as that of the guy in this vlog? I think not.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 29, 2012)

Stephen King also attacked James Patterson for similar reasons, calling him a "terrible writer".



			
				James Patterson said:
			
		

> "What do you say to critics like author Stephen King who say you're not a great prose stylist?" Patterson responded, "I am not a great prose stylist. I'm a *storyteller.* There are thousands of people who don't like what I do. Fortunately, there are millions who do."[SUP][/SUP]





			
				Stephen King said:
			
		

> Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She's not very good... People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because they’re not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.



King just contradicted himself. He said Meyer can't write, and that she's not very good. Then he went on to point out that Meyer is writing exactly what resonates with her audience.



			
				Sam W said:
			
		

> When you have millions of teeny-boppers out there, most of whom aren't aware of what constitutes good writing, you're bound to have sales.



You could argue that "Young girls don't know any better", but that is an incorrect argument in my opinion. The correct statement is, "Young girls know what they like to read." And in line with that, is "Stephanie Meyer knows what young girls like to read."

What makes a good writer good? Focusing on prose and sentence structure is looking at the trees, but missing the forest, in my opinion.

What makes a writer good is the emotional resonance the work creates in the readers.

Anyways, that's my opinion. I don't even like Stephanie Meyer's writing, really. But I still think she's a good writer. Or, if you want to distill my use of the word "writer" into a more specific term, I think she's a good "storyteller", because she accomplishes exactly what she has set out to do, and her readers enjoy every bit of it.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 29, 2012)

> Twilight is a fad that caught on for reasons that people can only explain in hindsight.


People forget that out of the ballpark religious cults are known for generating fake sales to get things moving.  The Australian Top 40 music charts had been (and probably still is) infested with this for many years.



KyleColorado said:


> Stephen King also attacked James Patterson for similar reasons, calling him a "terrible writer".


I tried to read a couple of King's books and gave up after about 20 pages.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> There's a lot more to writing than basic sentence structure, which of course you know. And I agree that her writing style is a bit superfluous and "cheesy". But beyond that she does what most successful writers do: tell a story that captivates and entertains the intended audience. That takes skill. It's not something a simpleton can do.



She writes like a 13 year old girl, and 13 year old girls are enthralled by her work.

Why does this surprise anyone? Furthermore, why does anyone think that this is equivalent to skill?


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 29, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> She writes like a 13 year old girl, and 13 year old girls are enthralled by her work.
> 
> Why does this surprise anyone? Furthermore, why does anyone think that this is equivalent to skill?



To test that theory, one can try to write like a thirteen year old girl, and see if one becomes a New York Times best seller. I have a feeling most, if not all, would fail at that experiment.

I'll explain what, to me, is obvious about Stephanie Meyer's success: her writing style has nothing to do with it. People can poke at her sentences and her adverbs and her similes all they want, you're completely missing the point.

Her success is because of her STORY and her CHARACTERS. Ta-daaa~ *light bulb flashes on*

Do the fans go around saying, "Oh my god, did you see that metaphor Stephanie Meyer used on page 362? How about the way she transitioned from exposition into dialogue in chapter four!"

Of course not. They talk about Edward, and Bella, and Jacob. They talk about what's happening in the plot. They talk about the characters and the story.

Her story is emotional, it's exciting, it's compelling and, I'll ruffle a few feathers and wager a bet that her story is _better_ than most of the authors who receive rejection-letters for their manuscripts which they believe contain "superior" writing to the likes of the Stephanie Meyers of the world.

Some writers just don't _get this_.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 29, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Of course not. They talk about Edward, and Bella, and Jacob. They talk about what's happening in the plot. They talk about the characters and the story.



Yes, but WHO talks about the characters? That's what you should be asking.

I think you'll find it's thirteen year old girls.  Everyone else believes (rightly) that the characters are complete garbage.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 29, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Yes, but WHO talks about the characters? That's what you should be asking.
> 
> I think you'll find it's thirteen year old girls. Everyone else believes (rightly) that the characters are complete garbage.


_I _talk about these characters! _I _Love these characters! I am *FAR *from being a teenage girl. 

Not EVERYONE else believes these characters to be complete garbage. Maybe you do, and maybe SamW does. Maybe a ton of guys and yes, some girls, hate them and the stories too. But there are soooo many other readers that love these books. My good friend is in her forties, and she goes gaga over this entire series more than any teenage girl I've seen. My mother LOVES them! She doesn't have to be a teenage girl to remember what it was like to be one. To remember how it felt to be one. To remember how it was with the first crush you ever had. I have NEVER read books that consumed me like hers did! 

My ex, well... not at the time... couldn't stand it when I was reading them! I got nothing done around the house, and the guy had to fend for himself for supper. I didn't eat, I hardly slept, I didn't do laundry, and thank goodness I was on vacation from work. My sister lent me her book... and I thought it would take me a month to get through the first one. I called her the next day, and asked if I could borrow _New Moon _because I'd finished with _Twilight_. She said, "See I told you. So addicting!" She has 5 children, and is clearly not a teenager, and she would be standing at the stove, stirring the kids Kraft Dinner for supper while reading! I know this, because there was cheese on the pages! She couldn't put them down either. 

Stephanie Meyer can draw me into her books like no author ever has. That doesn't make me a simpleton, and it doesn't mean I don't know what good writing is! It's good to me! Whether her writing is up to your standards, or whether her book interests you or not, does not determine whether it's garbage! The public as a whole, I think determine whether it's garbage. Clearly, we (the non-haters) like to buy these books! I wouldn't be so self absorbed to think that just because an author doesn't interest me, then they _must be _a garbage writer. 

What is good to you, I might not like, but I'm sure not gonna attack that author and say what crap they write! They write what they write, and if I'm not interested in it? That's it. I'm just not interested. That doesn't make them bad, it just means it didn't appeal to me. Garbage smarbage! She has sold millions and millions of books for a reason!


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 30, 2012)

You want a best seller?  Copy the basic setup of an old classic, change the names, change a primary character attribute, and rewrite.  Rehashing a old hit story is the way to become a best seller, for you don't need to sell a new product.  Writers who wish to be original only set themselves up for uphill journeys.


----------



## kroniqu3 (Mar 30, 2012)

felix said:


> I'd say that any writer who isn't an utter sellout would care enormously, and that it would hurt them deeply. Yes, Meyer is probably one of them, but to say that in principle writers won't care about somebody picking apart their novel and scoffing at it for kicks is quite wrong...
> 
> Backlash comes with success, from media professionals who make their living from it. Not from bored kids. Condoning it just isn't excusable.



 Even if you aren't a sellout, you can still opt not to care.  How can people see themselves as failures if they're largely criticized after success. Its like you said.


----------



## Sam (Mar 30, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> To test that theory, one can try to write like a thirteen year old girl, and see if one becomes a New York Times best seller. I have a feeling most, if not all, would fail at that experiment.
> 
> I'll explain what, to me, is obvious about Stephanie Meyer's success: her writing style has nothing to do with it. People can poke at her sentences and her adverbs and her similes all they want, you're completely missing the point.
> 
> ...



You really want to talk about the characters? Okay. 

Edward Cullen is the creepiest male protagonist there has ever been. This is the guy that many young girls are now lusting after. Let's see his biggest qualities: He's a narcissistic control freak who not only stalks Bella (before she even knows who he is) but also slashes the tyres of her car so she can't leave him. He also threatens to commit suicide if she doesn't be with him. That is NOT romance. That is psychopathy. If you did any of that in real life, you would deserve to be thrown in prison. Yet so many people say it's romantic and he's only being protective of Bella. Threatening to kill yourself if someone leaves you: explain to me how the heck that is romantic? It is abusive. The worrying thing is that it now blurs the line for young girls who want _their _Edward Cullen. "Oh, if he beats me up it's just because he loves me and wants to protect me! Isn't it romantic?" Some people have a really warped view of romance if that's the case. 

As for Bella Swan: Can you say Mary Sue? She is the perfect character disguised as a moron. I don't think there's ever been a more vacuous character in the history of literature. She doesn't have a personality. She does whatever Edward tells her to do, even to the point of arguing with her own father. That's not a strong female lead. Stephenie Meyer isn't doing wonders for women's rights here. All she's doing is perpetuating the objectification of women and making it clear that they don't have personalities and need a big strong man to look after them. In what way is she appealing or a role model? She's set women's right movements back by about a hundred years. 

As for Jacob: I guess Meyer thought she'd insert another 'hunk' into her stories for the sheer pleasure of it. After all, who doesn't like a threesome?


----------



## Sunny (Mar 30, 2012)

Sam W said:


> You really want to talk about the characters? Okay.
> 
> Edward Cullen is the creepiest male protagonist there has ever been. This is the guy that many young girls are now lusting after. Let's see his biggest qualities: He's a narcissistic control freak who not only stalks Bella (before she even knows who he is) but also slashes the tyres of her car so she can't leave him. He also threatens to commit suicide if she doesn't be with him. That is NOT romance. That is psychopathy. If you did any of that in real life, you would deserve to be thrown in prison. Yet so many people say it's romantic and he's only being protective of Bella. Threatening to kill yourself if someone leaves you: explain to me how the heck that is romantic? It is abusive. The worrying thing is that it now blurs the line for young girls who want _their _Edward Cullen. "Oh, if he beats me up it's just because he loves me and wants to protect me! Isn't it romantic?" Some people have a really warped view of romance if that's the case.
> 
> ...


Edward doesn't want Bella hanging out with Werewolves because he thinks they will hurt her. So, he's protecting her in the only way he knows how. He didn't want her to get killed. He didn't slash her tires, he disabled her car under the hood. What he thinks he knows of all werewolves; is that they're dangerous and they can't control their tempers. He saw that the leader of Jacob's pack had mauled his girlfriend by accident, and Edward didn't want to see the same thing happen to Bella. As I'm sure any boyfriend would do! He didn't threaten suicide. He said that if she died, if anything happened to her, he didn't want to go on with his own life. He said there would be no reason to be in a life where she didn't exist. That's a big difference from how you're making it sound. He's the one who left her in New Moon, because he thought she'd be better off without him. He left her for her own good. And, not ONCE! Not EVER did Edward touch her. He never once _beat her up! _I have no idea where you're getting that from. 

You do realise Bella is 17 years old, and the reason Edward has her argue with her father, telling him that she is leaving town, is because it was BELLA'S idea. She wanted to lead the tracker away from her father. So she put on a show, so her father wouldn't follow her, or make her stay at home. She did it to protect her father! 

YA books? YA Romance books? The majority of them have a love triangle. Meyer's wasn't the first person to invent this scenerio!


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 30, 2012)

Sam W said:


> You really want to talk about the characters? Okay.
> 
> Edward Cullen is the creepiest male protagonist there has ever been. This is the guy that many young girls are now lusting after. Let's see his biggest qualities: He's a narcissistic control freak who not only stalks Bella (before she even knows who he is) but also slashes the tyres of her car so she can't leave him. He also threatens to commit suicide if she doesn't be with him. That is NOT romance. That is psychopathy. If you did any of that in real life, you would deserve to be thrown in prison. Yet so many people say it's romantic and he's only being protective of Bella. Threatening to kill yourself if someone leaves you: explain to me how the heck that is romantic? It is abusive. The worrying thing is that it now blurs the line for young girls who want _their _Edward Cullen. "Oh, if he beats me up it's just because he loves me and wants to protect me! Isn't it romantic?" Some people have a really warped view of romance if that's the case.
> 
> ...



I believe there's a lot more going on beneath the surface of Meyer's books than people give credit for, or even understand. The problem comes into play when people assume there isn't.

They think Twilight is a simple love story and they look to find flaws in the characters. And they find the flaws. Then they conclude that this means Stephanie Meyer is a poor writer. 

That's a leap in assumptions that bounds over a simple and obvious counter-argument: Stephanie Meyer is not writing a simple romance with one dimensional archetypes.

Bella is indecisive and emotionally vulnerable at the start of the series. She's made this way for a reason.

"Look how conflicted and morally bankrupt Edward is!" Of course he is. That's his character. He literally has _no soul_. His behavior is designed by Meyer to reflect that.

She didn't accidentally try to write a romantic lead and then stumble into creating an obsessive character because she's some moronic writer who doesn't understand human behavior.

She made him conflicted and his behavior antagonistic by design.

Look at Bella's father reacting to Edward. He doesn't trust him. He knows he's not good for Bella. Why did Stephanie Meyer put the father, as a character, in the book to react this way? Is the father is just a plot device she created to get in the way of the two star-crossed lovers?

Or is the father something more, a character who _presents the thematic question_ to Bella, and in the same beat, to the reader as well? _Is Edward really good for her?

_Does Bella listen to her father? Of course not. She's still in the beginning of her character arc. She hasn't learned her lesson yet. She may progress to learn it, or spiral into tragedy from _not_ learning it.

Bella is a character with flaws (intentionally created) being seduced by another flawed character, by authorial design.

The writing maxim applies here: "Everybody arcs." By that is meant, the characters are introduced making poor decisions, and thinking incorrectly. As the story progresses, the characters begin to learn and change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. In either case, these are the characters arcing.

What happens when Bella changes into a vampire later in the series? Her father sees her, and his reaction is consistent with his character's purpose. He reacts in anguish and grief as if seeing her as dead. His reaction tells the reader something important: Bella failed to learn her lesson, in the worst possible way, and she sees it at once on her father's face. Bella _lost her soul. _That's quite a character arc, if you ask me. Her vampire persona is a near 180 degree opposite of the Bella at the beginning of the story. 

Meyer's writing is, in my opinion, better crafted and more purposefully written than many people realize. I believe that's also much of the reason for it's success. People don't understand the popularity because they don't see the deeper design in the writing.

Don't let Stephanie Meyer's apparently simple writing fool you. She's got tricks up her sleeves.

EDIT: Also, take a look at the Unity of Opposites in character motivations, specifically the Protector and the Deflector(!)

*The Protector*: protects the protagonist's moral compass.

*The Deflector*: pulls the protagonist away from the right path.

Now consider this:

The Protector: Jacob

The Deflector: Edward

Bella went with the Deflector, down the wrong path, and as a result she _lost her soul, _and had her spine snapped during childbirth. The down beats match the arc of a character failing to learn the thematic lesson. It coincides with an author designing things with intention and, dare I say, intelligence.


----------



## Chaeronia (Mar 30, 2012)

Dependency-abuse-dependency-abuse spiral part 1

Dependency-abuse-dependency-abuse spiral part 2

Dependency-abuse-dependency-abuse spiral part 3

Dependency-abuse-dependency-abuse spiral part 4

It's not creepy, it's romantic! part 1

It's not creepy, it's romantic! part 2

It's not creepy, it's romantic! part 3

It's not creepy, it's romantic! part 4

Dependency-abuse-dependency-abuse spirals aren't creepy, they're romantic!


----------



## Sam (Mar 30, 2012)

Sunny said:


> Edward doesn't want Bella hanging out with Werewolves because he thinks they will hurt her. So, he's protecting her in the only way he knows how. He didn't want her to get killed. He didn't slash her tires, he disabled her car under the hood. What he thinks he knows of all werewolves; is that they're dangerous and they can't control their tempers. He saw that the leader of Jacob's pack had mauled his girlfriend by accident, and Edward didn't want to see the same thing happen to Bella. As I'm sure any boyfriend would do! He didn't threaten suicide. He said that if she died, if anything happened to her, he didn't want to go on with his own life. He said there would be no reason to be in a life where she didn't exist. That's a big difference from how you're making it sound. He's the one who left her in New Moon, because he thought she'd be better off without him. He left her for her own good. And, not ONCE! Not EVER did Edward touch her. He never once _beat her up! _I have no idea where you're getting that from.
> 
> You do realise Bella is 17 years old, and the reason Edward has her argue with her father, telling him that she is leaving town, is because it was BELLA'S idea. She wanted to lead the tracker away from her father. So she put on a show, so her father wouldn't follow her, or make her stay at home. She did it to protect her father!
> 
> YA books? YA Romance books? The majority of them have a love triangle. Meyer's wasn't the first person to invent this scenerio!



You're getting upset over a book with characters that don't exist. That's not healthy. 

For the record, I never said Edward beat Bella. The point I made was that his actions are borderline psychotic. You're kidding yourself if you say they aren't. Watching someone sleep when you don't even know them; that is not only creepy but criminal. It is _stalking. _However, when you have teenage girls believing that his actions are in fact romantic, it blurs the line between what's morally acceptable and what is just plain wrong. That, in turn, could make them believe that if their boyfriend stalks and abuses them, to the point of violence, it's romantic and a demonstration of his love. 

I'm not saying all girls are going to fall victim to this. In fact, many possibly won't. I'm sure they know it's only a book. However, and with the greatest of respect, Sunny, your above post is indicative of what I'm talking about. The reality is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, when people start getting defensive over _Twilight _and its sequels, to the point of screaming, I'm inclined to think that they're taking it way too seriously. Consequently, that could stem to defending an abusive boyfriend because of a warped sense of romance and loyalty. 

That's the point I was making.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 30, 2012)

Sunny said:


> My mother LOVES them! She doesn't have to be a teenage girl to remember what it was like to be one. To remember how it felt to be one. To remember how it was with the first crush you ever had. I have NEVER read books that consumed me like hers did!



And there you've hit upon the actual meaning of my statement.  Yes, you don't need to be a literal thirteen year old to enjoy the books.  But you DO need to get into that mindset.  You DO need to be willing to think like one and dream like one and fantasize like one.

And that's all I'm saying.  Twilight is teenage writing for people with teenage fantasies.  That's why so many people (rightfully) have trouble taking the series seriously.



KyleColorado said:


> Meyer's writing is, in my opinion, better crafted and more purposefully written than many people realize. I believe that's also much of the reason for it's success. People don't understand the popularity because they don't see the deeper design in the writing.



Her own FANS don't see the "deeper design" in the writing.  When you hear people praise the book, is it because "Edward is a morally complex character whose presence lets Meyer explore the darker side of human nature"? Not even close! It's all "I'm Team Jacob!" and "Edward is sooooo dreamy!"

The reason Edward's character and his relationship with Bella are so problematic is that Meyer shows absolutely no awareness in her writing that it's anything but perfection.  Bella is hopelessly infatuated with Edward, and readers identify with Bella.  They don't pull back and think, "are these feelings justified?" They don't consider how destructive the relationship is because they don't care.

YOUR defense of the books is that they're deep and have well-written characters.  But that's your own personal justification - that's you grasping at straws.  Now compare your response to Sunny's (an admitted fan of the series).  See how she just says, "Oh but Edward was trying to protect her the whole time! He just cares for Bella!"

THAT'S what fans get out of the book.  They don't get all of your supposed "morally complex characterization."


----------



## Sunny (Mar 30, 2012)

Sam W said:


> You're getting upset over a book with characters that don't exist. That's not healthy.
> 
> For the record, I never said Edward beat Bella. The point I made was that his actions are borderline psychotic. You're kidding yourself if you say they aren't. Watching someone sleep when you don't even know them; that is not only creepy but criminal. It is _stalking. _However, when you have teenage girls believing that his actions are in fact romantic, it blurs the line between what's morally acceptable and what is just plain wrong. That, in turn, could make them believe that if their boyfriend stalks and abuses them, to the point of violence, it's romantic and a demonstration of his love.
> 
> ...



Here's where you misunderstood my feelings in that post. I was not upset over characters that don't exist. If I was feeling anything, it was frustration with you, for writing things that didn't happen, and passing it off as what it truly was. I am plenty healthy, thank you. And, just because you, yourself view something as not good writing, doesn't make it so. I think if you opened up your eyes past _what you think is bad writing, _than you'd see that her writing can't be all that bad, her characters can't be all that bad. How on earth would she have so much success if it was terrible? She wouldn't. She couldn't.

Look at Harry Potter. You like those book I believe. They are a huge success. I don't like them. I've tried to read them, but I couldn't fall into the world the author created. Does that mean her writing is garbage, or that her characters are awful? I don't think so. Can I see for myself that this author must have got something right? Did she write well, or create a magical world that most people just love? Yes, I can see that. Her success speaks for itself. Same as Meyer's. 

Most books I read are YA romance in the supernatural genre. I can tell you that MOST of the books have the boys doing strange things like hiding out behind the trees watching the girls. Or, following them home when they don't know it. The guys are mysterious, and they have really odd behaviours that intrigue us, the readers. We want to learn what the heck it all means! It's written in a way that you know the boys are curious, or they're being protective by helping the girl without her knowing it. You can take any character, out of any book and start to find flaws. You could point out what any of them did wrong, and what seems unhealthy. You can put whatever spin you want on it. You can take any of it out of context. Edward was watching Bella because he was fasinated by her. He hadn't met someone who he couldn't read the mind of. Stephanie Meyer didn't write her character to be a stalker, so therefor, most of us are smart enough to understand I suppose, that he's not. 

None of my frustrations come from people that dislike the books. That's good. That's cool! Don't like it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I bet I like a ton of things most people don't. I could care less. I just think it's silly when others, _you _included, are getting all worked up about how awful Stephanie Meyer's writing is. What a hack she is. People need to understand I think, that their opinion is just that... opinion. Not fact! Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 30, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> And there you've hit upon the actual meaning of my statement. Yes, you don't need to be a literal thirteen year old to enjoy the books. But you DO need to get into that mindset. You DO need to be willing to think like one and dream like one and fantasize like one.
> 
> And that's all I'm saying. Twilight is teenage writing for people with teenage fantasies. That's why so many people (rightfully) have trouble taking the series seriously.



And I suppose, That's why so many people (rightfully) have an amazing experience, taking them seriously and living in the world that S.M. created. 

And since everyone knows that _Twilight _was written for teens. It is a YA book afterall. Why do so many people get down on it for appealing to teenagers? I don't get it. Most _male _adults probably wouldn't like the majority of the YA Romance books on the shelves today. They're all similar with regards to how the boys and girls act. Why does Stephanie Meyer get such a hard time, while all the others write the same sort of stuff, but they don't get any flack?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 30, 2012)

Sunny said:


> How on earth would she have so much success if it was terrible? She wouldn't. She couldn't.



I think you underestimate the massive, massive disconnect between what's popular and what's actually good.  Just turn on your radio if you have any doubts about that.



Sunny said:


> Why does Stephanie Meyer get such a hard time, while all the others write the same sort of stuff, but they don't get any flack?



Interesting point; now look at it from the other angle.  Why is Meyer so popular if she writes the same sort of stuff as everyone else?

The reason there's so much backlash is because the general public feels her fame is undeserved.  If you throw together a pile of garbage on your driveway and call it art and no one gives it a second thought, so what? If you throw together the same pile of garbage and people are flocking to your house to pay you money for it, there's going to be an outcry.

When subjective opinion differs from objective evaluation, that's when a backlash occurs.  If something is bad and people treat it like it's bad, that's normal.  If something is bad and people treat it like it's good, that's a problem.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 30, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I think you underestimate the massive, massive disconnect between what's popular and what's actually good. Just turn on your radio if you have any doubts about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is all just opinion. I think it's great, and you think it's terrible. My opinion doesn't make it great, and your opinion doesn't make it rotten! We just think differently, and enjoy different things. 

Her success with selling so many books has got to mean that millions and millions of people do enjoy it. That there... that is success. She deserves that fame, just like any other writer who works their butt off, writing a story deserves. I think if any writer... no matter who it is, or what they write, if they can get the public to buy into it and love it? Then they've done what they set out to do! They've created a world where people like to escape to. Whether the majority are teens or adults, it doesn't really matter. Stephanie Meyer has done what so many of us writers can only dream of accomplishing. 

*If it's bad and people treat it like it's good, that's a problem. *What may be bad for one person, is good for another. That's not a problem. That's a difference in opinion.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 30, 2012)

Just because a product is popular doesn't mean that it is good.  Just because an individual likes it doesn't mean that it is a quality product.  Examples of this abound -- nobody sells more hamburgers than McDonald's, but does that mean McDonald's makes good burgers?  Of course not, they make cheap, quick, serviceable burgers that fill a large niche in the market.  When I make a burger at home I don't aspire to make one like Micky-D's.

I think that the problem writers have with the Twilight series isn't it's success, but that its success was accomplished without a great deal of respect for the craft of writing.  If the excerpts I've read are representative of the work as a whole then that criticism is well founded.  I would be embarrassed if someone pulled lines from my book that were as clumsy and overwrought as the things Sam posted above.

Another concern I have is about the example such poor writing sets for future writers.  I'd be willing to guess that most of us started writing because of the things we loved to read.  We emulated our earliest influences.  What sort of standard is Meyer setting for those thousands of young writers who love her work, but who won't have the opportunity to fall into that perfect combination of timing and story?


----------



## Sunny (Mar 30, 2012)

Terry D said:


> Another concern I have is about the example such poor writing sets for future writers. I'd be willing to guess that most of us started writing because of the things we loved to read. We emulated our earliest influences. What sort of standard is Meyer setting for those thousands of young writers who love her work, but who won't have the opportunity to fall into that perfect combination of timing and story?



I suppose if I could follow in Stephanie Meyer's footsteps, I'd be plenty proud of myself to accomplish what she's accomplished. The standard she's setting is pretty high I suppose. Can a writer really be more successful than her? I don't think so.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 30, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:
			
		

> THAT'S what fans get out of the book.  They don't get all of your supposed "morally complex characterization."



Fans can get whatever they like out of the book. That's the wonderful thing about reading. 



			
				Gamer_2k4 said:
			
		

> The reason Edward's character and his relationship with Bella are so problematic is that Meyer shows absolutely no awareness in her writing that it's anything but perfection.



Edward fits well as an Antagonist in the beginning. When you look at him as such, suddenly all the arguments about his questionable behavior become moot points. It's like, "Yeah, so? He's an antagonist. Of course he's going to behave questionably."

This isn't the first time a female character has fallen in love with a seductive, antagonistic character. Look at Mina falling in love with Dracula. Dracula is of course, at the far end of the scale, as quite an evil character. But his moments with Mina are tender and, one could even argue, romantic. It's a dynamic full of emotional conflict.

Edward is far on the other end of the scale. He's presented as more of a romantic lead, but he still has antagonistic properties, which keep emotions high and conflicted.

Characters can move from Villain to Ally, from Antagonist to Romantic Lead, and back again, and everything in between. Look at Darth Vader. Villain, or ally? Hero? All of them? Conflicted, much?

What's so difficult to comprehend about Edward being a Romantic Lead with antagonistic qualities?



			
				Gamer_2k4 said:
			
		

> YOUR defense of the books is that they're deep and have well-written characters.  But that's your own personal justification - that's you grasping at straws.



My defense isn't that the books are deep and well-written, but deep*er* and _better_ written than Stephanie Meyer critics believe. The average critic on the web (and to some extent, here on this thread) believe Stephanie Meyer to be some moron who can't put together a simple sentence. As if she stumbles around her house drooling from her own intellectual incompetency.

They argue that Stephanie Meyer's characters are flawed and that therefore this shows that she is a poor writer, and that her ideas of romance are creating unhealthy expectations in the minds of female readers.

In my opinion her characters are flawed because she understands that conflicted characters are interesting. The passion and the conflict of the seduction is what Stephanie Meyer chose to portray. The story isn't about a well-adjusted Kate Hudson falling in love with a charming Matthew McConnaughey, with a wise-cracking best friend who chews bubblegum and has a pet iguana. It's about an emotionally vulnerable teenage girl being seduced by a beautiful vampire who himself is conflicted between wanting her, and wanting to kill her.

That's a good premise. The stakes are both physically and emotionally high. It's a premise that I'm sure left other writers bashing themselves over the head for not having thought of, first.

Also, the argument that Edward's behavior promotes abusive relationships is absurd. Look at the relationship between Peter Jackson's King Kong and Ann Darrow. Do those same critics run around up in arms about the movie, too? "This movie promotes interspecies dating and abusive codependency! It's an outrage! It's teaching girls to fall in love with violent gorillas."

People fall in love with conflicted and morally ambiguous characters all the time. Look at the hit tv series "Dexter". The guy is, literally, a serial killer, and he's the hero of the show. What kind of message is that sending out to people?

I'll tell you what the message is: successful writers get their readers to love their characters.


And Meyer's sentences and choice of adverbs? Totally irrelevant. They mean nothing if the overall work is enjoyable to the reader. The average reader doesn't care about the mechanics of sentence structure. Only us silly writers care about those sorts of things.


----------



## Sam (Mar 30, 2012)

Sunny said:


> I suppose if I could follow in Stephanie Meyer's footsteps, I'd be plenty proud of myself to accomplish what she's accomplished. The standard she's setting is pretty high I suppose. Can a writer really be more successful than her? I don't think so.



Stephenie Meyer has, at the very most, sold 120 million copies of the _Twilight _'saga'. She is something like 50th on the list of all-time bestselling authors, with a long way to go to the standard set by Agatha Christie, who's sold four billion books to date. 

As I said before, however, sales does not equate to talent.


----------



## Sam (Mar 30, 2012)

Kyle, you can't compare Edward Cullen to Dexter Morgan. That's seriously reaching.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 30, 2012)

My point is who the character is, or what the character does, is irrelevant.

If the author has succeeded at getting the reader to like the character, then the author is competent.

I see no evidence of Stephanie Meyer being a poor writer. None that has convinced me yet, that is. All examples of her syntax and choice of adjectives are refuted by her immense success and ravenous fans.

The bigger picture (the enjoyment of the reader) is what I believe determines whether or not a writer is good.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 30, 2012)

Like James Patterson! I don't like his writing style. I tried to read some of his work and his narrative literally made me grimace!

But, he's hugely successful. People love his writing and eat it up like hot cakes.

Because of that I begrudgingly acknowledge that James Patterson is a good writer. _I_ may not like his writing, and _I_ may think it's mediocre at best, but that doesn't make him a poor writer.

Entertaining the reader, satisfying the intended audience, evoking emotional responses, getting the reader to love the characters.. those are skills of a writer that I believe _supercede_ mechanics and prose.

I believe a poor technical writer can still be a good _writer_, if the above effects are acheived. That's why I think Stephanie Meyer is a good writer, despite her apparent technical deficiencies.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 30, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> My point is who the character is, or what the character does, is irrelevant.
> 
> If the author has succeeded at getting the reader to like the character, then the author is competent.



If I find a stream where fish spontaneously jump out into my lap, does that make me a good fisherman? No.  If I give a kid a dollar, am I a world-class philanthropist because of how happy that money makes him? Of course not.

You have to consider the context.  Writing a book that teenage girls eat up doesn't make you a writer, simply because the audience has such low standards.  Give them a character they can live vicariously through and a mysterious love interest, and you're set.  That doesn't make you a good writer.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 30, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> And Meyer's sentences and choice of adverbs? Totally irrelevant. They mean nothing if the overall work is enjoyable to the reader. The average reader doesn't care about the mechanics of sentence structure. Only us silly writers care about those sorts of things.



Absolutely not!  The average reader may know _know_ about the mechanics of sentence structure, but they sure as hell care.  Otherwise we wouldn't spend the time we do trying to get that structure just right.  We do that for the reader, not for ourselves -- at least I don't.  The reason _Wuthering Heights_ will still be being read generations after _Twilight_ is forgotten, is because it was well written.  The prose will last.  The writing counts.  If it does not, then why to we try to distinguish literary fiction from commercial fiction?  

There's a place on the shelves for the written equivalent of a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, and if you like it that's fine -- I like Quarter Pounders -- but don't try to sell it as filet mignon, and don't try to tell me it tastes as good.


----------



## Sam (Mar 30, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> My point is who the character is, or what the character does, is irrelevant.
> 
> If the author has succeeded at getting the reader to like the character, then the author is competent.
> 
> ...



The highest-grossing film of all time is _Titanic. _Have you ever seen it? I haven't, but apparently they decided to ignore the deaths of 1,514 people and concentrate on a love story between Leonardo Di Caprio and Kate Winslet's characters. It won a stack-load of Oscars and grossed almost two billion worldwide. It is not, however, the greatest movie of all time. In fact, many film critics have heavily criticised both the story and the aforementioned decision to paint over the horrifying fact that 1,514 lost their lives, for the sake of a love story instead. 

We come to _Twilight. _I read the first book on the recommendation of a friend. I went into it with an open mind. For the first 400 pages, Bella and Edward kissed each other; argued over who loved whom more; argued over who was more pretty; spent their time thinking about each other to the point of obsession; and nothing else happened. For 400 pages it was one long smorgasbord of luvey-duvey, over-the-top, fatuous dialogue that would have made a true romantic cringe. Then Meyer realised that something actually has to happen in a novel. There has to be a _story. _Cue madness in the last hundred-or-so pages, as Meyer introduces this new vampire coven led by the 'bad-ass' James, who wants Bella as a trophy. (Note: Vampires don't have covens. Witches, on the other hand . . . ) Edward saves the day, and then we're back to the subservient relationship between the two. Bella wants to be turned, but Edward says no. And, like every other time he's said 'no', Bella shuts up for fear she might 'upset' him. 

All in all, though, it has to be a great story because a lot of people like it. We should just discard the Booker Prize and let people vote for the best novel by popularity and sales.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 30, 2012)

Sunny said:


> As I'm sure any boyfriend would do! He didn't threaten suicide. He said that if she died, if anything happened to her, he didn't want to go on with his own life. He said there would be no reason to be in a life where she didn't exist. That's a big difference from how you're making it sound.



That's pretty much the same as threatening to kill yourself, particularly if it involves attempts to control another's behaviour.

Not very criticism of the book is valid.  However, at best, it's promoting unhealthy relationships to impressionable girls; but maybe we shouldn't expect any better when the author is from a controlling cult.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 30, 2012)

Here’s the way I see it.

*What qualifies a person as “good” at a task?*
My definition: A person is good at something when they accomplish the *purpose* of the task in an efficient or exceptional manner.

*What is the purpose of fiction?*
The purpose, in my opinion, is to satisfy the reader. However that is accomplished is irrelevant. First person, second person, third person, past tense, future tense, present tense, run-on sentences, flowery sentences, fragmented sentences, *it doesn’t matter. *If the reader is satisfied, then the author has accomplished his or her goal of satisfying the reader, and has therefore written good fiction.

*Is Stephanie Meyer good at fiction?*
She satisfies her readers in an exceptional manner, as indicated by her numerous fans and sales. By my definition, Stephanie Meyer has fulfilled the requirements of being good at fiction.

*Taste is Subjective*
Why are there so many genres? We have Science Fiction, Action, Drama, Thriller, Mystery, Romance, Fantasy, and more. If taste were not subjective, then there would only be ONE acceptable genre as agreed upon by all individuals. This is not the case, because individuals like different things. One person may enjoy Country music, while another likes Hip Hop. One person may like scrambled eggs, while another person may hate them. Some like the color blue, others prefer green.

*Stephanie Meyer’s writing is subjective to taste*
Why do some people love her books, while others hate them? Who is right and who is wrong? Just as Stephen King was mentioned as an example of a “brilliant” writer earlier in this thread, I consider him only “decent”. Personally, I think Jennifer Egan qualifies as a “brilliant” writer, and I believe she can write circles around King. But that is a matter of personal preference. Some may point to Meyer’s writing and label it as subpar, while others may point to it and argue it is terrific.

*Your opinion is not superior to others’*
You are entitled to believe that Meyer is a bad writer, just as her fans are entitled to think otherwise. The problem comes into play when you begin to argue that your opinion is superior to the opinion of her fans. In order for that argument to be valid, you have to first establish that you are an authority on what all individuals prefer. And as mentioned earlier, all individuals are different, and taste is subjective.

*Stephanie Meyer’s writing style*
I don’t know where this argument that Meyer is a poor writer came from, but here are some quotes from her writing:

_


			
				Twilight said:
			
		


			Even more, I had never meant to love him. One thing I truly knew - knew it in the pit of my stomach, in the center of my bones, knew it from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, knew it deep in my empty chest - was how love gave someone the power to break you.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_


			
				New Moon said:
			
		


			“Before you, Bella, my life was like a moonless night. Very dark, but there were stars, points of light and reason. ...And then you shot across my sky like a meteor. Suddenly everything was on fire; there was brilliancy, there was beauty. When you were gone, when the meteor had fallen over the horizon, everything went black. Nothing had changed, but my eyes were blinded by the light. I couldn’t see the stars anymore. And there was no more reason, for anything.”
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_


			
				Eclipse said:
			
		


			“I am Switzerland. I refuse to be affected by territorial disputes between mythical creatures.”
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_


			
				Eclipse said:
			
		


			“For one brief, never-ending second, an entirely different path expanded behind the lids of my tear-wet eyes. As if I were looking through the filter of Jacob's thoughts, I could see exactly what I was going to give up, exactly what this new self-knowledge would not save me from losing. I could see Charlie and Renée mixed into a strange collage with Billy and Sam and La Push. I could see years passing, and meaning something as they passed, changing me. I could see the enormous red-brown wolf that I loved, always standing as protector if I needed him. For the tiniest fragment of a second, I saw the bobbing heads of two small, black-haired children, running away from me into the familiar forest. When they disappeared, they took the rest of the vision with them.”
		
Click to expand...

_ 
Her tone is consistent, heavy and lush, and the characters speak vibrantly. The writing is not my personal preference, but I don’t consider it “poor”. I certainly don’t consider it to be the “garbage” that some argue it is.

*What poor writing actually looks like *

_I walked down the hill and then fall down and bark “Ow,” because hurted. Falling down hurt, and I won’t like feeling hurt. The sky is very skyish and colory. I looking up and then my eyelids blinked closed and then I open again._

_Look out! I was almost runned over by car. What those crazy driver! I shaking my fist at him and yelled, “I shall have my revenge upon thee”._

_My shirt is nicely._


----------



## JosephB (Mar 30, 2012)

_“For one brief, never-ending second..."

_Ha ha ha.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 30, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Stephenie Meyer has, at the very most, sold 120 million copies of the _Twilight _'saga'. She is something like 50th on the list of all-time bestselling authors, with a long way to go to the standard set by Agatha Christie, who's sold four billion books to date.
> 
> As I said before, however, sales does not equate to talent.



First of all, Agatha Christie wrote 91 different books. Stephanie Meyer has written 5! Agatha Christie's books have been for sale since her first novel in 1920. Stephanie Meyer's first novel was released 2005. Hmmmmm... let's compare; 91 books in 92 years (vs) 5 books in 7 years! 

Let's see (or, I guess _we_ won't be around to see) how many books Stephanie Meyer will sell in 92 years, even the 5 she has! If she wrote 91 books in her writing career, well... we'd have to see then, how far she rises on that sellers list you mentioned.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 30, 2012)

Sunny said:


> Let's see (or, I guess _we_ won't be around to see) how many books Stephanie Meyer will sell in 92 years, even the 5 she has!



It’s like any other fad. What’s known as an informational cascade happens when people make a choice based on seeing others make a choice, and it’s often independent of their own thoughts or consideration -- or -- if so many people think it’s good, it must be good.  In this case, it’s fueled by things that don’t have much to do with the books themselves -- the merchandizing, movies and endless references and commentary -- both good and bad.  But I’m betting it will die out. I’ll be surprised if people aren’t saying, “Twilight what?”  in 10 years -- maybe sooner.


----------



## Potty (Mar 30, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> _I walked down the hill and then fall down and bark “Ow,” because hurted. Falling down hurt, and I won’t like feeling hurt. The sky is very skyish and colory. I looking up and then my eyelids blinked closed and then I open again._
> 
> _Look out! I was almost runned over by car. What those crazy driver! I shaking my fist at him and yelled, “I shall have my revenge upon thee”._
> 
> _My shirt is nicely._



This blew my mind! It was so bad I actually enjoyed it! do more!


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 31, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Here’s the way I see it.
> 
> *What qualifies a person as “good” at a task?*
> My definition: A person is good at something when they accomplish the *purpose* of the task in an efficient or exceptional manner.
> ...



Then why don't you just go and buy Romeo & Juliet, rehash it, change the names, and sell a hundred thousand books.  There you go, be a good fiction author.




JosephB said:


> It’s like any other fad. What’s known as an informational cascade happens when people make a choice based on seeing others make a choice, and it’s often independent of their own thoughts or consideration -- or -- if so many people think it’s good, it must be good. In this case, it’s fueled by things that don’t have much to do with the books themselves -- the merchandizing, movies and endless references and commentary -- both good and bad. But I’m betting it will die out. I’ll be surprised if people aren’t saying, “Twilight what?” in 10 years -- maybe sooner.



Does anybody remember a not quite so old 1980s-90s TV soapy called Roseanne?  At the time it was so popular the star was reportedly the most influential woman in the world.  Interesting thing.  These days it can't beat 2nd rate 1960s shows to make regular billing on 3rd tier TV stations.


----------



## Sam (Mar 31, 2012)

_For one brief, never-ending second . . . _

I think that says it all.


----------



## Sam (Mar 31, 2012)

Sunny said:


> First of all, Agatha Christie wrote 91 different books. Stephanie Meyer has written 5! Agatha Christie's books have been for sale since her first novel in 1920. Stephanie Meyer's first novel was released 2005. Hmmmmm... let's compare; 91 books in 92 years (vs) 5 books in 7 years!
> 
> Let's see (or, I guess _we_ won't be around to see) how many books Stephanie Meyer will sell in 92 years, even the 5 she has! If she wrote 91 books in her writing career, well... we'd have to see then, how far she rises on that sellers list you mentioned.



She won't sell near as many as Agatha Christie, I can assure you. As Joe mentioned, _Twilight _is a fad that will pass with time. The mark of a good author, besides the quality of his/her writing, is longevity.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 31, 2012)

Sam W said:


> She won't sell near as many as Agatha Christie,


 And the Poirot books aren't that great.  Make a suspect villain to start with; wander aimlessly for 80% just so the reader can't confirm the 5 Ws; then tie in a few excused reasons at the end, with the suspected villain from page 2 found guilty.  I have zero hesitation in saying there are people here who produce superior writings than those produced by many best sellers.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 31, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> Then why don't you just go and buy Romeo & Juliet, rehash it, change the names, and sell a hundred thousand books.  There you go, be a good fiction author.



I know you're being sarcastic but that idea isn't necessarily a bad one...  I wouldn't go as far as simply rehashing the story, but borrowing and updating certain elements could prove fruitful. :-k


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2012)

Sam W said:


> She won't sell near as many as Agatha Christie, I can assure you. As Joe mentioned, _Twilight _is a fad that will pass with time. The mark of a good author, besides the quality of his/her writing, is longevity.



I’m hoping the fad will have died out by the time my girls are old enough to read the books – we only have a few years. My wife read the first book and was appalled by how malleable and submissive Bella is and agrees with a lot of the negative criticism aimed at how her relationship with Edward is portrayed. We wouldn’t forbid our daughters from reading  the books, but my wife will be prepared to talk to them and explain why the relationship is unhealthy and dysfunctional. (I likely won’t, because there’s no way I could plow through them.)

And awful mechanics aside, I’m wondering if that writing is typical of YA aimed at girls – if it’s all that sappy and melodramatic. I certainly hope there are better choices. Neither my wife nor I read YA, so we’ll have to do a little research and see if we can expose them to some worthwhile reading. The idea of my kids taking in that awful writing kind of makes my skin crawl.


----------



## patskywriter (Mar 31, 2012)

I used to be a technical editor at an engineering firm. We were assigned to engineers to produce white papers for various conferences. Some conferences were attended by other engineers, and some were open to the general public. We were taught that, before putting pen to paper, we had to first *identify the audience*. Everything about that phrase governed the way we framed our stories, our choice of words, every little thing. And now that I'm the publisher of a community paper, I keep my readers in mind as I conduct the interviews, type out the articles, and even when I take the photos. Successful writers connect with their audiences. That doesn't necessarily mean catering to them—although I suppose that would depend on the writer and why he or she chooses to write.

I'm also a deejay and (minor) jazz musician. When my friends make fun of Justin Bieber and wonder how I can stand playing "that music," I tell them that they've never witnessed a bunch of prepubescent kids expressing their cute lil newfound emotions while half-singing/half-yelling "Baby baby baby OHH!" It's a sweet thing to see and adults just don't get it unless they can think back to what it feels to be a young preteen. Musically speaking, Justin Bieber does not come remotely close to jazz legends like Charles Mingus or Dexter Gordon, but he connects—and connects well—with his audience.

We're being like jazz musicians here. As (hopefully) hightly skilled artistes we want to write exquisitely and be acknowledged for it. That's great, and I enjoy lovely writing, *but* that's not always what it takes to be a successful writer. The trick is to write in a way that pleases ourselves and gains an audience. There's no formula for that, but that's what makes it so *fun!*   :coffeescreen:


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> Charles Mingus or Dexter Gordon, but he connects—and connects well—with his audience.



Funny you should mention that in connection with kids -- both my girls, almost 9 and 7, love jazz, Miles and Coltrane etc. And Dexter Gordon, who is also a favorite of mine. They've been listening to jazz since they were in the womb. One of my oldest daughter's favorites is the Coltrane version of Bye Bye Blackbird. They also listen to a lot of the other music we grew up with -- REM, Pearl Jam etc. and some of the new stuff we like too, like the Avett Brothers and Neko Case. It will be interesting to see if they'll stick with all that once they're  older and their friends are listening to whoever the Justin Bieber is at  that point. I won't have a problem with it, but it would be nice if they retain their interest in different kinds of music.


----------



## Sam (Mar 31, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I’m hoping the fad will have died out by the time my girls are old enough to read the books – we only have a few years. My wife read the first book and was appalled by how malleable and submissive Bella is and agrees with a lot of the negative criticism aimed at how her relationship with Edward is portrayed. We wouldn’t forbid our daughters from reading  the books, but my wife will be prepared to talk to them and explain why the relationship is unhealthy and dysfunctional. (I likely won’t, because there’s no way I could plow through them.)
> 
> And awful mechanics aside, I’m wondering if that writing is typical of YA aimed at girls – if it’s all that sappy and melodramatic. I certainly hope there are better choices. Neither my wife nor I read YA, so we’ll have to do a little research and see if we can expose them to some worthwhile reading. The idea of my kids taking in that awful writing kind of makes my skin crawl.



For their sake, I hope so too. YA isn't my genre either, but I'm sure there's something better out there. I think that's the thing so many people fail to see; that Bella is as suggestive as they come. She'll argue with her father over curfew, but won't stand up to Edward because of fear of upsetting him. I think that's unhealthy relationship material. Someone can tell me I'm wrong -- maybe I am -- but there are enough women in abusive relationships without young girls getting the impression that it's okay to be submissive if your boyfriend is good-looking. 

Relationships work best when they're a two-way street.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm curious, since it was mentioned earlier in this thread, if you have the same objections towards _Romeo and Juliet_.

For those who need a reminder of the story:

Romeo has a crush on Rosaline, but Rosaline doesn't return his affections. Poor Romeo!

But when he sneaks into a Capulet (warring rival family) party, he sees the beautiful Juliet, and instantly falls in love.

He meets her, and the attraction is mutual. They kiss. Later Juliet discovers that Romeo is from the rival family, and this upsets her, but she can't deny her attraction.

There's the famous balcony scene, where they express their love for each other.

The next day, they are secretly wed.

Romeo kills Juliet's cousin, Tybalt. When Juliet hears this, she's upset, but she forgives Romeo because she loves him. He can kill anyone of her family, it's okay! Because she loves him and that's all that matters. So they make love. Juliet is thirteen years old.

She loves Romeo, and has secretly wed him, but her family wants her to marry Paris. So a plan is devised. She'll pretend she's dead! Then she can run away from her family with Romeo and live happily ever after.

So she drinks a potion to make her appear dead. A message is to be delivered to Romeo to fill him in on the plan. But the message is never received, so he only hears that Juliet, his beautiful barely-teen wife, has died.

All is lost! Woe!

He goes to Juliet's tomb and sees Paris paying his respects with flowers. Romeo kills Paris.

Then, in grief after seeing Juliet (asleep, but not dead), Romeo kills himself.

Juliet wakes up, sees Romeo dead, and attempts to kill herself by kissing the poison from his lips. When that doesn't work, she stabs herself in the chest.

------

It's quite a tragedy! Great plot twists, in my opinion. But one can also argue it romanticizes codependency (in line with the argument against Twilight). The behavior of the two lovers coincides with the viewpoint that: if you love someone, it's okay to kill others and run away from your family members to be with them. If you can't be with them, you might as well kill yourself, because the relationship matters more than your own life.

Personally I think _Romeo and Juliet_ is a great romantic tragedy. I see films and books today following in the same lines. I recently pointed out to a friend that a lot of mainstream Chinese cinema follows in the footsteps of _Romeo and Juliet_, with forbidden lovers giving up their lives at the end of the movie in the name of love.

For me, at least, Shakespeare's plays were the subject of study in eighth grade. Do you think, if it promotes codependency, it should be banned from being taught to impressionable youths?

I'm not being passive-aggressive with my questioning here, I'm genuinely curious about what you guys think.

Cheers


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2012)

Of course Twilight is a fantasy -- but I think the language, story, setting and time-period would make a connection to the characters in Romeo and Juliette unlikely -- as opposed to a character like Bella who is a contemporary teenage girl -- and more like Twilight readers. I seriously doubt girls are going to empathize with Juliette in the same way.

And who said anything about banning anything? We’ve already decided that that our girls can read the books if they want to -- but my wife will be discussing the nature of the relationship with them and why it isn’t healthy -- that seems like a pretty reasonable way to handle it.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 31, 2012)

Oh, I mentioned banning because while googling R&J, I discovered that some schools had in fact banned the play. I thought that was interesting so I looked into it, and the reasons mentioned were generally disapproval from parents who thought the sexual content to be inappropriate for middle school.

Promotion of codependency wasn't, from what I saw, listed as a reason for banning _Romeo and Juliet_, but there were independent articles written discussing it.

Looking further, a new twist came about:

_Twilight_ being taught in school?

Some schools have chosen to ban the reading material, arguing it is too sexual and goes against religious beliefs. However, some others have actually put _Twilight _on the required reading list.

Most notable to me are the colleges that are including Twilight in their curriculum:

7 Fall college courses based on Twilight | Back To School - Yahoo! Shine

As well as OSU, Twilight Is Now Required Reading for a College Level Honors English Class - Education - GOOD

Reading the course descriptions, it seems that some of the teachers are addressing the deeper implications of reading the book as mentioned in this thread, such as "the way fiction’s seductiveness is tied to other potentially dangerous attractions", and _This freshman seminar considers whether "Bella a postmodern heroine or a troubling, anti-feminist role model?"_

The University of Alabama course, however, seems to be presenting Twilight as a literary achievement. "We will consider how Meyer's re-imagining of these classic love stories is both timely...and timeless."

In other instances, Meyer is lumped in together with the likes of Austin and Shakespeare (!)

And in many cases, besides required reading of the books, watching the movies is also part of the assigned curriculum.


----------



## Writ (Mar 31, 2012)

^from Kyle's link above.


> This is not the first instance of _Twilight _being  offered at the college level—and certainly not the first time pop  culture has made an appearance in a college class. But this is also a  time when the practical payoff of an undergraduate education is being  reevaluated. Multiple studies are questioning the value of college,  employers complain that kids coming out of school aren't prepared for  the workforce, and student loan debt is through the roof. In that  context, it's worth asking whether students really need to be spending  their time (and money) studying _Twilight_.



How does reading Frankenstein prepare one for a career in deep sea welding or the workforce in general? :|


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 31, 2012)

Given that many of these 'university/college' courses/degrees have below 50% employment outcomes, one might suggest the course material requires greater scrutiny (including cutting off funding).


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Oh, I mentioned banning because while googling R&J, I discovered that some schools had in fact banned the play. I thought that was interesting so I looked into it, and the reasons mentioned were generally disapproval from parents who thought the sexual content to be inappropriate for middle school.



This is why we home school, so idiots aren't making these decisions for us.



KyleColorado said:


> The University of Alabama course, however, seems to be presenting Twilight as a literary achievement. "We will consider how Meyer's re-imagining of these classic love stories is both timely...and timeless."



As someone who thought Twilight had zero literary merit, and as an Auburn grad -- my wife thought this was hilarious.


----------



## candid petunia (Apr 1, 2012)




----------



## Writ (Apr 1, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> Given that many of these 'university/college' courses/degrees have below 50% employment outcomes, one might suggest the course material requires greater scrutiny (including cutting off funding).



I guess I would say that all college courses aren't developed or geared for placing one more soldier in the workforce cubicle. There are courses offered simply for students own interests and intellectual growth. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. At my university the Italian language department offers a course (I think 3 credits) on the history of the mafia. A course like that or a single one semester course in creative writing are not going to make a young person more employable. They might help satisfy certain students interests and stimulate their critical thinking. I think part of the college experience is to gain insight through group discussion and guided by a learned professors lectures. Part of it is to help young minds see things through a different lens.

Now, for those only interested in going to college for a career in a certain kind of field, then there are pipelines for that. If a student wants to be a nurse then enroll in a school or college of nursing. 

And some fields - like journalism - have traditionally been professions of on-the-job-training. It's only relatively recently that colleges have built up programs for journalism and journalist have been recruited from those college programs.

And unless a person wants a low paying service job it seems to me that in the developed nations of today students will need to acquire a good background in mathematics and possibly the natural sciences or information technology.

I don't know, some of those excerpts posted from _Twilight_ were poorly composed, and the one about a brief never-ending second was non-sensical but writing is not like mathematics. You're never suppose to begin a sentence with "but" or "and" but you can in practical terms because the message can be understood, and it might follow the flow to which you or someone else actually speaks. Now, in contrast in arithmetic two plus two will never equal five. Never. The language of math always results in the same answer across all borders. The non-mathematical answers in English and Spanish can be different: white house verse house white (casa blanca). 

Or think of it as white = 2 and house = 4. white house then = 24 but house white = 42. Of course, one can reply that 2 + 4 will equal 6 in both cases. True.

What I'm saying, however, is that there is more flexibility in the non-mathematical languages than in the language of mathematics. I know I've often had trouble understanding how Spanish sentences are constructed. In my English speaking mind Spanish speakers speak backwards.

And I'm not trying to suggest grammar is not important. Grammar functions to logically structure words and sentences in a coherent manner. I've also heard it said that those that do well in mathematics usually do well in English grammar and conversely.


----------



## Man From Mars (Apr 1, 2012)

Through these discussions I see a common fallacy going on.

People are equivocating *good *as *effective*. They are not the same thing.

We're talking about art. Writing is an art. So how does one judge art? The word "art" comes from the word "Artisan", meaning a person skilled in an applied art; a craftsperson (from dictionary.com). Is writing a craft? Yes. Writing has tricks and conventions, has rules that must be followed until they should be, and takes a great amount of skill to master.

So when we judge a piece of writing,we're judging the craft. To judge it effectively we must know the craft and the work itself. What makes a crafted piece a good piece of art does not come from the *result*, but is *inherent *in the piece. To say that lots of sales, the effect, makes the piece "good", the cause, is reversing cause and effect. That's not to say that a piece cannot be effective. For example the Transformers movies were very effective at the box office, but does that mean they follow the conventions of moviemaking (character development, three act structure, rising action, a good coherent plot)? Not always. And movie-goers don't have to be aware of those conventions. They might not even care. They may value a movie for certain aspects of the film, like robot aliens fighting other robot aliens. However film critics and other film makers are well aware of those conventions, the aspects of the craft. Their judgement can determine if a piece of art is well crafted. Sales numbers determine how a piece is effective at accomplishing its goal. But again, they are not the same thing. If they were, then I'd suggest any chef studying at Le Cordon Bleu to give up school and get a job at McDonalds, since McDonalds has might higher burger sales.

When it comes to Twilight, yes it has mind-blowing sales figures. The book has been an impressive commercial success and I don't hold a grudge against Stephanie Meyer from finding that success, whether that was from luck or knowing her audience, both, neither, or a combination of many things. However, when it comes to judging the book as a work of art, as a piece of craftsmanship, then that assessment must come from examining the internal mechanisms of the work and especially knowing when those mechanisms work and when they don't.​


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 1, 2012)

Man from Mars said:
			
		

> However, when it comes to judging the book as a work of art, as a piece of craftsmanship, then that assessment must come from examining the internal mechanisms of the work and especially knowing *when those mechanisms work and when they don't*.



I agree with your overall post, MfM, but the bolded section above is why I contest that Stephanie Meyer is a good writer.

Her mechanisms, at least from my perspective, clearly work _for her readers_.

I'm not arguing that Stephanie Meyer is a master in the craft of writing, but simply that she's a good writer, because, given her adoration from her fans, she creates an _extremely_ powerful emotional satisfaction in her readers.

This feat is something that I believe poor writers simply _cannot_ do, no matter how hard they try. It takes good writing in some aspect to acheive this (in my opinion).

I believe those arguing Meyer is a bad writer are focusing mainly on the small components of writing: the sentences and their technical structuring. I consider that only a fraction of what distinguishes the ability of a writer.

According to Larry Brooks, there are six core competencies of successful writing. He lists them as:

*Concept
Character
Theme
Story Structure
Scene Execution
Writing Voice

*The argument against Stephanie Meyer as a poor writer seems primarily focused on Writing Voice.

I wish to point out that her execution of the other five elements should be considered before anyone dismisses Meyer as a bad writer. Given the reaction from her fans, I firmly believe that she excels in many of the other elements. Character, for one. Scene execution also.

There's a lot more to being a good or bad writer, in my opinion, than how one strings together words.


----------



## Jon M (Apr 1, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> ... but simply that she's a good writer, because, given her adoration from her fans, she creates an _extremely_ powerful emotional satisfaction in her readers.
> 
> This feat is something that I believe poor writers simply _cannot_ do ...


You also have to consider what the reader brings to these stories, especially the later books in the series. I think it's reasonable to say most of her fans have already done a good chunk of this emotional leg work. They already _want_ to like it, so much that they can overlook atrocities like "For a brief, never-ending second".


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 1, 2012)

Writ said:


> I guess I would say that all college courses aren't developed or geared for placing one more soldier in the workforce cubicle. There are courses offered simply for students own interests and intellectual growth. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.



And yet 'uni' types continue to demand that taxpayers subsidise their 'uni experience'.
Yeah, there's definitely something wrong with that.


----------



## Man From Mars (Apr 2, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I agree with your overall post, MfM, but the bolded section above is why I contest that Stephanie Meyer is a good writer.
> 
> Her mechanisms, at least from my perspective, clearly work _for her readers_.



I think you're are stating the fallacy again, only different. IMHO, there is no "mechanism X is technically sound if the readers think so".

For example: is Michael Bay a good director because his films make a lot of money? I'd say that he is successful, but do his movies stand up to the technical prowess of the directors that came before and do his shots work within or expand the classical conventions of shot composition? That information the movie-going public does not know and thus cannot make a call. To them, they are entertained and the movie is a success. But is it good?

Similarly, is Meyer's emotional conveyance effective/successful? For general audiences, to an extent. To her target audience, yes (I have no doubt). But does she show a mastery of it? Like the movie-going public, everyday readers do not know the conventions and "rules" of writing. Can you then judge how well those conventions are used when the reader, your measuring stick, has no knowledge of such conventions? I'd say not.

Honestly though, I don't hate Twilight. I don't want to bash it. In Twilight's defense, anyone can cherry-pick any bad line from any book and it doesn't make the whole piece bad. For what it is supposed to be, it is successful. However I don't want people to think that it is "good" if the technical aspects of storytelling are lacking.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 2, 2012)

The late, great Dwight Swain spoke about this in depth. He pinpoints the reasons I believe Stephanie Meyer is not only successful, but "good", whether or not she flounders with the technical aspects of writing. 

... each authority is dangerous to the very degree that he is correct, because that's also the degree to which he distorts the actual picture. 

Art conceals art, in writing as elsewhere. The skill of a skilled writer tricks you into thinking that there is no skill.

"Do this," they say, or "Don't do that."

Nor does it matter whether these theories are right or wrong in the view of objectivity or the critics. Their purpose is only to provide one particular writer with working tools and orientation. Universality is no issue. If an approach works for you, that's all that counts.

...Because often rules -- arbitrary rules, at least -- conflict with an infinitely more vital element: feeling.

... other people may see it from a different angle. Whereupon, out of disagreement may spring dissaproval.

The critics (say) -- "This lacks even ordinary competence."

"A stylistic mishmash." "The characters are caricatures at best." "A shallow and empty story, without insight or compassion."

So many voices, all singing the same song.

But you don't worship them, for your certainty, your security, is in yourself.

In your feelings.

Feeling, indeed, is what drives you forward. Wrapped up in your story, you face the future, not the past. The tale you tell excites you. You write out of the thrill of that excitement. Everywhere, you see new possibilities, new relationships. "What if--?" is your watchword. The rules, when you think of them, are incidental.

Which all is merely another way of saying that the writer is subjective more than objective; that his inner world is more important to him than the external one. Intuitively, he knows that "plot" and "character" and "setting" and all other analytic elements of the craft, taken apart from the story, are just that: analytic; which is to say, dead, in the same way that any part of a dissected laboratory specimen is dead.

Because most readers read to feel, not analyze. They love the work of the subjectivist-turned-writer.

... As a writer, your task is to bring this heart-bound feeling to the surface in your reader: to make it well and swell and surge and churn.

For some fortunate souls, that's all there is to it. So talented are they . . . so sensitive, so perceptive, so completely attuned to themselves and to their audience . . . that they intuitively grasp everything they need to know... They write, readers read... A happy state.

-The trouble with rules-

No writer in his right mind writes by a set of rules. At least, not by somebody else's rules.

Why not?

Because rules start from the wrong end: with restriction; with form; with mechanics; with exhortation about things you should and shouldn't do.

Where should you start, then? With feeling. 

The self-taught writer holds a small advantage here, perhaps. Lacking formal training, he tends to be unaware of technique as a thing separate and apart. Intellectualization of art is alien to his thinking. First, last, and all the time he deals with what he feels. -- Dwight Swain

--

It all returns, in my opinion, to the feeling of the readers.

Sure we can break down the literary mechanics of writing to determine how well Meyer measures up against the standards of proficient technical writing. But to me that is akin to studying the exterior of a vehicle in order to determine whether or not the vehicle runs. It's focusing on things that don't really matter if the writer emotionally satisfies the reader.

On the contrary, you can have a writer who weaves sentences with brilliance, who turns statements into ponderous metaphors about existentialism and builds stories that double as social commentaries with insight ahead of the time. But if the audience, the readers, don't enjoy the writing, if they put it down after finishing and blink their eyes and shrug, is that author good?


----------



## JosephB (Apr 2, 2012)

Yeah. Her readers love the stories and characters etc. etc. -- that’s what makes her makes so awesome and why it doesn’t matter if the writing itself is crap. I get it.


----------



## Man From Mars (Apr 2, 2012)

Kyle,

I understand what you're saying and I do partially agree, but only partially. To take the car analogy: arriving at the destination is a measure of the car's success, but to know if the car is functional, we must look under the hood and understand the mechanics. Many types of cars can make it to many kinds of destinations but that doesn't mean that the car is superior or merely functional. If we want to make the car ourselves, or if we want to make a better car, or if we even want to compare one car to another, then we have to go internal. 

Essentially the audience, even on aggregate, can rarely tell us the intricacy of our own work.

At this point we'll probably have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 2, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Yeah. Her readers love the stories and characters etc. etc. -- that’s what makes her makes so awesome and why it doesn’t matter if the writing itself is crap. I get it.



lol

I'm not arguing that she's "awesome", but I also don't believe her writing is crap.

Your second sentence, "Her readers love the stories and her characters" is why I argue that she is good. She may have poor writing abilities in certain aspects. I agree that, in comparison with some authors she is clearly not on the same level. Nothing in my position is aimed at labelling her as "great" or a "master", but "good" in comparison to "bad".

The "her readers love the stories and her characters" is evidence, to me at least, that she is performing at a level beyond "crap".

There are many authors with superior technical abilities than Meyer who write stories that do not receive the same level of enthusiasm from readers. To me that suggests that Meyer is succeeding in certain aspects of her writing where those other authors are not.



			
				Man from Mars said:
			
		

> Kyle,
> 
> I understand what you're saying and I do partially agree, but only partially...  if we even want to compare one car to another, then we have to go internal.
> 
> Essentially the audience, even on aggregate, can rarely tell us the intricacy of our own work.



I'd like to think that a combination of both our perspectives yields the most accurate truth.. that both the writing itself, and the reaction it garners, should be weighed when judging the quality of a piece of work.

The reason I defend Meyer (not as a "great" writer, but merely to argue that she is not "bad"), is because I consider writing to satisfying the reader to be a _skill. _It is why, in my opinion, Meyer is successful when others aren't. Because she posesses this skill, of which I believe the dynamics go beyond merely "It's because her readers are stupid" (not your argument, but the argument some others seem to promote).

I believe this level of reader satisfaction is acheived through many different components of writing, of which the ability to construct engaging and multi-faceted characters is what I believe amounts to a large part of her success.

I believe the reason she's so popular is because she excels at dynamics in her writing where other authors fail.

Anywho, maybe we will have to agree to disagree. I still enjoyed this conversation, though!


----------



## JosephB (Apr 2, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> lol
> 
> I'm not arguing that she's "awesome", but I also don't believe her writing is crap.



I’m talking about nonsense like “_For one brief, never-ending second..." _or _“Even more, I had never meant to love him” _which makes no sense whatsoever.

Her writing is littered with that kind of thing. You have to know that’s crap -- and I’m betting if you saw that in the Workshop you be on it like white on rice. Why can’t you just ditch the tepid disclaimers and acknowledge that aspect of her writing is just plain awful? It won’t diminish the rest of your argument for why the books are so popular.

Go ahead -- you're among friends. Admit it.


----------

