Thread: What's your opinion?

I've been reading so many posts on blogs, forums, websites, and such and have read a lot of writers hating Stephanie Meyers Twilight books. Not all, but a lot of writers say her writing is 9th grade drivel that only teens like. How on earth is there such a wide range of hate and love with that series? So many writers say her writing stinks, but then all the millions in sales reflect the readers like it. Confusing. How can it be terrible writing but selling so many books. And yes, I am a Twilight fan. Anything romantic and I'm hooked. And oh look, I'm not a teen!

Is the hate because not everyone likes the hopeless romantic stuff? Or is there a real lack of writing abilities in her books? I'd just like to see if someone can point out the good or bad in her writing. And yes her books sold a ton before the movies, so that's not the only reason they had the success they did.

Haven't read them. Would like to, just for the guilty pleasure factor.

It's the do with the writing, not the romance. I don't mind romance in a novel -- done right it is a very effective tool. However, when you have page after page after mindless page of references to Edward Cullen's 'perfectly toned' pecs and 'sparkling' eyes, it tends to p*** people off. I mean, nothing happens in the story until you reach page 350, and even then it flows like a frozen river.

I don't have a problem with the series. More power to Meyer if she can sell manure while convincing everyone that it's perfume. That being said, I agree with the remarks made about the writing. The first problem is that Stephenie did little to no research for the novel. One of the lines in the first book, recounting the history of Edward, tells us he was born in the 1640s. A few lines later, Meyer says this: He actually discovered a coven (which is a mistake on its own; a 'coven' is a group of witches) of true vampires that lived hidden in the sewers of the city. The city in question is Carlisle, in the north-west of England. This is a serious factual error because anyone who studied the history of England will know that during that period in time there were no sewers anywhere in England. Sewage flowed freely down the streets until it reached the Thames. The first sewers were built in England in the early 1860s by a man called Joseph Bazalgette.

It's not just factual errors either. There are literally hundreds of spelling mistakes (I can't recall exact page numbers, but I know there was a least one every two or three pages) and the sentence construction is akin to something a 9th-grade student would write. I appreciate that people love the novels, and read them merely for escapism, but nothing pulls me from a book faster than poor writing and spelling mistakes. I can live with factual errors if the story is well-written and intriguing.

Originally Posted by Sunny

How on earth is there such a wide range of hate and love with that series?

Because it while it provides classic teenage (girl) wish fulfillment, it does so in a very clumsy and creepy manner. This article provides a pretty decent analysis.

The city in question is Carlisle, in the north-west of England. This is a serious factual error because anyone who studied the history of England will know that during that period in time there were no sewers anywhere in England.


First of all, I appologise. I'm new at this and have no idea how you all reply with the quote taken right out of the previous comment. I had to copy and paste it.

Other people have said similar things, like, how does Edward have sex if he has no blood and his heart doesn't beat?

And the same with your comment about England. Is this not fiction writing? Everything doesn't have to measure up? Are you not allowed to bend the rules and make stuff up?

I loved her descriptions of Edward's smell that made Bella weak in the knees, his smile that would make her hands sweaty. I didn't think I could get enough of it. It's strange that some people think that's bad writing, while others think it's good. I have to admit I didn't notice all the spelling mistakes you're talking about. My brain must have ignored them as I was too enthralled with her story. It's interesting, the different views on her writing abilities.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Because it while it provides classic teenage (girl) wish fulfillment, it does so in a very clumsy and creepy manner. This article provides a pretty decent analysis.

But I'm not a teenage girl, and I know many older men and women who have enjoyed these books. Why do you say creepy? I don't get that out the books.

From what people have told me, the writer wrote the stories in such a way that it allows the reader to imagine themselves and their crush in the story rather than have a set description of the characters. While I'll admit this is clever, I would never read Twilight personally. Harry Potter was my Twilight. And besides, I wouldn't read the story that feminised vampires...but thats my opinion, no-one has to agree with me.

Originally Posted by Sunny

The city in question is Carlisle, in the north-west of England. This is a serious factual error because anyone who studied the history of England will know that during that period in time there were no sewers anywhere in England.


First of all, I appologise. I'm new at this and have no idea how you all reply with the quote taken right out of the previous comment. I had to copy and paste it.

Other people have said similar things, like, how does Edward have sex if he has no blood and his heart doesn't beat?

And the same with your comment about England. Is this not fiction writing? Everything doesn't have to measure up? Are you not allowed to bend the rules and make stuff up?

Tom Clancy once said that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction must make sense. I agree that it won't make much difference to the millions of teenage girls (and boys) who read the story, but to a person who knows a little about history, reading a sentence like my aforementioned one is enough to break an author's hold. Do it often enough and you have a recipe for disaster.

For instance, in my most recent novel I had to discover a way to stop five intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) from reaching and destroying the Kremlin in Russia. Research revealed that, once launched, nuclear missiles cannot be recalled and are devoid of any self-destruct mechanism. Had I not done thorough research and instead opted to write a scene where a general in NORAD presses a self-destruct button, I would have made what is known in writing as a 'plot hole', and a serious one at that. Through research, I learned of a top secret Navy weapon called the Aegis Combat System, designed specifically to detect and destroy incoming ICBMs.

There are some liberties afforded, of course. An author can change the description of a town or city to better suit the needs of their fiction. That's fine, provided the author makes this clear at the beginning with a simple disclaimer: Most places in this book do, in fact, exist, though the author may have taken liberties with some of their descriptions. Others are entirely from the mind of the author and should not be construed as real. When you describe real places, omitting a well-known fact that sewers did not exist in England until the late 19th Century, you've made a serious faux pas.

Don't get me started on the story.

I would suspect that a touch of the lash back might be because some people who work really hard at writing good stories feel cheated that someone who is essentially a poor writer has done so well. I've never read the books, and honesty was overjoyed to find that book stores have started giving the teen vampire drivel and it's companions its own section. Get's them out of my fantasy and scifi section. Still don't know why horror got squashed to be thrown into other section...but back to the topic at hand. I watched the movie, and besides a cure for insomnia, it was pretty dull. So, that didn't inspire me to go read the book.

I think the reason you liked the books and others did not is probably because you don't have as high of a standard for romance books. Don't take it as an insult, when I go to see an action flick, I expect explosions, special effects, normally nice looking women (usually in revealing cloathing) and well, not much more. Pure simple entertainment. When they have an actual story with a plot...bonus. You enjoy a different form of what might be considered base level entertainment. I'm sure most of the movies I have very much enjoyed have all gotten crappy reviews by every movie critic out there. Usually, the more they hate it, the better I will love it. So, if you enjoy it, then you enjoy it. What I or anyone else thinks isn't really important.

I realize you are trying to understand why something you enjoy is so hated...and if what has been said about the books is true, then bad writing combined with glittering vampires that aren't evil but good, and go down the list of things that make those of us who want more substance in a book cringe. I can accept a cheesy movie, since it is only a couple hours of my time. Novels have a longer time investment, and I expect far more from them.

Maybe that might help you understand it just a little bit.

I've never read the books and will never read the books. Hopeless romaticism makes me want to vomit.

As far as the people I've talked to who hate it, it's down to the fact that she turned vampires into something weak and pathetic (I'd get banned from here in a nanosecond if I used the words they really used.) which fans of vampires do not like and are extremely offended by how she has portrayed them.

Originally Posted by Sunny

And the same with your comment about England. Is this not fiction writing? Everything doesn't have to measure up? Are you not allowed to bend the rules and make stuff up?

Not if you're going to refer to a real place and a real time period.

Thanks for the comments. It's been fun to read your opinions on this. And don't worry, it didn't insult me; I didn't write Twilight. I've never read sci-fi, but I have enjoyed some great fantasy books.

Id agree with all of the following:

I would suspect that a touch of the lash back might be because some people who work really hard at writing good stories feel cheated that someone who is essentially a poor writer has done so well.

Not if you're going to refer to a real place and a real time period.

I don't mind romance in a novel -- done right it is a very effective tool. However, when you have page after page after mindless page of references to Edward Cullen's 'perfectly toned' pecs and 'sparkling' eyes, it tends to p*** people off. I mean, nothing happens in the story until you reach page 350, and even then it flows like a frozen river.

I'll admit I picked up the first book in the store once and read the first page... was not impressed with the writing. It was written like one of my s***** first drafts, where I pay zero attention to anything other than getting the basic story down... Considering my dad-in-law is a writer trying to get published, and I am a writer trying to get published, who wouldn't even think of submitting writing like that to an agent or publisher... yeah, it's a little frustrating.

That said, I still want to read them, or at least try. It's hard for me though. I don't find vampires sexy at all, and found the EC character pretty repulsive in the films (gimme some of those werewolves any day), so its just not that exciting for me.

Books are always better than the movies. Well the ones that I've watched anyway.

I wouldn't read Twilight at first either because I didn't read back then... at all. And I hated vampires. My sister kept begging me to read it. She would always tell me that since I'm a hopeless romantic, I would truly love them. Finally after months of her complaining I started them. I couldn't put them down. It was a good thing I was on vacation for a week.

I made up my mind awhile ago that I won't read books that don't interest me. If I can't get past the first chapter, then I'm putting it down and never picking it up again. There are too many books out there that I really enjoy. Would you read a book all the way through that you couldn't stand even on the first page? That takes dedication.

Originally Posted by Sunny

Would you read a book all the way through that you couldn't stand even on the first page? That takes dedication.

Some stories take a while to get going. I suggest reading 50-100 pages and making your decision then. Obviously if their are painfully glaring problems ("Bob am saying 'I sure am angry' because Sally is to punching him"), yeah, put the book down right away. But if the writing itself is decent enough, I'm all for letting the story play out and only dropping it if it can't entertain later on.

What I found to be the most frustrating, as a male reader, was the never ending descriptions on how gorgeous the guy is. Add to that the fact that it was written in first person, and it was very unsettling. What truly made me put the book down for good, though, was that not much happened in the first 120 pages. Truth be told, the book felt more like a passionate description of vampire anatomy and an essay of how much the world sucked for the heroine, than an actual story where interesting things happened. The entire first book of harry potter almost fits in the first 120 pages of Twilight, and we get tons and tons of stuff. Twilight, in comparison, felt pretty stagnant.