Twilight

[Dr. Paine]

Oh, god, guys, just let it die. Twilight is any other romance novel out there. And all romance novels have these bad undertones. The key is to not take any of it deeply or seriously, throw yourself in Bella's shoes so you can have men fight over you, and then just have a good laugh when you're done. They paired Jacob up with her kid so he'd have a happy ending with a character we had never seen before. That's all there is to this.

 

This isn't a real deep book, guys. Don't bother taking it seriously. Your energy that could be better spent dissecting other books will just go to waste.

Thing is, few romance novels (that I know of, anyway, I could be wrong) have such disturbing, disgusting, and illegal implications completely ignored, and indeed passed off as the ultimate love. Sure, most have the whole... 'stalking means he loves you!' or 'Someone being a jerk means they just like you and are misunderstood' trope, but Twilight takes it to insane lengths.

 

Really, Twilight is a fascinating piece of work to dissect, if you have the stomach for it. You'd only have to change a couple little things, and it would be a very effective horror series...

Edited June 23, 2011 by Dr. Paine

[DragonNighthowler]

Thing is, few romance novels (that I know of, anyway, I could be wrong) have such disturbing, disgusting, and illegal implications completely ignored, and indeed passed off as the ultimate love. Sure, most have the whole... 'stalking means he loves you!' or 'Someone being a jerk means they just like you and are misunderstood' trope, but Twilight takes it to insane lengths.

 

That's because you haven't read this.

 

Crazy For You

 

A friend lent it to me reassuring me that, even although I'm not in this sort of books, I'd love it. I was a bit skeptical at first but, guess what? She was right! This book is awesome. Skipped class to read it and finnished it in a couple of days.

I recomend it. I laughed so much with this book, in a good way.

[Lila]

I like Stephanie's writing style, even though it is kind of bad. The plotline is weak and the characters are very flat. I just enjoy the way she words things, honestly.

[Zovesta]

I don't think that they take it to the extreme. I've seen worse. I read a romance novel where the guy paid his woman like she was a prostitute - only after having angry fits and constantly berating her, that is.

 

But why bother? We all get it, it's a bad book. If you have the time for it, you could have time for an actually interesting book - one that's deep.

[Dr. Paine]

I don't think that they take it to the extreme. I've seen worse. I read a romance novel where the guy paid his woman like she was a prostitute - only after having angry fits and constantly berating her, that is.

 

But why bother? We all get it, it's a bad book. If you have the time for it, you could have time for an actually interesting book - one that's deep.

Eh, this is just way more fun to look at. And it's a great tool for what to avoid when you're writing... I've learned as much from looking at Twilight's flaws as I have from reading guides from Bradbury and King.

[DragonNighthowler]

I like Stephanie's writing style, even though it is kind of bad. The plotline is weak and the characters are very flat. I just enjoy the way she words things, honestly.

I call it purple prose, but... eh, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

A bit of purple prose helps to show with more detail certain points you want to make stand out.

 

A whole book with 150 ways of describing someone's body... errrr, not my opinion on good writing. When I write, I spend about 2 or 3 sentences at most describing the characters, and it goes something like;

 

"His eyes were blue and bright, his blond hair was neatly combed to the side, and he was pale... end of story."

 

Not exactly like that, but you catch my drift. Enough to give a general opinion on what a character looks like, but that's about it.

 

Edit;

 

Have to agree with Paine. I learned a great deal by being overly critic with both good and bad books. I remember this one time I got into such a heated debate about how LOTR characters were not well fleshed out, and how it was a very typical issue in many of the older Epic Fantasy books.

 

Upon reading some of my older fics and stories, gee... they were plagued of sues/stus and Deus Ex Machina.

 

I've changed, I want to believe I've improved. I focus more into ellaborating a good, solid plot and creating 3D characters. Reading bad books helped me step away from the very natural issue of overpowering the characters (which is normal in more amateur writers). But it took me not only analyzing other's works, but my very own, and being very critical with myself.

If only this overrated authors (Meyer, Paolini, etc...) stopped a while to look at their work through different eyes, they might of just get better.

Edited June 23, 2011 by DragonNighthowler

[Dr. Paine]

I call it purple prose, but... eh, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

A bit of purple prose helps to show with more detail certain points you want to make stand out.

 

A whole book with 150 ways of describing someone's body... errrr, not my opinion on good writing. When I write, I spend about 2 or 3 sentences at most describing the characters, and it goes something like;

 

"His eyes were blue and bright, his blond hair was neatly combed to the side, and he was pale... end of story."

 

Not exactly like that, but you catch my drift. Enough to give a general opinion on what a character looks like, but that's about it.

-nod-

 

Well, sometimes it is justified to give extra description... vampires actually do fall in that category for me. A good writer will use the words to emphasize just how inhuman they are, how alien and wrong. ... sadly, Meyer kind of failed there.

 

Maybe she should have read Lovecraft, he does heavy description/purple prose right!

[DragonNighthowler]

-nod-

 

Well, sometimes it is justified to give extra description... vampires actually do fall in that category for me. A good writer will use the words to emphasize just how inhuman they are, how alien and wrong. ... sadly, Meyer kind of failed there.

 

Maybe she should have read Lovecraft, he does heavy description/purple prose right!

There are ways and ways of describing. Enphasizing on the unnatural characteristics of a creature, for example, the way Jim Butcher does with his very own vampires in the Dresden Files, is fine. Butcher does not spend pages and pages describing a character, and yet we get a very good idea on what the vamps look like.

 

Showing the characteristics just once, and maybe a couple other occassions, in order to emphasize something;

 

For example; In my latest novel, which is a fantasy work about werewolves. There are a couple of times I do describe the main character's eyes, when they glow in the dark. I don't go overboard, but I do mention it when I want to emphasize his unnatural condition.

 

Meyer spends the frightening of almost every page mentioning marble like body, adonis like chest, white perfect skin, strong and muscular and whatever else she can imagine. All right! I got it! He's hot! Do I really need to be reminded like every three pages?

 

When I described my main character's general appearance, I believe I spent like a sentence showing he was slender and had hairy chest... and that was about it, because I really was not focusing on his phisical appearance. I wanted to show a deeper, more intense relationship with the female character, with whom he's best friends since many years ago, so the appearance is just something that's not that important.

I wanted to do romance how romance really worked, using as inspiration my very own relationships. I know my boyfriend is not very handsome, and he's fat, and a nerd, but I don't care because we have this special connection, this deep trust in one another, this perfect union, and that's exactly what I wanted to portray.

 

I believe there was a blog entry somewhere about how many time Meyer uses phisical description. Now I don't really remember how much it was, but it was a very sad thing.

[Zovesta]

TBH, describing eye and hair colour is a sign of bad writing. People don't notice others because of their hair and eye colour, they notice them because of their overall impression. I talked with this one chick while in line a few days ago. I don't remember her hair colour, and certainly not her eye colour, but she had a very soft face, and really square shoulders, and a bit of a beer gut. She looked overly friendly and pretty sloppy. Oh, and she dressed like a total bad-ass. =| So she looked pretty nerdy. So minimum description = not good writing. 'Cause, like everything else with writing, there's a good way to do it and a bad way to do it.

[DragonNighthowler]

TBH, describing eye and hair colour is a sign of bad writing. People don't notice others because of their hair and eye colour, they notice them because of their overall impression. I talked with this one chick while in line a few days ago. I don't remember her hair colour, and certainly not her eye colour, but she had a very soft face, and really square shoulders, and a bit of a beer gut. She looked overly friendly and pretty sloppy. Oh, and she dressed like a total bad-ass. =| So she looked pretty nerdy. So minimum description = not good writing. 'Cause, like everything else with writing, there's a good way to do it and a bad way to do it.

I digress. Extending yourself through endless paragraphs describing the looks of someone steals the focus from more important matters. I keep my phisical descriptions to the basic simply to give an overall idea of what a character looks like, the same way Rowling does (she never went further to describing Ron, for example, as disproportionate hands and feet, long, thin body, red hair, brown eyes and freckles, which is enough). Funny enough, 99% of fantart out there had a very similar looking Ron, before the movie came out.

 

When I describe my characters, I don't stop to say;

 

"Oh, she was blond, and blue eyed, and whatever else". I insert descriptions along the story. The second chapter, where I introduce the main character, goes something like;

 

(please, forgive me, but I'm summarizing straight from spanish).

 

"She finnished her breakfast and went straight to the bathroom, to comb furiously her shoulder lenght, light brown hair into a ponytail. The dull sound of the cellphone broke the house's silence and she pursed her lips into an annoyed expression. As she ran towards the hall, her glaciar blue eyes looked around for the phone."

 

It's not exactly like that, but you get the idea. I like introducing phisical descriptions through the normal flow of the story, only to give a general idea of what they look like. Quiet frankly, that's not the focus of the story, so why should I go deeper than what's neccesary?

I do stop and get more descriptive when it is something important. For example, when describing a werewolf, or the first transformation, I stop a bit more.

 

On another note, you shouldn't judge others by how you react to the world. I, for example, hardly ever notice what people are wearing, unless it is something that really calls my attention (like, something very colorful to the point of being ridiculous, or something that shows so much skin I can't help but stare). When I first meet a person, the first things I notice are;

1. The eyes. I always look straight to the eye.

2. The smile. I have a thing for beautiful smiles.

3. The hair. I can remember clearly not only color and style, but texture as well of people's hair.

 

I presume we watch the world in a different way. You view it as a whole. I look at the little things and pick what I believe are the most interesting details.

 

So;

 

Between Meyer's overload of phisical descriptions and Rowling's straight and minimum description, who would you say is the better writer?

[Zovesta]

No, what I'm saying is that, if you just leave it at "eye and hair colour", it shouldn't even be there, because it tells you nothing about the character that is actually important or leaves an impression on you. Ron wasn't just, what, red-haired and brown-eyed (been ages since I read the books, I don't remember his eye colour), she also described him as gangly and the like, like you said. There's some actual personality in that. =|

[DragonNighthowler]

No, what I'm saying is that, if you just leave it at "eye and hair colour", it shouldn't even be there, because it tells you nothing about the character that is actually important or leaves an impression on you. Ron wasn't just, what, red-haired and brown-eyed (been ages since I read the books, I don't remember his eye colour), she also described him as gangly and the like, like you said. There's some actual personality in that. =|

I have to agree with you, there. Maybe I didn't made myself clear. What I was saying was leaving description to the essential, in contrary to what Meyer does, which is an overload of phisical descriptions, written in the most purple prose you can imagine. Obviously, hair and eye color say nothing, I merely mention it somewhere at the beggining (along other things, of course), because it has happened to me that I mae myself a mental image of a character in a book, only to have him half the way into the story being described....

For example, in the Mystic Warrior, I imagined Galen Arvad as a dark, short haired man, rather thin albeit strong (he's a blacksmith), with dark blue eyes. When I was almost at the ending of the book, the author suddenly thought he hadn't described his character, and told us that he was indeed strong and muscular, with long, brown hair and brown eyes... I was quiet annoyed, and was unable to see him differently.

 

Anyways, it's quiet hard to give a clear explanation of what I mean when I mainly write in spanish, and my skills in english are not so polished, so I struggle quiet a bit with them when trying to write something more literary. In the same line of thought, I'd have to post a rather large extract from my book to show more clearly my idea, something I'm not willing to do just yet. But I hope I managed to clarify a bit of what I meant.

 

What's funny, I got more out of Ron in such simple description, than out of Edward with all the mumbo-jumbo about his perfect skin/hair/eyes/etc.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I like to focus in deeper parts, really give the characters some personality, show them throughout the book. Are they loyal? Are they selfish? Are they kind? or hot spirited?

I like to show this things as story progresses, let people know them along the book. Meyer fails completely there, she tells us how Edward is, but shows something completely different, and focuses merely on telling us over and over how handsome he is. I'm still wondering how something that eats blood can have a nice breath, because my dogs feed mainly on kibble and tuna (for the hair) and their breaths don't smell exactly like roses.

 

Summarizing. The point is, an overuse of purple prose is not good writing. Scarcity in description isn't either. A balance between the both is ideal. AND, a character is not only "eyes of pure ocean blue that glimmered under the radiant light of the flaming sun of the evening" or "Locks of the finest copper that irradiated a flaming glow as the hands of daylight caressed them like threads of thin silk", which is basically what Meyer does.

A character is much more than a beautiful face, than eyes or hair (agree completely, again). It's a personality, the same as a setting has its own personality and influences how characters react to it. Overall, it's the feeling, the sentiment behind the words, and that Meyer does not have. Many flowery words, an abuse of thesaurus without quiet understanding the meaning of the words, but no feeling. Her books are devoid of them, and the two main characters have less chemistry than an enciclopaedia about kitchen stools.

[Zovesta]

(As a side note, your English is actually pretty good. I've seen a lot of your posts around and I didn't suspect that it wasn't your first language)

 

I completely agree with everything you said. But I do like a bit to the imagination, just because, like you said, our perception and the author's of a character can clash so much. That's why I like more of an impression of the character than a real description. Hell, Holes was probably one of the best books I ever read, and the only thing they ever told you about the main character was that "he's fat".

[Dr. Paine]

How much of this do you feel can apply to Twilight?

[DragonNighthowler]

I'd have to make a deeper analysis. I admit I'm skirming through it (so long), but it seems like he's more speaking about Austen like novels?

[NixAyum]

the frothy, the prosy, the pious, or the pedantic

Check.

 

The heroine is usually an heiress

Not check.

 

and a crowd of undefined adorers dimly indicated beyond

Check, 3 guys asking her to the /girl's choice/ dance.

 

Her eyes and her wit are both dazzling

The Cullens call her brilliant for some reason, and she goes on about the biology class being old info.

 

her nose and her morals are alike free from any tendency to irregularity

I don't know what this means but it amuses me greatly. Unsure if applicable or not.

 

perfectly well-dressed and perfectly religious

Doesn't touch on this except she doesn't like to get dressed up, and she doesn't push religion, so I guess not check.

 

she infallibly gets into high society, she has the triumph of refusing many matches and securing the best

Breaking Dawn. So much check.

 

rhapsodize at some length when she retires to her bedroom

Jfc this so much.

 

Rakish men either bite their lips in impotent confusion at her repartees, or are touched to penitence by her reproofs, which, on appropriate occasions, rise to a lofty strain of rhetoric; indeed, there is a general propensity in her to make speeches

Too passive to lecture people, her outbursts are incomplete and childish.

 

The men play a very subordinate part by her side

Subverted very, painfully hard.

 

They see her at a ball, and are dazzled

Mmhhmmm the wedding basically has everyone going "OMG SHE SO PURDY".

 

but even death has a soft place in his heart for such a paragon, and remedies all mistakes for her just at the right moment

Breaking Dawn again. Taking this line out of context, as it's talking about crappy first husbands, but the birth of Renesmee seems to qualify.

 

and that whatever vicissitudes she may undergo, from being dashed out of her carriage to having her head shaved in a fever, she comes out of them all with a complexion more blooming and locks more redundant than ever.

Motorcycle accidents, Tyler's van, getting kidnapped, and we never hear about scars (other than one on her hand, and even that isn't disfiguring) or anything.

 

we shrank from criticising a lady's novel

The internet sure hasn't, but it got published and then the fangirls and apparently her mail gets filtered so she doesn't see any hate?

 

and inexperienced in every form of poverty except poverty of brains

I laughed.

 

Don't have time to go through the rest, but I'm not sure I'd call Twilight a silly novel under this definition. Bella is too passive, too receptive to be a heroine Eliot describes. She's not a mover or shaker or influencer.

 

I'd have to make a deeper analysis. I admit I'm skirming through it (so long), but it seems like he's more speaking about Austen like novels?

 

Pretty much.

[Dr. Paine]

-nod- The more I read, the more I find only about... a third to a half of it really applies, but it's still a fun read I may actually make a topic for it instead, but I thought it'd be an interesting little turn for the discussion to take.

[Ramica]

How much of this do you feel can apply to Twilight?

True but try the Mary Sue test on Twilight Characters: http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html

 

There are at least a minimum of twenty five clicks alone for the Cullens. In Appearance, character, Immortal. and so on.

 

I did the test based on Edward Cullen and what I knew I got a score of 65 -which in this case is an Uber Sue - or Gary Stu instead of Mary Sue.

 

0-10 points: The Anti-Sue. Your character is the very antithesis of a Mary-Sue. Why are you even taking this test?

 

11-20 points: The Non-Sue. Your character is a well-developed, balanced person, and is almost certainly not a Mary Sue. Congratulations!

 

21-35 points: Borderline-Sue. Your character is cutting it close, and you may want to work on the details a bit, but you're well on your way to having a lovely original character. Good work.

 

36-55 points: Mary-Sue. Your character needs some work in order to be believable. But despair not; you should still be able to salvage her with a little effort. Don't give up.

 

56-70 points: Über-Sue. You've got one hell of a Mary-Sue on your hands here, and it's not going to be easy to set things right. But do your best. There may be hope for you yet.

 

71 points or more: Irredeemable-Sue. You're going to have to start over, my friend. I know you want to keep writing, but no. Just no.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Ramica

[GoingUnder71]

RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE

 

Sorry, it's just that I hate the series a lot.

[soupnazi]

I've been reading Twilight, got to about fifty pages in so far. Thoughts:

 

1) The prose is kinda bluh. In some areas it feels very elementary and basic, without personality, while in others it feels overly verbose and intelligent for Bella's character.

 

2) Stephanie Meyer goes past telling instead of showing, and actually tells us stuff that isn't being shown. Bella hates Forks and says how her days are terrible, even though people flock all over her, nothing bad actually happens, and she even seems to have enjoyable moments. I can understand her having an irrational dislike for Forks, but she should at least tell us her irrational reasons. Bella is clumsy, but only in theory; being bad at volleyball (something that's only ever told, not shown) isn't exactly clumsiness, and nearly falling down on an icy driveway seems far from clumsy. We're also told Bella doesn't relate to others, and for starters she never even says why (it's just thrown in passing), and second it's actually true. However, she goes past not relating to others but actually seeming to look down on them. Sociopath, anyone?

 

3) OMG OMG EDWARD. I didn't realize it at first, but Bella does go past reasonable worry over his actions and into paralyzing fear over him, for no reason. And then it all vanishes and she's talking to him all fine and WHAT.

 

4) WHY. WHY THIS BOOK. WHY IS THIS BOOK. WHYYYYYYYYY

[Stromboli]

And just leaving this here...

[Fortune86]

I've just heard than an adult werewolf falls in love with a newborn baby.

 

Is this true? D:

[coralkiki]

I've just heard than an adult werewolf falls in love with a newborn baby.

 

Is this true? D:

Why, yes it is. In 'Breaking Dawn' Jacob Black, a werewolf in his late teens (i think ) 'Imprints' (fancy way of saying 'finding the love of your life') with newborn half vampire half human baby Renesmee Cullen.

[Fortune86]

Isn't that pedophillia or something? D:

[Dr. Paine]

Isn't that pedophillia or something? D:

It's... ... there's just so many things wrong with imprinting, it's not even worth getting into. There's another werewolf that is now completely infatuated with a two-year-old. And is also her primary babysitter.

 

Childgrooming, hoooooooo!