stephen king on stephanie meyer - Page 3

[Viola]

Originally Posted by Oriole

* Does a good writer consist of being able to tell a good story? Or does good writing consist of sophisticated language? Does it automatically make a writer bad if they lack one or the other?

I have very low standards for what I would call a good writer. Not a great writer, but just a decent enough style that I can get through the book. Some of it is just the technical aspects of writing, some of it is the ability to conceive and craft a story. I stopped reading a book once because the writing was so bad that I couldn't tell when the transition happened, but it wasn't one of those books that was trying to be deliberately clever that way, it was just some weird kid is a demon kind of hack horror book written in the late 70's. I think the story was pretty bad too, but just the technical aspect of the writing was about what a grade school student would do. Kind of like Magic Treehouse, I couldn't read those books to my children because of the writing style, too simplistic for even a 3 year old, in my opinion.

I stopped reading a John Grisham novel 23 pages from the end because I realized I hated the story and it just wasn't that compelling enough to me. I don't know if he's a bad writer technically, but I just hated the ideas and the story.

There are some books where I just love the language, the story, the pacing, the way the characters are written. That is what I consider a great writer Some books are critically acclaimed, but for whatever reason they just don't hit with me at all. I have tried to get into Tom Robbins, but I just can't. Annie Proulx either, at least not the one novel I tried, and part of it really is their style of writing.

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by Oriole

I find it interesting how different people define good writing.

* I'm not sure I understand how can I be a bad writer if I deliver a good story in written form. The kind of story that you can't put down. That's a skill, and Meyer certainly has that skill, she knows how to grab attention of the reader and keep them turning those pages, isn't that what good writing is about? Her language is far from perfect, but the story is still good enough to keep you reading for 2000 pages straight, doesn't that count towards "good writer"?

Well, I guess it depends on the person. I couldn't get through all the books. Or rather, I did not read them cover to cover because the writing was so bad.

I basically skimmed every third chapter. I couldn't do it any other way as the writing was too painful for me.

And I did skim all 4 of the books, not because I was really that interested in the story, but because I'm also a writer and hope to be published one day. So, I like to see what is out there for young adults. I skim most young adult books like this, though some I read cover to cover with interest.

As such, to me she's neither a good writer in that book, nor a good storyteller. Her story didn't strike me as particularly original either. It was like a mix of Anne Rice, Dracula, and Buffy.

I don't, however, find it hard to believe why a bunch of teen girls would enjoy it. It's the ultimate teen angst, let's obsess about everything, fantasy.

Her previous book for adults - "The Host" - was written in a far better way. But, the plot of the book was A LOT like Body Snatchers. Almost identical. With a few original twists. However, the original twists and the writing kept me moving through the book as it was WAY better than Twilight.

Maybe she had an "off day" ... er, few years with Twilight. I was really surprised between the difference in the quality of writing in The Host and Twilight.

For me, personally, a good writer is someone who can tell an original story and write it well. So, if it's a bad story with excellent writing - half of the equation is missing. If it's a great story with bad writing - that's another half of the equation missing. No matter how good the story, the lack of quality writing has the ability to ruin it. And vice versa, of course. So, I really think both elements (quality writing and good story) are needed to be a great writer.

As such, I doubt Twilight will pass the test of time all books undergo. Heck, I doubt it will last 20 years.

[sebarnes]

You know, to me, it's not about whether or not he or anyone else thinks she's a good writer. I mean, we're all entitled to our opinions, right? What really sticks in my teeth is the absolute rudeness of it. I simply think it is horribly impolite to knock someone else in the same business you are in in such a public manner. It's demeaning, in a dismissive way that says "I'm sooo much better than you. You are like a speck of dust on my windshield."

FWIW, I think that Twilight itself was not well written, but it was her FIRST book. The storyline was engaging enough that I kept reading, and I found her writing improved through each book. For me, the pinnacle was Breaking Dawn and it makes it worth slogging through any problems in the other books. I have also found that I was able to appreciate them better rereading them and being able to move past the sometimes bad technical writing. (For me, my pet peeve word was how Edward kept being "disapproving." It made me picture him as some sort of ancient, snobby patriarch - NOT how I want to think about a hot vamp in a 17 year olds body, ya know!) And yes, The Host was written about a gazillion times better. I found myself wondering if SM had a split personality or something the writing was so different.

Also, from reading things SM has said, I am pretty sure she is probably very hurt by SK's comments. She takes things very personally.

[bigeyes]

Originally Posted by sebarnes

You know, to me, it's not about whether or not he or anyone else thinks she's a good writer. I mean, we're all entitled to our opinions, right? What really sticks in my teeth is the absolute rudeness of it. I simply think it is horribly impolite to knock someone else in the same business you are in in such a public manner. It's demeaning, in a dismissive way that says "I'm sooo much better than you. You are like a speck of dust on my windshield."

:

I'm by no means a fan of his, but I truly did think he was a decent guy. Now, not so much.

Kind of makes me think maybe Hemingway wasn't the most full of himself writer ever.

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by sebarnes

FWIW, I think that Twilight itself was not well written, but it was her FIRST book.

I thought "The Host" was her first book? Or did she write Twilight, then The Host, and then the rest of the Twilight books?

Anyway, I do agree with you - I think it's in very poor taste for a writer who has such a fan base and popularity to state something like that about another writer. It's really unnecessary. There are literary critics for that job. Especially since King isn't exactly high brow literature.

On the other hand, it's a bit hypocritical of me to say that ... because, well, I basically said the same thing in public. I'm just not famous, so she'll probably never hear my opinion. Unless she reads this board.

[the_lissa]

The Host came out in 2008.

I think Breaking Dawn was the worst book. The first half was so awful. The second hand half was decent, but just the story, not the writing. I didn't see any improvement in writing.

I think if SM has a thin skin, she is in the wrong business.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by sebarnes

You know, to me, it's not about whether or not he or anyone else thinks she's a good writer. I mean, we're all entitled to our opinions, right? What really sticks in my teeth is the absolute rudeness of it. I simply think it is horribly impolite to knock someone else in the same business you are in in such a public manner. It's demeaning, in a dismissive way that says "I'm sooo much better than you. You are like a speck of dust on my windshield."

That's what bothered me as well. Of course he is entitled to his opinion, but it seemed like a wrong thing to do to be commenting in such a way on another author. I found the comments rude, demeaning and dismissive as well. He is certainly convinced that he is better than Meyer (and I'll give him credit where credit is due, his books are written with far better sentence structure). but there is a difference in knowing I'm good at something, and at knocking others down.

I also disagree that Meyer has to have thick skin. I think people have to be civil and kind. They don't have to be either good writers or thick skinned regardless of the trade they are in, kwim?

[the_lissa]

Even if you don't agree with King commenting on Meyer, the nature of writing means criticism. So I definitely think writers or anyone in a profession involving criticism has to have a thick skin or learn not to take things personally.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by the_lissa

Even if you don't agree with King commenting on Meyer, the nature of writing means criticism. So I definitely think writers or anyone in a profession involving criticism has to have a thick skin or learn not to take things personally.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is it doesn't make one less of a person if they are sensitive. Even if someone never learns not to take things personally - I have no problem with that. Neither Meyer, nor my kids, nor myself, no anyone in my life. I can give advice "don't take it personally", but I'm okay with the fact that it's often easier said than done.

It's different with someone being mean or rude. There is an Italian expression that translates "There are ways, and there are ways..." meaning, you can bring something up in a nice way, or you can bring something up in a mean way. King didn't choose the nice way, and that's what I personally was reacting to.

[sebarnes]

Originally Posted by Sailor

I thought "The Host" was her first book? Or did she write Twilight, then The Host, and then the rest of the Twilight books?

Anyway, I do agree with you - I think it's in very poor taste for a writer who has such a fan base and popularity to state something like that about another writer. It's really unnecessary. There are literary critics for that job. Especially since King isn't exactly high brow literature.

On the other hand, it's a bit hypocritical of me to say that ... because, well, I basically said the same thing in public. I'm just not famous, so she'll probably never hear my opinion. Unless she reads this board.

The first three Twilight books were written, then The Host and Breaking Dawn were written concurrently. You're probably thinking about Forever Dawn, which we the first incarnation of Breaking Dawn which was originally supposed to be the sequel to Twilight.

[sebarnes]

Originally Posted by the_lissa

The Host came out in 2008.

I think Breaking Dawn was the worst book. The first half was so awful. The second hand half was decent, but just the story, not the writing. I didn't see any improvement in writing.

I think if SM has a thin skin, she is in the wrong business.

I'm aware there is a great divide on Breaking Dawn. I happen to be in the really like it half.

[LiamnEmma]

Originally Posted by midnightwriter

"can't write worth a darn"

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/stephen-ki...-darn/18406?nc

is JK Rowling really that much better?

I think Rowling is that much better. I don't know that she was when she wrote Philosopher's Stone, but by the end, she was definitely better. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the Twilight series relatively well, but felt like I was beyond that phase of my life--I'd have adored her in my high school years, just like I adored Judy Blume and Norma Klein in my HS years but have moved past them now. I agree with King that she's writing about feelings that teens are working on and through and that's why she speaks to them. For me, the stories were meh, but I sure got tingly at times which is always fun in the evenings...

[Valkyrie9]

I can't find the interview online, but I recall Stephen King referring to his books made into movies being like children--you raise them as best you can, and then they go out into the world and make of themselves what they will. He was saying that once he sells a book to become a movie, it is out of his hands. He does not keep creative control, and has no effect on the outcome.

What I don't understand is why he doesn't have as much right to comment on Stephenie Meyer's writing as any of the rest of us? Heaven knows there have been plenty of threads on this board about how lousy Meyer's writing is, but how enjoyable the books are in spite of it. What's the difference? Is it because he's A Sucessful Writer, and we are not? I think one person is as entitled to an opinion on a book as any other.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by LiamnEmma

I think Rowling is that much better. I don't know that she was when she wrote Philosopher's Stone, but by the end, she was definitely better.

As I said, I haven't read Twilight, but I didn't see any improvement in Rowling's writing. The first book was clearly written as a children's book, and the last book wasn't. However, I think the last book was a bit of a mess. Her pacing was terrible, and she tried to bring in too much, too fast in the last two books, especially the Deathly Hallows. I know it was deliberate, but the massive overuse of "gold" in the last book was also kind of irritating. In many ways, I think Goblet of Fire was the best...tighter than the last three, and a bit more sophisticated than the first three.

[LiamnEmma]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

As I said, I haven't read Twilight, but I didn't see any improvement in Rowling's writing. The first book was clearly written as a children's book, and the last book wasn't. However, I think the last book was a bit of a mess. Her pacing was terrible, and she tried to bring in too much, too fast in the last two books, especially the Deathly Hallows. I know it was deliberate, but the massive overuse of "gold" in the last book was also kind of irritating. In many ways, I think Goblet of Fire was the best...tighter than the last three, and a bit more sophisticated than the first three.

All right, whatever, I'm just saying she improved.

[doctormom]

Originally Posted by Sailor

Her previous book for adults - "The Host" - was written in a far better way.

I was really surprised between the difference in the quality of writing in The Host and Twilight.

I wondered whether Meyer might have a different editor - she didn't have as much repetition of language in The Host, although perhaps that's just because the alien didn't have as much opportunity to sarcastically grimace at the chuckling, dazzling vampire in a disapproving, smoldering way...

But I felt like The Host had some problematic plot holes, not least of which was how this race of physicially helpless parasitic aliens was supposed to have departed their home world in the first place. Essentially they were silver slugs, so how did they achieve space travel? If co-evolution took place with a sentient species on their home world that had achieved that level of technological sophistication, you'd think they would also have developed writing, and as such, maintain some sort of historical records.

Instead, I think Meyer just skims quickly past anything she can't figure out how to reconcile, or creates an implausible plot device - SPOILERS AHEAD Jacob conveniently falls in love with Bella & Edward's daughter, thereby resolving the romantic conflict, and Renesmee conveniently has psychic powers in utero so she can communicate, and Bella's vampire transformation conveniently leaves her completely in control of her thirst so that she can hang out with her human family after all even though as a human she was barely in control of her own life, and then Renesmee is conveniently so beautiful that everyone loves her immediately including distant acquaintances who agree to act against their own best interest by hanging around until the Volturi arrive because they are so charmed by her, not to mention she conveniently also happens to grow up supernaturally fast so that she can play a more active role when the Volturi come around.

I mean really, Meyer? Really? Deus ex machina, anyone?

TBH, I think her books are a little bit insulting to her intended demographic. Even at 12, I would have cringed at those plot loopholes.

(Although I still would have read all four books, and longed for a brooding grimacing smirking dazzling stalker vampire of my own)

[Verity]

Originally Posted by LiamnEmma

I think Rowling is that much better. I don't know that she was when she wrote Philosopher's Stone, but by the end, she was definitely better.

Rowling's writing definitely improved as the series went on. Harry and other characters "muttered" an awful lot in the first couple of books.

To me, a writer's style and word choice are problems when I notice them. I've read the the first two books in the Twilight series, not really by choice, but because my 11-year-old has started reading them and I want to be able to discuss them with her. Meyer's repetitiveness in word choice gets on my nerves. I enjoyed the story of Twilight, but New Moon, not so much.

I am so creeped out by King's subject matter that I've only read one of his books. I don't remember anything about his writing style, but by my criteria, that's a good thing, isn't it?

[savvybabygrace]

have read almost the entire collection of King's work...always loved his writing.

but seems to me that he's a bit...er....jealous....of j.k. and stephenie's HUGE obsessive following.

yeah yeah yeah don't bother telling me how many obsessive fans King has. duh, i know that. but in recent years? nope. not so much insanity over any of his books. just a case of a writer turning a bit green and trashing other writers. not cool at all.

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Oriole

I think this is a very valid point. Same here! A gem would be a book combining both, but aside from Jane Eyre, I don't think I ever found one.

Am I understanding you correctly, Oriole? The only book you have ever read that combines good storytelling with good writing is Jane Eyre? That's it?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by savvybabygrace

have read almost the entire collection of King's work...always loved his writing.

but seems to me that he's a bit...er....jealous....of j.k. and stephenie's HUGE obsessive following.

yeah yeah yeah don't bother telling me how many obsessive fans King has. duh, i know that. but in recent years? nope. not so much insanity over any of his books. just a case of a writer turning a bit green and trashing other writers. not cool at all.

I get green on behalf of writers I like. For example, it drives me around the bend that Rowling is so much more successful than Terry Pratchett, because I consider him to be a far superior writer in every respect. I try not to let it get to me, but when I consider how much it bugs me when I hear people raving about Rowling's writing, while other, better (imnsho) writers, I can only imagine what it's like to actually be that writer.

King's been working at his craft for a long time. I can understand feeling a little bitter about the "upstart".