# Stephanie Meyer vs. Ann Rice



## Thursday

Please-there's no comparison. I was happy to see the Twilight books have made quite a few 'worst fantasy' lists. All you have to do is watch _Twilight_, the movie and then watch _Interview with a Vampire_. I really don't see how people who have read both authors prefer Meyer. (They were easy to read-that's pretty much it.)


----------



## Shadoe

What? Were the people who preferred Meyer illiterate preteens? Granted, Rice often annoys me, but at least she can string a scene together. Amazing...


----------



## mythique890

I think you nailed it with the easy read comment.  People who like _Twilight_ aren't usually big readers.  I know, I know, some are, don't hurt me, Meyer fans... but IMO most people who both like Meyers and read a lot seem to be pretty young.


----------



## Linqy

I loved the Meyer books BEFORE the movies were made, and the whole series was transformed into a gooey world of desperate teens longing for a magical world.
Yes, they are easy to read but she manages to capture all the silly things we do for love in a very recognizable way AND combines that with one of the most intriguing creatures imho ever. Vampires. No other creature has inspired me as much as they have.

But still, I like Ann Rice better, but think it's a real shame that saying you like the Twilight books has become a disgrace all of a sudden these days. A real shame...


----------



## rayne

I watched the movie Twilight  first (mistake) and thought big deal.  What is all the hype about.  I read the book and then watched the movie again.  Better, but didn't leave a lasting impression.  It's an easy read and tends to keep the interest of teens.  The series would not be on my top 10 list.


----------



## Leuco

Close call, but I think Ann Rice would win. She's older and has more experience. Also, I'm betting she fights dirty.


----------



## Graffikgal

Meh.  No offense to anyone here, but I think they're both hacks.  Meyer's books are just stupid.  Rice is a self-indulgent egomaniac who evidently has something in her contract about not allowing editors to touch her work, and IMO, it suffers for it.  Page after page of drivel to describe a curtain does not a good novel make.  Granted, I enjoyed IWTV, but everything after that?  Not so much.


----------



## Shadoe

I'm not a fan of either. Rice can at least some up with interesting characters and plot, and I don't feel the urge to toss the book across the room to vent my disgust. Granted, I did have to skip entire pages of drivel to get to the story several times while reading, but still. I'll admit it's been a lifetime since I was a teenager, but the Meyer books make me fear for the future. If teenagers are really that... dumb.... bland... worthless. Of course, Bella was young. She's allowed to be all those things. Weren't the teenage-looking vampires supposed to be older?


----------



## myrddin173

Since this thread seems to be dealing more with the book versions I'm moving this to the Novel and Stories forum.


----------



## Graffikgal

Interesting read about the Twilight series:
Official: Twilight's Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship

And this except from a review at AVST Unified Communications for Business | Unified Messaging | Voicemail | Speech :

"All of these would be hugely problematic anywhere else, but Twilight has another issue that so overshadows those already mentioned that it renders them almost negligible: It reads like a do-it-yourself guide to abusive relationships.

I’m serious. Edward is moody, violent, prone to anger, jealous, and justifies any poor behavior towards Bella with excuses like “It’s just because I love you” and “It’s what’s best for you.” He works to sever all of her other social connections, leaving her entirely reliant on him – and in fact, she’s disturbingly codependent, with lines like “It would be physically painful to be separated from him.” She lives in terror of triggering one of his bad moods or making him want to leave. She describes his hands on her wrists as “manacles.” He stalks her and watches her while she sleeps and she feels flattered. He’s also insanely controlling; if he wants her to do something, she does it, and if she doesn’t hop to it, he picks her up or drags her where he wants her to be. I’m speaking very literally here – he both drags her around and pins or straps her down multiple times in this book."


----------



## Merc

Love the fact that I can be open about my hate of Stephanie Meyer here.  O.O  Ann Rice has a place in my heart, as will Interview with a Vampire, forever.


----------



## Steerpike

Plenty of intelligent, well-read people read both series.

One thing people overlook about Meyer is that as an unknown author she got a $750,000.000 advance on a first novel. 3/4 of a million bucks. So clearly the editor who bought Twilight saw something in it. And the fact that the editor not only shelled out that kind of cash but turned out to be right speaks volumes. But it is en vogue, particularly among amateur writers, to bash the work (largely if not almost entirely due to its success, in my opinion). Most writers, no matter how good, will never even come close to connecting with the level of readership that Meyer achieved.

My personal viewpoint - I liked the first three Rice books quite a bit. Those are the only three I read. Twilight is not for me, but Meyer has clearly succeeded as a story teller.


----------



## Kit

You can't compare apples and oranges. The Twilight series is written for teens, so of course it's going to be a lot more simplistic, and focussed on the things that teens focus on.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Steerpike, _Twilight_ is brilliantly marketed. The book covers alone make the series attractive. But I won't use popularity as an indicator of whether or not a story is "good."

As an experiment, I'll Google what is popular and give my honest opinion...

#1 TV show = _Dancing with the Stars_
My opinion: garbage

#1 book (on Amazon) = _Diary of a Wimpy Kid #6: Cabin Fever_
My opinion: well-written, funny, age-appropriate; I enjoyed reading #4 with one of my 6th-graders; the author deserves to be successful

#1 movie = _The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn_
My opinion: sorry... I really can't stand these! I had no idea there was a _Twilight_ movie out when I did this Google search just now, but no jealousy here--vampires and teen love are not my cup of tea, and I hope my daughters won't get into these kinds of books when they get older.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Kit said:


> You can't compare apples and oranges. The Twilight series is written for teens, so of course it's going to be a lot more simplistic, and focussed on the things that teens focus on.



There are plenty of books that are written for teens that are not offensively stupid. The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Kit

LOL. True.

I confess to having read the series. There were things I liked about it, and things I didn't like about it.


----------



## Nyx

Twilight (amidst the bad writing) was a good concept for a book, yes one maybe two at most. If she had cut Bella's moaning out I bet she would have a better book. Meyer seems to have ignored that to be believable and likeable characters have to be flawed in some way or another. Bella was perfect and it annoyed the bojangles out of me. Her writing has improved though, The Host was a much better book, plot and character wise. If she had took more time with her books which I refuse to call a saga because it isn't then I believe after a few more polishes and more character development she would have had a decent 1-2 books. The best two characters IMO were Alice and Seth, neither got that much attention sadly.

As for Anne Rice.... meh I loved IWTV but her attitude and the fact she thinks she was perfect and as said above nobody else better dare touch her work really grated on me. I could love a book or series but as soon as the author comes across like Rice I can't bring myself to buy any more of their work. It becomes tainted to me.

So on that note I prefer Meyer (I am not going to even try to spell her first name at 2am), Because she is growing as a writer. She just needs to learn a few more things about writing and she will be writing great novels. 

I also feel kinda sad when I switch on TV or go online and see her getting hate for the simple reason her books are popular. I saw the same with Harry Potter, The Wheel of Time, and A Song of Ice and Fire. [General statement not directed at any person here.]

:3


----------



## Steerpike

The marketing argument doesn't withstand scrutiny. The idea that an editor paid three quarters of a million dollars for a bad book from an unknown author with the idea that it could marketed into some kind of pop phenomenon strains credulity well past the breaking point. If that were the answer, any publisher could replicate it, but clearly that is not the case and better or more heavily marketed books fail to do nearly as well. No, an editor doesn't pay that kind of money on the gamble that a marketing effort will be a huge success. It happens when she sees something in the book that makes her think "this is going to be big." And in this case she was right.

Putting aside the marketing argument, the other arguments regarding the success of the series are always some variation of the argument that the readers of the series are not as smart as the person making the "witty" or "insightful" commentary about how bad the series is. Such arguments can and should be discarded out of hand, because it is demonstrably false that the fans of the series are a bunch of idiots. Quite the opposite, in my experience. The argument that the readers/fans are just stupid stems from insecurity and/or jealousy and/or the need to be trendy, in my opinion. I know some very smart, well-educated (and yes, well-read) people of all ages who enjoy the series a great deal.

And finally, I like to support authors. The bashing of Meyer on writing forums is not only petty and small, it is sad. Meyer is precisely the sort of person who could have been posting on a forum like this years ago (not that she did, but she's the 'kind' who could have). Unknown, unpublished, with an idea. And now look at what has happened. No matter what other arguments people offer, the most credible and reasonable explanation for her success is that she wrote a series that engaged millions of readers and achieved a following that will not be replicated, or even approximated, by 99.9% of the writers in the world, no matter how good. And you go to writing forums with other aspiring writers (or sometimes even working writers, though I find this less) and all you get is a bunch of bashing. It's a sad statement on human psychology, in my opinion.

That's easy to see, even for someone who didn't like the book Twilight.

NOTE: Nyx - you are absolutely right. It is the popularity that draws the ire of people, plain and simple. People might like or dislike it, but if it weren't so popular and loved by so many people, you wouldn't see the really irrational, frothing-at-the-mouth bashing of it. Twilight haters are even more obsessed with the work than the hardcore fans.


----------



## Nyx

In case any of that was directed at me, and, now its not 2am, I think I can write what I wanted to get across. What I really meant was that not everyone has the first book they wrote published, first novels are usually the worst writing a writer will produce so with that in mind, Twilight was the worst of her writing and that was pretty good amidst the sometimes jarring writing. The Host, her new book, is amazing compared to it. Examples are Harry Potter, Book 1 wasn't nearly as good as book 5 or 7. The guy who wrote Eragon, who only got published because his parents owned a publishing company doesn't get nearly as much hate as Meyer does and his books, even the newer one is worse than Twilight and I really wanted to like that series.  It is a real shame that most of this seems to come from the writing community, which I thought would support aspiring writers no matter what stage in their career they are in.


----------



## Steerpike

No, Nyx, I'm more or less in agreement with you, I think


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Steerpike said:


> Putting aside the marketing argument, the other arguments regarding the success of the series are always some variation of the argument that the readers of the series are not as smart as the person making the "witty" or "insightful" commentary about how bad the series is. Such arguments can and should be discarded out of hand, because it is demonstrably false that the fans of the series are a bunch of idiots. Quite the opposite, in my experience. The argument that the readers/fans are just stupid stems from insecurity and/or jealousy and/or the need to be trendy, in my opinion. I know some very smart, well-educated (and yes, well-read) people of all ages who enjoy the series a great deal.
> 
> NOTE: Nyx - you are absolutely right. It is the popularity that draws the ire of people, plain and simple. People might like or dislike it, but if it weren't so popular and loved by so many people, you wouldn't see the really irrational, frothing-at-the-mouth bashing of it. Twilight haters are even more obsessed with the work than the hardcore fans.



On the first point, I agree with you on all those points except one.  There may be well-read people who Twilight, but the vast majority of the Twilight readers that I know (talking about 99% or so) are the same people who are reading the Clique novels.  Which is fine, those books just aren't my cup of tea.  Now I am not going to insult the novels because I have never read them.  I can't say her writing sucks because I have never read her work, mainly because her plots are not something I would enjoy.  However, a 30-second commercial spot is enough for me to say that the movies are beyond terrible.

To the second point, I'm not sure how well the word duh will go over on a writers' forum, but it is applicable here.  In any area of life, nothing draws mass hatred unless it is popular.  I hate Lebron, I hate dubstep, I hate Lil Wayne, and I hate Justin Bieber.  Notice that none of these is a garage band or an average high school athlete from Michigan.  Why?  Because bad isn't a really strong reason for hate.  Neither is terrible.  _Overrated_ is.  Popular for no reason, or for bad reasons, is a much better catalyst for hate.  So don't play that ridiculous card.  If her books weren't popular, there would be no chance to hate it.  I could write the single worst book in the world and nobody would hate it, or even care, unless a bunch of stupid people went to the stores, bought it, and made me famous.  And you have to be more than famous, you have to have a following.  Notice that I said I hated Lil Wayne, not Soulja Boy or Waka Flocka.  Wayne is clearly better but because, despite their fame, almost everyone I know accepts the fact that both of the latter two are terrible, I just don't care about them.  However, I have a lot of friends that love Lil Wayne, and I think he is awful, so his music stirs a passionate hate in me.  I personally didn't know Meyer's name before this thread popped up, and I don't care about her writing either way, so I can't hate it.


----------



## Steerpike

Elder the Dwarf said:


> Why?  Because bad isn't a really strong reason for hate.  Neither is terrible.  _Overrated_ is.  Popular for no reason, or for bad reasons, is a much better catalyst for hate.



This is all true. My point, however, is that the mere popularity alone is the reason for the bashing you see on internet forums, without any real regard to whether it is deserved or not. It's just a knee-jerk response; people doing what they think it is cool to do. And then follow the rationalizations to explain away, generally in an insulting manner, all of those who like the work.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Thanks for clarifying, that makes more sense.  Sorry, I think I was just feeling a rant.


----------



## Steerpike

Elder the Dwarf said:


> Thanks for clarifying, that makes more sense.  Sorry, I think I was just feeling a rant.



No worries. Feel free to rant away  I have a thick skin and enjoy a spirited debate. And I also can't stand Lil Wayne, so I am well-disposed toward you!


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Steerpike,

Just to clarify, I don't hate Meyers or Rowling or any other writer who hit it big on the first book. I'm not jealous of popularity.

Basically, Elder has a good explanation of why feelings tend to be strong. Popularity intensifies people's expressed feelings. Like vs. dislike escalates to love vs. hate. I think that's true for younger people. I'm well into my thirties, so I really tend to ignore things that I'm not into.

I was being objective when I said Twilight was brilliantly marketed. I like the black/white/red cover art. But I'm not big on vampires, and the genre isn't something I'd encourage my kids to read either. (This is not to say I'd _dis_courage vampire novels.) I also don't like Harry Potter, but think it's an appropriate YA series, so I probably will encourage my kids to read it when they get older.

Simply put, when a book/series is popular, I hear things and make judgement calls. Game of Thrones = my cup of tea, so Martin wins another reader. Rice and Meyers don't have a chance with me, but if other people love their work that's okay with me.


----------



## Steerpike

Legendary Sidekick: Thanks for clarifying. I think I did misread your post. I agree that the marketing was excellent; I'm just saying that marketing alone doesnt' explain the success and the editor would never have paid that kind of money for something she thought was bad but marketable. I won't belabor the point further - sorry  I just start from the premise that I know well-educated professionals and academics, ranging in age from their 20s into their 50s, in addition to teens, who love the books. And since I know these people, and know they are not stupid, I reject out of hand any argument for the success of Twilight that hinges on the stupidity of the readers.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> My point, however, is that the mere popularity alone is the reason for the bashing you see on internet forums, without any real regard to whether it is deserved or not.



That doesn't really make sense; there are loads of popular things that don't get one percent of the vitriol directed at them that Twilight does. Twilight gets mass-bashed because it's popular _and awful_. Yes, there's no doubt some me-tooism there, but you could say the exact same thing about Twilight itself: some people only like it because it's already popular to like it.


----------



## Kit

Steerpike said:


> the editor would never have paid that kind of money for something she thought was bad but marketable..



Hell, I would, if I was an editor. If I thought, "This is the worst piece of crap I ever read, but I know I can peddle a bazillion copies of it,"  I'd blush all the way to the bank. Nobody's forcing people to buy it. There's all kinds of horrible garbage out there that is wildly popular for some weird reason(s).



Steerpike said:


> I just start from the premise that I know well-educated professionals and academics, ranging in age from their 20s into their 50s, in addition to teens, who love the books. And since I know these people, and know they are not stupid, I reject out of hand any argument for the success of Twilight that hinges on the stupidity of the readers.



Glad to hear that, since I (middle-aged bachelor's-degree-holding professional) have already admitted to reading them. They're not anything to rave about, but good enough to finish, and I've read plenty worse.


----------



## Steerpike

Kit said:


> Hell, I would, if I was an editor. If I thought, "This is the worst piece of crap I ever read, but I know I can peddle a bazillion copies of it,"  I'd blush all the way to the bank. Nobody's forcing people to buy it. There's all kinds of horrible garbage out there that is wildly popular for some weird reason(s).



Let me rephrase 

A publisher is not going to pay 3/4 of a million dollars, in advance, for a book that is terrible, on the chance that they can market it sufficiently to make hundreds of millions of dollars. The editor clearly saw something of merit in the work, and turned out, in fact, to be correct in seeing whatever it was that made her pay that much.


----------



## Masronyx

I've read Anne Rice.  I cannot get through her rich writing. Somehow, I made it through Interview With the Vampire. I loved it.  Her writing, for me, is way too rich, way too detailed, way too much for me.  But she is one of the best writers out there.

Stephanie Meyer? not so much. I TRIED to read Twilight. Poor poor writing.  It's called an editing process for a reason, and she appeared to not use it.  Not to mention VAMPIRES DO NOT SPARKLE!!!!

Meyer totally ruined vampires as a genre.  As a friend once told me:  "Vampires live to eat and eat to live".  

I used to write vampire stories.  I stopped after the Twilight craze started.  It's hard to get back into it because I wonder if I'm 'humanizing' them like Meyer did.  But at the same time, she created a market for it, and she was followed by these other vampire series such as "Vampire Academy" and "The Vampire Diaries".  Unfortunately, writers have to look at the market and see what's flying off the shelves.


----------



## Nyx

The Vampire Diaries was out long before Twilight, it's just recently that it got a TV Show.


----------



## Masronyx

Nyx said:


> The Vampire Diaries was out long before Twilight, it's just recently that it got a TV Show.



Really? Huh. That just shows you how  well I keep up with what's popular these days...


----------



## Shadoe

Sorry, Steerpike, but you're wrong, and should certainly be, as you say, discarded out of hand.

The fact that the books have fans isn't enough to make Meyer a good writer, the stories good stories, or the movies good movies. I've read a lot of bad fiction at fanfiction.net, and I would say that an eighth of that is better than the drivel Meyer put out. No, I'm not exaggerating. I've seen some great characterization and very original ideas there - neither of which is present in the Meyer books I've seen.

The character Bella is... just stupid. She's not interesting, she's not attractive, she's not admirable. She's just stupid. I've raised three teenage girls with more sense than she displays in the books or movies. The only contribution she makes to the world is to provide an example of what not to be to my youngest teenage girl, and as the butt of jokes. Both of which she excels at.

Amazingly, they made the movie Bella even worse. They could not have chosen a worse actress for the role. Or perhaps they chose a perfect one, because the girl simply cannot convey emotion on the screen. I'm sure Chris Weitz wanted to shoot himself in the head trying to get some kind of emotion out of her. Or wanted to shoot Catherine Hardwicke in the face for casting her in the first place. Catherine Hardwicke can't be faulted too much - she has no experience at casting or directing. Can't imagine why they let her deal with the movie in the first place.

Are the fans of the series idiots? Well, I can't say they all are, but I can say that my four well-read daughters didn't like it. I have two friends with teenage daughters and they just LOVED the books - they are idiots. Not because they loved the books, but because they were idiots to begin with, st is not surprising that they loved the books. Everyone I've seen who liked the books didn't strike me as particularly discerning or well-read. I'm not saying that everyone who likes the books is an idiot, but all the idiots I know who've read them sure like them.

I don't know why the books are popular or why the movies are. The books are not well written, plotted or characterized. The story is ridiculous, amateur, and cliche. The movies are neither well-written nor well-acted.

The offensive thing about the books and the movies is that it's aimed at children and it's immoral. By "immoral," I don't mean "it's not based on the bible," I mean it's geared toward making children believe that being stupid is acceptable. I wouldn't encourage a teen to read this book for the same reason I don't allow my son to play games like Grand Theft Auto.

Having been around a while and seen the tricks, I think the series is popular not in spite of being stupid, but because it's stupid. Our society has been dumbing down for decades and this is what comes of it. The story features characters who do the dumbest things for nonexistent reasons - kind of like a great many Americans, and certainly the majority of American teenage girls. This book allows them to look at someone who is even stupider than they are and think, "Hey, if she can be loved in spite of how horrible she is, then maybe I can too." This offends me as much as the popularity of "reality" shows and Kim Kardashian.

You may pretend that I hold this opinion from jealously alone, and that may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling toward your own superiority. You would, however, be wrong. I base my opinion on forty years of reading both good and bad works, and being a huge movie fan. It doesn't make me jealous that a writer makes it big - that means I get to read more books. Though I'll admit I only read books that have *something *to recommend them. It doesn't make me jealous that a movie makes it big, even if it's bad. I judge a movie first on how much I like it, but then I judge it on how well it's made. I've been known to enjoy many movies that were not well made, and many that were not popular. But putting a poor story with poor characters and poor script together with a poor cast is inexcusable outside of the SyFy Channel's Saturday night lineup.

Go ahead, call me "jealous" if it makes you feel better about yourself. But I'm not wrong.


----------



## Nyx

The first 3 were published in '91 as a box trilogy. Don't feel bad I had to google it a while ago as I wasn't sure whatcame first either xD
The Vampire Diaries (novel series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Shadoe said:


> Sorry, Steerpike, but you're wrong, and should certainly be, as you say, discarded out of hand.
> 
> The fact that the books have fans isn't enough to make Meyer a good writer, the stories good stories, or the movies good movies. I've read a lot of bad fiction at fanfiction.net, and I would say that an eighth of that is better than the drivel Meyer put out. No, I'm not exaggerating. I've seen some great characterization and very original ideas there - neither of which is present in the Meyer books I've seen.
> 
> The character Bella is... just stupid. She's not interesting, she's not attractive, she's not admirable. She's just stupid. I've raised three teenage girls with more sense than she displays in the books or movies. The only contribution she makes to the world is to provide an example of what not to be to my youngest teenage girl, and as the butt of jokes. Both of which she excels at.
> 
> Amazingly, they made the movie Bella even worse. They could not have chosen a worse actress for the role. Or perhaps they chose a perfect one, because the girl simply cannot convey emotion on the screen. I'm sure Chris Weitz wanted to shoot himself in the head trying to get some kind of emotion out of her. Or wanted to shoot Catherine Hardwicke in the face for casting her in the first place. Catherine Hardwicke can't be faulted too much - she has no experience at casting or directing. Can't imagine why they let her deal with the movie in the first place.
> 
> Are the fans of the series idiots? Well, I can't say they all are, but I can say that my four well-read daughters didn't like it. I have two friends with teenage daughters and they just LOVED the books - they are idiots. Not because they loved the books, but because they were idiots to begin with, st is not surprising that they loved the books. Everyone I've seen who liked the books didn't strike me as particularly discerning or well-read. I'm not saying that everyone who likes the books is an idiot, but all the idiots I know who've read them sure like them.
> 
> I don't know why the books are popular or why the movies are. The books are not well written, plotted or characterized. The story is ridiculous, amateur, and cliche. The movies are neither well-written nor well-acted.
> 
> The offensive thing about the books and the movies is that it's aimed at children and it's immoral. By "immoral," I don't mean "it's not based on the bible," I mean it's geared toward making children believe that being stupid is acceptable. I wouldn't encourage a teen to read this book for the same reason I don't allow my son to play games like Grand Theft Auto.
> 
> Having been around a while and seen the tricks, I think the series is popular not in spite of being stupid, but because it's stupid. Our society has been dumbing down for decades and this is what comes of it. The story features characters who do the dumbest things for nonexistent reasons - kind of like a great many Americans, and certainly the majority of American teenage girls. This book allows them to look at someone who is even stupider than they are and think, "Hey, if she can be loved in spite of how horrible she is, then maybe I can too." This offends me as much as the popularity of "reality" shows and Kim Kardashian.
> 
> You may pretend that I hold this opinion from jealously alone, and that may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling toward your own superiority. You would, however, be wrong. I base my opinion on forty years of reading both good and bad works, and being a huge movie fan. It doesn't make me jealous that a writer makes it big - that means I get to read more books. Though I'll admit I only read books that have *something *to recommend them. It doesn't make me jealous that a movie makes it big, even if it's bad. I judge a movie first on how much I like it, but then I judge it on how well it's made. I've been known to enjoy many movies that were not well made, and many that were not popular. But putting a poor story with poor characters and poor script together with a poor cast is inexcusable outside of the SyFy Channel's Saturday night lineup.
> 
> Go ahead, call me "jealous" if it makes you feel better about yourself. But I'm not wrong.



Hahaha sorry that was really funny.  Very well thought out rant, I commend you Shadoe.  I think the SyFy channel part was my favorite (I think they played a movie called Sharktopus the other night).


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Shadoe said:


> Sorry, Steerpike, but you're wrong, and should certainly be, as you say, discarded out of hand.
> 
> The fact that the books have fans isn't enough to make Meyer a good writer, the stories good stories, or the movies good movies. I've read a lot of bad fiction at fanfiction.net, and I would say that an eighth of that is better than the drivel Meyer put out. No, I'm not exaggerating. I've seen some great characterization and very original ideas there - neither of which is present in the Meyer books I've seen.
> 
> The character Bella is... just stupid. She's not interesting, she's not attractive, she's not admirable. She's just stupid. I've raised three teenage girls with more sense than she displays in the books or movies. The only contribution she makes to the world is to provide an example of what not to be to my youngest teenage girl, and as the butt of jokes. Both of which she excels at.
> 
> Amazingly, they made the movie Bella even worse. They could not have chosen a worse actress for the role. Or perhaps they chose a perfect one, because the girl simply cannot convey emotion on the screen. I'm sure Chris Weitz wanted to shoot himself in the head trying to get some kind of emotion out of her. Or wanted to shoot Catherine Hardwicke in the face for casting her in the first place. Catherine Hardwicke can't be faulted too much - she has no experience at casting or directing. Can't imagine why they let her deal with the movie in the first place.
> 
> Are the fans of the series idiots? Well, I can't say they all are, but I can say that my four well-read daughters didn't like it. I have two friends with teenage daughters and they just LOVED the books - they are idiots. Not because they loved the books, but because they were idiots to begin with, st is not surprising that they loved the books. Everyone I've seen who liked the books didn't strike me as particularly discerning or well-read. I'm not saying that everyone who likes the books is an idiot, but all the idiots I know who've read them sure like them.
> 
> I don't know why the books are popular or why the movies are. The books are not well written, plotted or characterized. The story is ridiculous, amateur, and cliche. The movies are neither well-written nor well-acted.
> 
> The offensive thing about the books and the movies is that it's aimed at children and it's immoral. By "immoral," I don't mean "it's not based on the bible," I mean it's geared toward making children believe that being stupid is acceptable. I wouldn't encourage a teen to read this book for the same reason I don't allow my son to play games like Grand Theft Auto.
> 
> Having been around a while and seen the tricks, I think the series is popular not in spite of being stupid, but because it's stupid. Our society has been dumbing down for decades and this is what comes of it. The story features characters who do the dumbest things for nonexistent reasons - kind of like a great many Americans, and certainly the majority of American teenage girls. This book allows them to look at someone who is even stupider than they are and think, "Hey, if she can be loved in spite of how horrible she is, then maybe I can too." This offends me as much as the popularity of "reality" shows and Kim Kardashian.
> 
> You may pretend that I hold this opinion from jealously alone, and that may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling toward your own superiority. You would, however, be wrong. I base my opinion on forty years of reading both good and bad works, and being a huge movie fan. It doesn't make me jealous that a writer makes it big - that means I get to read more books. Though I'll admit I only read books that have *something *to recommend them. It doesn't make me jealous that a movie makes it big, even if it's bad. I judge a movie first on how much I like it, but then I judge it on how well it's made. I've been known to enjoy many movies that were not well made, and many that were not popular. But putting a poor story with poor characters and poor script together with a poor cast is inexcusable outside of the SyFy Channel's Saturday night lineup.
> 
> Go ahead, call me "jealous" if it makes you feel better about yourself. But I'm not wrong.



Hahaha sorry that was really funny.  Very well thought out rant, I commend you Shadoe.  I think the SyFy channel part was my favorite (I think they played a movie called Sharktopus the other night).


----------



## Masronyx

I've got another:

Amelia Atwater-Rhodes.  Her first book "In the Forests of the Night" was the first vampire novel I ever read at the age of 13.  She was 14 when she wrote that novel.  She is 2 years my senior.  Her writing then is way better and surpasses any of Meyer's Twilight.  Atwater-Rhodes was the one who inspired me to keep writing and to pursue the craft through high school and beyond. It was her that got me into vampires.  I even had this imaginary contest between me and her in my head at one point.  I still read her works as a guilty pleasure even though it's written for the young adult crowd.  

I just wanted to add that.


----------



## Masronyx

Nyx said:


> The first 3 were published in '91 as a box trilogy. Don't feel bad I had to google it a while ago as I wasn't sure whatcame first either xD
> The Vampire Diaries (novel series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You know what? As soon as I read that article, I remembered seeing a couple of those books at my local library...I just now made the connection... *face palm*


----------



## Steerpike

Shadoe said:


> But I'm not wrong.



You are wrong, but do not come across as particularly open-minded so I won't belabor the point. The gist is that you're smart, the others are stupid, yadda yadda. Got it.


----------



## Shadoe

Elder the Dwarf said:


> Hahaha sorry that was really funny.  Very well thought out rant, I commend you Shadoe.  I think the SyFy channel part was my favorite (I think they played a movie called Sharktopus the other night).


SyFy has some of the most awful programming in their movies. They all come from just a handful of production houses where they are written and produced in house. Notice that their programming is aimed primarily at teenage boys and you'll see the common thread.

Though, being a fan of B-movies, I can get into them sometimes. Oh hell, I'm a fan of just about all movies.


----------



## Shadoe

Steerpike said:


> You are wrong, but do not come across as particularly open-minded so I won't belabor the point. The gist is that you're smart, the others are stupid, yadda yadda. Got it.


Pot, meet kettle. 

I'm plenty open-minded, which is why I read the first books and watched the first movies. At no point did I say "others" were wrong. I said the books and movies were not quality products, and the actor choices were abysmal. You'll find I'm far from alone in that opinion. I also do not base my opinion on jealousy, as you have assumed. As a matter of fact, you've decided everyone here is jealous of Meyer and so has based all their opinions on jealousy. In fact, you have assumed everyone in the world who sees the series as poor quality is simply jealous of Meyer. On top of that assumption, you refuse to accept ANY explanation for that opinion that is contrary to your assumption. And yet, you have the nerve to make assumptions about ME, who you don't even know.

If you feel I'm wrong, find something I said that was wrong and discuss it. Don't make assumptions about what I've said before you've even bothered to read it.


----------



## Kelise

Guys, please be polite. It's a bit disappointing I've had to say this twice now in as many days. 

Please discuss and by all means, disagree, but be mature and respectful about it.


----------



## Graffikgal

Steerpike said:


> Plenty of intelligent, well-read people read both series.
> 
> One thing people overlook about Meyer is that as an unknown author she got a $750,000.000 advance on a first novel. 3/4 of a million bucks. So clearly the editor who bought Twilight saw something in it. And the fact that the editor not only shelled out that kind of cash but turned out to be right speaks volumes. But it is en vogue, particularly among amateur writers, to bash the work (largely if not almost entirely due to its success, in my opinion). Most writers, no matter how good, will never even come close to connecting with the level of readership that Meyer achieved.
> 
> My personal viewpoint - I liked the first three Rice books quite a bit. Those are the only three I read. Twilight is not for me, but Meyer has clearly succeeded as a story teller.



So, at one time Gilligan's Island and Baywatch were two of the most popular shows around the world.  In comparison, PBS' Masterpiece Theater has and had at that time a minuscule audience.  By your logic, both Gilligan's Island and Baywatch were great shows, and Masterpiece was not.

Popularity means nothing when judging whether a product is a quality product, IMO.  Lots of crap has sold like hotcakes over the years.  Remember pet rocks?  The Don Johnson look of the '80s? Gaggage Patch Kids?  Obviously, your mileage may vary.  I'm good with that.  

And as far as the amateur writers comment, I have no dog in that fight as I do not profess to be a writer or to play one on TV.  I'm just someone who was passing through and found it an interesting board, so I started a topic or two.  I return periodically because I keep getting notifications from said topics, and I enjoy reading the responses.  

Additionally, I don't feel any need to bash people who enjoy the _Twilight _series.  I know intelligent people who enjoy the books.  I know stupid people who enjoy them.  I don't think the intelligence of the audience is an issue.  It boils down to a matter of taste, and this author isn't for me.

Best thing I can think of to say about the _Twilight_ books?  They get people who might not otherwise read to do so.  That is awesome.  I'm all for anything that gets people to pick up a book.  But the books themselves?  Major suckage.  

Just my opinion.  And that and a dollar will buy ya a cup o'coffee.  

Oh, and as an aside to the people reading this who enjoy vampire novels, check out Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Saint Germain books.  I think they're great.  Maybe you will too.

One more edit because I want to acknowledge something else Steerpike said upthread.  He is absolutely right that Meyer has succeeded as a storyteller.  Clearly, the woman was able to intuit something about the need of her audience and deliver it.  However, there is a difference between being a good storyteller and a good writer.


----------



## Steerpike

Graffikgal said:


> So, at one time Gilligan's Island and Baywatch were two of the most popular shows around the world.  In comparison, PBS' Masterpiece Theater has and had at that time a minuscule audience.  By your logic, both Gilligan's Island and Baywatch were great shows, and Masterpiece was not.
> 
> Popularity means nothing when judging whether a product is a quality product, IMO.  Lots of crap has sold like hotcakes over the years.  Remember pet rocks?  The Don Johnson look of the '80s? Gaggage Patch Kids?  Obviously, your mileage may vary.  I'm good with that.
> 
> And as far as the amateur writers comment, I have no dog in that fight as I do not profess to be a writer or to play one on TV.  I'm just someone who was passing through and found it an interesting board, so I started a topic or two.  I return periodically because I keep getting notifications from said topics, and I enjoy reading the responses.
> 
> Additionally, I don't feel any need to bash people who enjoy the _Twilight _series.  I know intelligent people who enjoy the books.  I know stupid people who enjoy them.  I don't think the intelligence of the audience is an issue.  It boils down to a matter of taste, and this author isn't for me.
> 
> Best thing I can think of to say about the _Twilight_ books?  They get people who might not otherwise read to do so.  That is awesome.  I'm all for anything that gets people to pick up a book.  But the books themselves?  Major suckage.
> 
> Just my opinion.  And that and a dollar will buy ya a cup o'coffee.
> 
> Oh, and as an aside to the people reading this who enjoy vampire novels, check out Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Saint Germain books.  I think they're great.  Maybe you will too.
> 
> One more edit because I want to acknowledge something else Steerpike said upthread.  He is absolutely right that Meyer has succeeded as a storyteller.  Clearly, the woman was able to intuit something about the need of her audience and deliver it.  However, there is a difference between being a good storyteller and a good writer.



Graffikgal:

I agree that popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality. That portion of my argument is only to demonstrate that on some level, as a story teller, Meyer has achieved something that most writers will never replicate. She managed to connect extraordinarily well with an audience, and that is an achievement. It doesn't mean the writing is good (my view is that it is mediocre), but I think storytelling can save mediocre writing (and bad storytelling can ruin good writing).

There are a number of reasons why you, or I, or anyone else might dislike Twilight. Tastes vary, and that is a good thing. My comments are directed only at the completely irrational rant-level hatred of the work you find on writing sites (and elsewhere, but often on writing sites). It is ridiculous. And it can almost always be reduced to "gee, I'm so smart and those people who like the books are so stupid." Because I know, empirically, that this is not the case, there has to be something else at work. Amongst other striving writers, jealousy is a prime candidate. I suppose it could be just plain old irrationality and a juvenile temperament as well, but I suspect envy fits in there some place.

So, while we may see plenty of people who dislike the books, and who can discuss it rationally just as with any other work of writing, and allow that comments from those with an opposing viewpoint may be valid, and also allow that intelligent people may take the opposing view, when the subject of Twilight comes up you will always find a few (as evidenced by this thread) who take the irrational view that everyone who disagrees with them is simply an idiot. It is an unfortunate thing to see on a discussion site, but there you have it.

As for Chelsea Quinn Yarbro - I read something by her years ago and remember it being quite good. I can't remember what it was, but it may have had vampires in it. This would have been late 80s or early 90s. Does that series go back that far?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> I agree that popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality.



I seriously can't believe it's 2011 and this discussion still happens.

Quality and popularity are 100% orthogonal, and have absolutely _literally_ nothing to do with each other. *Nothing.* Popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality because popularity _is not_ an indicator of quality. Ever. At all. To even the slightest degree.

Popularity is a perfectly *objective* measure: it's the number (or percentage) of people who like something, or at least have purchased it. (If 20 million people buy a book, it's popular, even if 99% of them read it and think it sucks.) You can count it, and it can't be argued with (aside from errors in counting).

Quality is a perfectly *subjective* measure, because it depends entirely on the point of view of an individual viewer. Independent of anything _anyone_ else may say, I may read a book and decide that it is the greatest thing ever written. Entirely independent of that, someone else may read the same book and decide that it is the worst piece of vile trash ever to sully paper. Neither of us is "right" or "wrong" or has our position supported by the book's popularity or lack thereof. I, who decide the book is the greatest thing ever, am not wrong or even _slightly more_ wrong if everyone else on the entire planet thinks the book sucks. The guy who thinks the book is vile trash is not wrong if everyone else in the entire universe thinks the book is the greatest thing since whatever was the greatest thing before sliced bread.

Now, the more popular something is, the more probable it is (on average) that a new reader will like it. But there is still no such thing as objective quality of a work of art.


----------



## Shadoe

starconstant said:


> Guys, please be polite. It's a bit disappointing I've had to say this twice now in as many days.
> 
> Please discuss and by all means, disagree, but be mature and respectful about it.


That's actually the point I was trying to make. I, and many, many others, have perfectly logical, sound reasons for not liking the books and the movies. But all those reasons are ignored in favor of name-calling. Everyone here was called insecure, jealous, trendy, petty, and small. (Yes, those are direct quotes.) We were accused of bashing and telling falsehoods. (Quoting again.) Any and all explanations of the reasoning were "dismissed out of hand," simply because one person did not agree with the concepts presented. The behavior was repeated even as explanations were ignored.

Unfortunately, my point was entirely missed by the person it was aimed at.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Shadoe said:


> SyFy has some of the most awful programming in their movies. They all come from just a handful of production houses where they are written and produced in house. Notice that their programming is aimed primarily at teenage boys and you'll see the common thread.
> 
> Though, being a fan of B-movies, I can get into them sometimes. Oh hell, I'm a fan of just about all movies.



I'm a teenage boy and the only time I flip to one of those movies is to laugh my ass off haha.  For the most part, they are really, really bad, and you can tell by just reading the title.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

I haven't watched The Sci Fi Channel since _MST3K_ was cancelled. I didn't think the channel could sink any lower... then they changed their name to "SyFy."


----------



## Steerpike

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I haven't watched The Sci Fi Channel since _MST3K_ was cancelled. I didn't think the channel could sink any lower... then they changed their name to "SyFy."



Partly a trademark issue, from what I understand. But yes, the channel is pretty bad.


----------



## Graffikgal

Evening Steerpike,

I mostly agree with everything you said, but I am not sure about people being jealous or envious of Meyer's success.  They may or not be.  In fact,  I am sure _some_are, but I tend to believe that for many writers who have struggled to succeed it may be more of a sense of injustice and frustration.  It has to be difficult to accept that you believe you have something of substance to offer and struggle to get it out there while someone you think has a substandard product seems to succeed with little effort.  If I was a writer or artist, it would frustrate me.  ;-)

Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's first Saint Germain book was called The Hotel Transylvania and it was written in 1978.  The latest installment of the series was released earlier this year, and she has another one due out in 2012.  I really need to play catch-up with this series.  There a few of 'em I haven't read.  

Here's the Wiki page for Yarbro with a complete listing of each novel in the series.  There's also a listing for spinoff series like the Atta Olivia Clemens books.

Chelsea Quinn Yarbro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a good evening.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I haven't watched The Sci Fi Channel since _MST3K_ was cancelled. I didn't think the channel could sink any lower... then they changed their name to "SyFy."



_Battlestar Galactica_ was pretty damn good. ;-)


----------



## Steerpike

Graffikgal said:


> Evening Steerpike,
> 
> I mostly agree with everything you said, but I am not sure about people being jealous or envious of Meyer's success.  They may or not be.  In fact,  I am sure _some_are, but I tend to believe that for many writers who have struggled to succeed it may be more of a sense of injustice and frustration.  It has to be difficult to accept that you believe you have something of substance to offer and struggle to get it out there while someone you think has a substandard product seems to succeed with little effort.  If I was a writer or artist, it would frustrate me.  ;-)
> 
> Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's first Saint Germain book was called The Hotel Transylvania and it was written in 1978.  The latest installment of the series was released earlier this year, and she has another one due out in 2012.  I really need to play catch-up with this series.  There a few of 'em I haven't read.
> 
> Here's the Wiki page for Yarbro with a complete listing of each novel in the series.  There's also a listing for spinoff series like the Atta Olivia Clemens books.
> 
> Chelsea Quinn Yarbro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Have a good evening.



Thanks, Graffikgal. 

I think the frustration or argument of injustice is little better than the others. I think you may very well be correct, but it is not a flattering position for the person making the argument, for many of the same reasons given above. I again go back to the history of the book Twilight, and I think it strains credulity that it is all the result of a cleverly-marketed, terrible book with stupid readers. Looking it up real quick, I see info about the advance, that it debuted at number 5 on the NY Times bestseller list within a month, was a publisher's weekly best book of 2008 (for kids), received good critical reviews, including from The Times, and the like. To be sure it also got its share of negative press. But the idea that this was all the result of clever marketing, pulling the wool over people's eyes in the hopes that a bad product would justify the ridiculous advance - well, that's nonsense. A vast number of people like it, and the editor recognized it. But I realize I am repeating myself 

To me, this shows that story telling trumps technical writing proficiency. Let's take a look at four bona fide literary phenomena of the last decade or so (only one of which I like).

1) Twilight has been discussed to death. I finished the first book. It isn't for me. The writing is mediocre (not terrible, certainly not great), but nevertheless Meyer found a huge audience to connect with her story and characters. Her book The Host, which is actually pretty good and in my view much better than Twilight, will never get that kind of following.

2) Eragon. I couldn't get through book one. I think the writing is a couple notches below Meyer. Nevertheless, Paolini connected with a vast audience. And I'm glad he was successful with it. So what if I didn't like it personally?

3) The Da Vinci Code. Another book I did not like. I do not think the writing is all that great, and I could just never get into it. But a lot of people love the work and love Dan Brown. Good for Dan Brown - I'm glad to see him or any other writer achieve a tremendous success.

4) Harry Potter. These books I did like. The writing is competent. Rowling is no Nabokov, but she did a decent job from that angle. The story itself wasn't entirely new. You could find other examples of similar stories preceding Rowling. But the story she told connected with millions of readers, as did her characters. That can't be said for the other works that preceded her. So hats off to Rowling. I'm glad she pulled it off.

In each of those instances, there is nothing extraordinary about the writing itself. But there is some, perhaps intangible, quality that resonates with the readers (who are not idiots in any of the instances mentioned above). I'm glad to see it, personally. It makes me happy to see any writer go from obscurity to success. This could be the topic of another thread, I suppose, but a person who has top-notch technical skills in terms of the actual prose, but who can't tell a story or can't create a story readers care about will never come close to the level of success of these examples of writers who are less than excellent from a technical standpoint.

EDIT: I looked at the Chelsea Quinn Yarbro page. I'm sure it was one of those I read, but it has been so long. Now I have more books to add to my ever-growing pile of books to read


----------



## Shadoe

Elder the Dwarf said:


> I'm a teenage boy and the only time I flip to one of those movies is to laugh my ass off haha.  For the most part, they are really, really bad, and you can tell by just reading the title.


You're not the first teenage boy who's told me this. And yet, SyFy is still programming to that mythical creature. I don't know why. It's made the channel a lot less interesting, I think.


----------



## Shadoe

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> _Battlestar Galactica_ was pretty damn good. ;-)


Yeah, and if you'll notice, they've tried to copy it ever since. They're constantly running with the big mystery of who the bad guy is, and everyone in conflict.


----------



## Kit

Shadoe said:


> The character Bella is... just stupid. She's not interesting, she's not attractive, she's not admirable. She's just stupid. I've raised three teenage girls with more sense than she displays in the books or movies. The only contribution she makes to the world is to provide an example of what not to be to my youngest teenage girl, and as the butt of jokes. Both of which she excels at.
> .



She is angst-ridden and has crappy self esteem, like 98% of teenage girls. They can relate to her. They relate to her BECAUSE she is so "normal".


----------



## Shadoe

Kit said:


> She is angst-ridden and has crappy self esteem, like 98% of teenage girls. They can relate to her. They relate to her BECAUSE she is so "normal".


None of my teenage girls (5 now) were that dumb. Or that.... bland. Of the three who expressed an opinion on Bella, they thought she was stupid and boring. I don't think my girls are supergeniuses, or that far from the norm.


----------



## Steerpike

Teenage girls tends to be pretty smart. Which again gives the lie to the idea that fans of Twilight are stupid. The vast majority of the fans of the work, whether teens or otherwise, are intelligent and curious individuals. The characterization of fans of the work as stupid is a myth perpetuated by those who claim to dislike the work (but who are nevertheless obsessed with it).


----------



## Shadoe

That is preposterous.


----------



## Steerpike

Shadoe said:


> That is preposterous.



Not really. The evidence:

1. Plenty of people who like Twilight are bright, intelligent individuals;
2. Plenty of people who dislike Twilight claim those who like it are stupid;
3...

Well, there is no need for #3. Items 1 and 2 support my point. Anyone who thinks fans of Twilight are all stupid is wrong, and since it is hard to believe they do  not know they are wrong it is open season on possible motives


----------



## Shadoe

So let me see if I understand your reasoning. If lots of people like a thing, then anyone who thinks that thing is stupid are just wrong and jealous, and there is absolutely no possibility of any other explanation for the motives of the people who think the thing is stupid. It cannot possibly BE stupid, because lots of people like a thing.

So, by that reasoning, WWF, that Kardashian show, Jersey Shore, Happy Days, Dancing With the Stars, That 70s Show, and Sabrina, the Teenage Witch are all examples of shows we must all love if you are to consider us not stupid.

Does that about cover your concept?


----------



## Kit

Shadoe said:


> None of my teenage girls (5 now) were that dumb. Or that.... bland. Of the three who expressed an opinion on Bella, they thought she was stupid and boring. I don't think my girls are supergeniuses, or that far from the norm.



Good for them!

Having BEEN a teenage girl, though, I can tell you that many of us spent a lot of time *feeling* dumb even if we were not in fact dumb.


----------



## Shadoe

Kit said:


> Good for them!
> 
> Having BEEN a teenage girl, though, I can tell you that many of us spent a lot of time *feeling* dumb even if we were not in fact dumb.


Feeling dumb when you're not dumb is infinitely preferable to feeling smart when you are, in reality, dumb.


----------



## Steerpike

Shadoe said:


> So let me see if I understand your reasoning. If lots of people like a thing, then anyone who thinks that thing is stupid are just wrong and jealous, and there is absolutely no possibility of any other explanation for the motives of the people who think the thing is stupid. It cannot possibly BE stupid, because lots of people like a thing.
> 
> So, by that reasoning, WWF, that Kardashian show, Jersey Shore, Happy Days, Dancing With the Stars, That 70s Show, and Sabrina, the Teenage Witch are all examples of shows we must all love if you are to consider us not stupid.
> 
> Does that about cover your concept?



No, that's not an accurate reading in the least.

The argument that is made, in this thread in elsewhere, is not that the work itself is 'dumb,' but rather that any of the people who are fans of the work are dumb, stupid, idiots, or what have you. Since it is demonstrably not the case that all fans of the work are dumb, stupid, or idiots, there has to be an explanation as to why people would adopt that erroneous viewpoint. It could be jealousy. Frustration (as someone pointed out earlier). Insecurity. A bandwagon mentality. Or something else entirely. But whatever the underlying sentiment, it continually embodies itself as "those people are stupid." Which is rather sad.


----------



## myrddin173

Okay let's try to get this thread back on topic.  Which is who people prefer Meyer or Rice, not whether the people who like Twilight are "stupid."


----------



## Steerpike

Kit said:


> Good for them!
> 
> Having BEEN a teenage girl, though, I can tell you that many of us spent a lot of time *feeling* dumb even if we were not in fact dumb.



Of course, it is a mistake to assume that every kid (or adult) who likes the series has somehow identified with Bella or some other character in the books. My daughter read the first book at age 13, then quickly devoured the series. She's lost interest now, and hasn't seen the latest movie (whereas she simply HAD to see the first one). But even at the time, as she was reading the first Twilight book, she turned to me and said "Man, Bella is an idiot."

So yet another fallacy by the people who dislike Twilight is that every girl who reads it will somehow want to be Bella or be negatively affected by it. Ludicrous on its face.


----------



## Steerpike

myrddin173 said:


> Okay let's try to get this thread back on topic.  Which is who people prefer Meyer or Rice, not whether the people who like Twilight are "stupid."



OK.

Having read only the first three Anne Rice books, and only the first Twilight book, I vote for the Anne Rice works being superior. They are better written. They actually interested me (which Twilight did not). And I prefer her treatment of vampires to that of Meyer


----------



## Kit

Steerpike said:


> Of course, it is a mistake to assume that every kid (or adult) who likes the series has somehow identified with Bella or some other character in the books. My daughter read the first book at age 13, then quickly devoured the series. She's lost interest now, and hasn't seen the latest movie (whereas she simply HAD to see the first one). But even at the time, as she was reading the first Twilight book, she turned to me and said "Man, Bella is an idiot."
> 
> So yet another fallacy by the people who dislike Twilight is that every girl who reads it will somehow want to be Bella or be negatively affected by it. Ludicrous on its face.



Again, I can feel only happiness about teenage girls who aspire to be better than Bella. 

I didn't say they necessarily WANT TO BE Bella, but I think a lot of them can identify with Bella's insecurity. In particular, as regards the romantic theme. Many teenage girls feel that they are stupid, boring, and no teenage boy would ever be interested in them- the idea that someone who is like unto them in this way- and yet has this great romance with this incredibly hot guy (pause for eyeroll) gives them hope that that could be within reach for them too- or at least it's fun to dream about. 

They *know* it's fluff. But it's fun fluff.


----------



## Steerpike

Kit said:


> I didn't say they necessarily WANT TO BE Bella, but I think a lot of them can identify with Bella's insecurity. In particular, as regards the romantic theme.
> 
> ...
> 
> They *know* it's fluff. But it's fun fluff.



Yes, I agree with both of these statements. These kids are smart. I wasn't commenting to you, but more toward another common objection to the work, even though I quoted your post


----------



## Kit

I can also comment (again, from the vantage point of having BEEN a teenage girl) that one of the things many of the teen girls liked was that the MC's didn't actually have sex until the 4th book- after they were MARRIED, in fact. And that the teen BOY was the holdout. This is unusual and fascinating in teen culture (both real and fictional). I'm not saying that teen girls aren't interested in sex (the teen pregnancy rate speaks for itself)- but the sad fact is that while many teen girls dream of a Great Romance, the boys mostly just wanted to get into our pants, brag to their buddies about it (whether they had succeeded or not), and then wander off to try to get into someone else's pants. This is a constant source of frustration and disappointment for many teen girls. They swoon for Edward because he is an old-fashioned romantic.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Kit said:


> I can also comment (again, from the vantage point of having BEEN a teenage girl) that one of the things many of the teen girls liked was that the MC's didn't actually have sex until the 4th book- after they were MARRIED, in fact. And that the teen BOY was the holdout. This is unusual and fascinating in teen culture (both real and fictional). I'm not saying that teen girls aren't interested in sex (the teen pregnancy rate speaks for itself)- but the sad fact is that while many teen girls dream of a Great Romance, the boys mostly just wanted to get into our pants, brag to their buddies about it (whether they had succeeded or not), and then wander off to try to get into someone else's pants. This is a constant source of frustration and disappointment for many teen girls. They swoon for Edward because he is an old-fashioned romantic.


I wish there was more of THIS^ in popular fiction.

I'm a high school ESL teacher, and my district is #1 in the state for teen pregnancy. There simply is no stigma for being a freshman mom or even an eighth grade mom... in fact, being a mom at 15 is a status symbol. It doesn't help that this corrupted culture is glamorized by so many popular artists and works of modern fiction.

Any writer who romanticizes the opposite has earned my respect. The vampire genre is STILL not my cup of tea, but I appreciate the direction Meyers has chosen for her main characters.


----------



## Shadoe

myrddin173 said:


> Okay let's try to get this thread back on topic.  Which is who people prefer Meyer or Rice, not whether the people who like Twilight are "stupid."


To be accurate, the topic has become about the judgement of the way Twilight fans are perceived and the logic or assumptions used to arrive at that conclusion.


----------



## Shadoe

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I'm a high school ESL teacher, and my district is #1 in the state for teen pregnancy. There simply is no stigma for being a freshman mom or even an eighth grade mom... in fact, being a mom at 15 is a status symbol. It doesn't help that this corrupted culture is glamorized by so many popular artists and works of modern fiction.


It gets worse. Even in my small town there have been several scandals involving a majority of the girls at the high school.

I don't know that either of the books teaches any real morality, but I think it's easier to view Rice's books as disconnected from reality.


----------



## Masronyx

Let me ask you something and this goes to both you AND Steerpike:

Why are you basing the  intelligence of a person based on what they *READ FOR FUN???*

Seriously.  I honestly think Twilight is drivel and believe me, I've read better, but stating that Twilight readers are stupid is way out of line and slightly narrow minded, especially if you DON"T know all of the Twilight readers in the world. 






Shadoe said:


> So let me see if I understand your reasoning. If lots of people like a thing, then anyone who thinks that thing is stupid are just wrong and jealous, and there is absolutely no possibility of any other explanation for the motives of the people who think the thing is stupid. It cannot possibly BE stupid, because lots of people like a thing.
> 
> So, by that reasoning, WWF, that Kardashian show, Jersey Shore, Happy Days, Dancing With the Stars, That 70s Show, and Sabrina, the Teenage Witch are all examples of shows we must all love if you are to consider us not stupid.
> 
> Does that about cover your concept?


----------



## Steerpike

Masronyx said:


> Let me ask you something and this goes to both you AND Steerpike:
> 
> Why are you basing the  intelligence of a person based on what they *READ FOR FUN???*



I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that intelligent people do read and enjoy that particular book. I don't think enjoying it has any bearing on intelligence. That particular viewpoint seems to me to be the province of those who dislike it.


----------



## Masronyx

You are right, but I wanted to bring it to both of your attentions because you both are the main arguers of this. Surely you'd all want to move on to something else.  I just hope nobody takes Twilight as gospel...



Steerpike said:


> I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that intelligent people do read and enjoy that particular book. I don't think enjoying it has any bearing on intelligence. That particular viewpoint seems to me to be the province of those who dislike it.


----------



## Steerpike

Masronyx said:


> I just hope nobody takes Twilight as gospel...



I can't imagine why (or how) anyone would. I think the people posting in the thread are in agreement on the original topic (Rice v. Meyer). In general, however, I am pleased for unknown authors who find a big success story on their hands, so in that regard I tip my hat to both Rice and Meyer, who I think were both unknown at the time of their first vampire novel.


----------



## Masronyx

I couldn't agree more. 



Steerpike said:


> I can't imagine why (or how) anyone would. I think the people posting in the thread are in agreement on the original topic (Rice v. Meyer). In general, however, I am pleased for unknown authors who find a big success story on their hands, so in that regard I tip my hat to both Rice and Meyer, who I think were both unknown at the time of their first vampire novel.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Masronyx said:


> Let me ask you something and this goes to both you AND Steerpike:
> 
> Why are you basing the  intelligence of a person based on what they *READ FOR FUN???*
> 
> Seriously.  I honestly think Twilight is drivel and believe me, I've read better, but stating that Twilight readers are stupid is way out of line and slightly narrow minded, especially if you DON"T know all of the Twilight readers in the world.



Honestly I don't think that was ever anyone's real argument.  But I see your point.


----------



## Masronyx

True. I just thought the discussion was getting kind of tiring.  One of those agree to disagree kind of deals. 



Elder the Dwarf said:


> Honestly I don't think that was ever anyone's real argument.  But I see your point.


----------



## Shadoe

Masronyx said:


> Let me ask you something and this goes to both you AND Steerpike:
> 
> Why are you basing the  intelligence of a person based on what they *READ FOR FUN???*
> 
> Seriously.  I honestly think Twilight is drivel and believe me, I've read better, but stating that Twilight readers are stupid is way out of line and slightly narrow minded, especially if you DON"T know all of the Twilight readers in the world.


Well, you know, I don't like to make assumptions, so I did some research on that topic today. Are Twilight fans really dumb, or is it just the ones I've come across? The question had to be asked, so I had to find an answer.

But my beef isn't about whether Twilight fans are stupid or not. It's being told my motives are different than what my motives are because someone who doesn't know me at all desires to believe something that has nothing to do with me. Of course, those motivations have been exposed so it all makes much more sense now.


----------



## Shadoe

Masronyx said:


> You are right, but I wanted to bring it to both of your attentions because you both are the main arguers of this. Surely you'd all want to move on to something else.  I just hope nobody takes Twilight as gospel...


In truth, there are those who do take Twilight as gospel.


----------



## Kit

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I wish there was more of THIS^ in popular fiction.
> 
> I'm a high school ESL teacher, and my district is #1 in the state for teen pregnancy. There simply is no stigma for being a freshman mom or even an eighth grade mom... in fact, being a mom at 15 is a status symbol. It doesn't help that this corrupted culture is glamorized by so many popular artists and works of modern fiction.
> 
> Any writer who romanticizes the opposite has earned my respect. The vampire genre is STILL not my cup of tea, but I appreciate the direction Meyers has chosen for her main characters.



One more plus that hasn't been mentioned- it can be hard to get many kids and teens to READ. There are a lot of kids and teens who do not read ANYTHING outside of what is required of them for school (and sometimes not even that- Cliff's Notes, anyone?). I'm a fan of anything- drivel or not- that inspires young people to read. Some may even go on from there to read less drivel-y material!


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Kit said:


> One more plus that hasn't been mentioned- it can be hard to get many kids and teens to READ. There are a lot of kids and teens who do not read ANYTHING outside of what is required of them for school (and sometimes not even that- Cliff's Notes, anyone?). I'm a fan of anything- drivel or not- that inspires young people to read. Some may even go on from there to read less drivel-y material!



This is bs!  What a ridiculous statement... we read spark notes .


----------



## Kit

Heh... my school days- back when dinosaurs walked the earth- predate Spark Notes!

The names may change, but some things never do.


----------



## Shadoe

Oh crap. I'm so old I don't know what Spark Notes are...


----------



## Sheilawisz

Forget about Stephenie vs Anne, I want to see Lestat vs Edward in a vampire fight to the death!! =)


----------



## Steerpike

Sheilawisz said:


> Forget about Stephenie vs Anne, I want to see Lestat vs Edward in a vampire fight to the death!! =)



Lestat would tear him to sparkling pieces


----------



## Kit

Steerpike said:


> Lestat would tear him to sparkling pieces



I think you're right, but then he'd have to go into the Witness Protection Program, because he'd have millions of homicidal preteen girls hunting him to the ends of the earth.


----------



## Steerpike

Kit said:


> I think you're right, but then he'd have to go into the Witness Protection Program, because he'd have millions of homicidal preteen girls hunting him to the ends of the earth.



That's true. Lestat is probably smarter than that. He wouldn't want to earn the ire of all those girls. Maybe he could frame Selena Gomez. Those same girls already hate her for dating Justin Bieber.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Poor Captain Sparkles!! Maybe Edward could stand a chance against Lestat if Felix and Jane help him =)


----------



## Jess A

This thread has flame-war potential. -chuckle-

Twilight was terrible. I've never really read Anne Rice because vampires don't appeal to me much at all. This means I have no opinion on Anne Rice. 

That is all I really have to add.


----------



## Steerpike

Twilight wasn't terrible. It was just mediocre. It is better written than _Eragon_. Now THERE is a flame war


----------



## Sheilawisz

I have read only the first book of the Twilight series, and I think that it's nothing spectacular: Just a fun story, sometimes annoying, sometimes entertaining, easy to read... It failed to hook me and I never read the other books, but it's certainly not terrible!! It's after all a good story that hooks readers, that's why it's successful =)

I do like the Twilight movies, I have all the dvds!! About Anne Rice, I have never read her works or watched the movies so I have no opinion about her... it's more fun to compare Edward and Lestat!!


----------



## Jess A

I did not enjoy _Eragon_ either.


----------



## Steerpike

Sheilawisz said:


> I have read only the first book of the Twilight series, and I think that it's nothing spectacular: Just a fun story, sometimes annoying, sometimes entertaining, easy to read... It failed to hook me and I never read the other books, but it's certainly not terrible!! It's after all a good story that hooks readers, that's why it's successful =)



I agree with this. I read the first one because my daughter wanted to read it, and I wanted to read it first since I heard it was a vampire romance and I know some people who write those stories (and they can be quite racy).

It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. It did not, however, entice me to read the rest of the series. Not my type of story to begin with. I did read The Host, which is more along the lines of something I would like, and I thought that one was decent.

I found Eragon to be unreadable, personally.


----------



## Erica

People like what they like. Twilight was clearly written for a much younger audience than Rice's novels, so even though they are both about vampires, it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges really.

Shortly after they started coming out, I read somewhere that the author of the Twilight books was very religious and a major theme in her novels was the importance teens staying chaste in the face of temptation or something like that. I don't know if it's even true, but it turned me off on the concept of ever reading them. I hate moralizing. Mind you, the trailers sure make the movie versions look 'sexy.'


----------



## writeshiek33

the meyer books were entertaining as far as supernatural romance beyond that not good vampire story i accepted forthey are


----------

