# Went to Barnes & Noble yesterday...



## Kit (Jun 8, 2012)

.... you know the different sections: humor, history, romance, etc...

"Young Adult Paranormal Romance" now is a bona fide SECTION with its own set of shelves and everything. They had about a zillion titles.

Kind of amusing how everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.

I found a book that I remember from the late 70's/early 80's.... it was an obscure little story that I guess would today be classified as YAPR... it got a fresh reprint and new cover.


----------



## Mindfire (Jun 8, 2012)

HA! We'll see if it stays a "bona fide" genre in a decade or so.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 8, 2012)

The local independent book store here and Barnes and Noble have both done this. Those books sell like crazy, and they want to stock a bunch of them.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 8, 2012)

Kit said:


> .... you know the different sections: humor, history, romance, etc...
> 
> "Young Adult Paranormal Romance" now is a bona fide SECTION with its own set of shelves and everything. They had about a zillion titles.
> 
> ...



It's not that new; I saw a "Teen Paranormal Romance" section at B&N two years ago, but I guess "Young Adult" is a better marketing term (has fewer negative connotations than "teen").


----------



## Kit (Jun 8, 2012)

Ah, I didn't see that section last year. (I only go to the bookstore once a year, in June- in preparation for my annual cross-country plane trip. I despise flying, and balm myself with a pile of new books and a half-pound bag of peanut M&M's. The rest of the time, it's Half-Price Books, Third Place Books, and Amazon.com "used". New books are hella expensive!)


----------



## Kelise (Jun 9, 2012)

All bookstores I've been into in both the UK and Australia have had that section for the last couple of years, and they're going strong.

Sadly, I think they're going to stick around for a while. While one part of me thinks it's good that it gets people reading - and that any kind of reading is good... another part of me still thinks 'eek'.


----------



## Jess A (Jun 9, 2012)

I love Barnes & Noble. I go every time I visit the US. I always walk out with something random. In Australia, Borders shut down - it's similar to Barnes & Noble. A disappointment.

Anyhow, my waffling aside - I think YA Paranormal Romance indeed deserves its own section. It sells well and it's easier to get more customers to buy other titles (add-on sales) if they're in a section full of books similar to the one they're after. Add a few gimmicky things and you've got a great section for extra sales. 

Having its own section means it is easier for me to avoid the genre altogether whilst I browse.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 9, 2012)

It seems the me that what a store like B&N will do with its shelves, or what an independent bookstore like we have here will do, is driven by sales. If the customer demand justifies a section, then it makes sense to have one. I suspect these teen paranormal romance series are selling a lot better than other fantasy novels at this point.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 9, 2012)

I don't actually have a problem with the concept of YAPR; it's a genre, so what? Teenagers love romance, and adding that paranormal kick to it makes it fantastical and otherworldly.

It's just particular _works_ in YAPR (*cough*Twilight*cough*) that deserve derision and scorn because of their incredibly poor writing and characterization, not to mention depicting the protagonist as a self-victimizing personality-free wimp.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 9, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It's just particular _works_ in YAPR (*cough*Twilight*cough*) that deserve derision and scorn because of their incredibly poor writing and characterization, not to mention depicting the protagonist as a self-victimizing personality-free wimp.



That's nonsense, but it's a different thread I suppose.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm happy people are reading no matter what it is.  If something keeps the publishing industry going, I'm all for it.  Even if it's not something I read personally.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 9, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm happy people are reading no matter what it is.  If something keeps the publishing industry going, I'm all for it.  Even if it's not something I read personally.



Makes sense.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 10, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm happy people are reading no matter what it is.  If something keeps the publishing industry going, I'm all for it.  Even if it's not something I read personally.



I'm not sure I completely agree. In theory, reading only things which spread nothing but lies and propaganda might actually be worse than reading nothing at all. Not that Twilight is lies and propaganda, I just mean in theory I don't think "anything is better than nothing" is true.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> That's nonsense, but it's a different thread I suppose.



Which part? That Twilight sucks? It's my opinion that Twilight sucks. How can that be nonsense?


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 10, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I'm not sure I completely agree. In theory, reading only things which spread nothing but lies and propaganda might actually be worse than reading nothing at all. Not that Twilight is lies and propaganda, I just mean in theory I don't think "anything is better than nothing" is true.



I mean more in the sense of reading fiction for entertainment, not any sort of broader notion.  If people are reading something for entertainment then it still makes it viable for us as writers to have an audience when they get older.  Not everyone that reads Twilight only reads that kind of stuff.  If Twilight is a "gateway drug" to other things, then I'm all for it.  I can't really deride someone else for their preferred form of entertainment.  When I was a teenager I read Dragonlance books which some people may say suck, but I liked it at the time.  

I personally don't like Twilight or most YA fiction, but then again I'm not a YA so it's not targeted towards me.


----------



## Kelise (Jun 10, 2012)

A co-worker read Twilight after seeing the films, and it was the first book she had read since high school. Knowing I was a reader, she asked me to suggest other things, which I did so, slowly upping my idea of 'quality'.

Now she reads high fantasy - sometimes a 900+ book in a weekend. 

So I'm all for any kind of reading, because I know that it can lead on to (better) reading in general. She's always seen with a book these days, whereas before it has been more than ten years since she'd even touched one.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 10, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> I mean more in the sense of reading fiction for entertainment, not any sort of broader notion.  If people are reading something for entertainment then it still makes it viable for us as writers to have an audience when they get older.  Not everyone that reads Twilight only reads that kind of stuff.  If Twilight is a "gateway drug" to other things, then I'm all for it.  I can't really deride someone else for their preferred form of entertainment.  When I was a teenager I read Dragonlance books which some people may say suck, but I liked it at the time.



Sure, fair enough. I'll agree that even Twilight is better than nothing.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Kelise said:


> A co-worker read Twilight after seeing the films, and it was the first book she had read since high school. Knowing I was a reader, she asked me to suggest other things, which I did so, slowly upping my idea of 'quality'.
> 
> Now she reads high fantasy - sometimes a 900+ book in a weekend.
> 
> So I'm all for any kind of reading, because I know that it can lead on to (better) reading in general. She's always seen with a book these days, whereas before it has been more than ten years since she'd even touched one.



These are good points. There is quite a bit of good YA Fantasy out there as well. Kristin Cashore, for example.

I think I've noted in other threads what I think of the hipster-style Twilight hate, so there's no reason to rehash that yet again here.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> These are good points. There is quite a bit of good YA Fantasy out there as well. Kristin Cashore, for example.
> 
> I think I've noted in other threads what I think of the hipster-style Twilight hate, so there's no reason to rehash that yet again here.



Hipster-style? Are you claiming there's no way for someone to legitimately hate Twilight for entirely valid reasons? I assure you, there's not a drop of hipsterism in my blood.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Hipster-style? Are you claiming there's no way for someone to legitimately hate Twilight for entirely valid reasons? I assure you, there's not a drop of hipsterism in my blood.



I think there's valid reasons to show disdain for the portrayal of the main character's romantic relationships, which are not necessarily healthy but are nonetheless idolized by many readers, and are essentially the point of the book.  I don't mind if that specific criticism is portrayed in a sweeping contempt for all things Twilight; I think it's a strong and valid enough criticism to greatly overshadow it's positive elements.

The same does not hold true, in my mind, for criticisms of other works, like Harry Potter.  There are some valid literary criticisms of the Harry Potter books, but by and large they're successful for pretty good reasons.

((edit))  Of course, if a reader holds a healthy view of the relationships in the book, there's nothing wrong if they still enjoy it.  And if it helps them to read more, that's terrific.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Devor, you are assuming 1) that the readers are idiots; and 2) that the relationship is meant to be emulated. It's a bizarre criticism of literature, in my view. If you were to go through the body of human literature and discount and/or express for contempt for any that featured dysfunctional relationships, you'd have a huge stack of books piled up in your yard, many of them quite good. It's a self-serving and selective criticism that holds no weight unless you are going to take an absolute view of such things in literature.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Devor, you are assuming 1) that the readers are idiots; and 2) that the relationship is meant to be emulated.



I didn't say emulated; I said idolized.  Nor am I assuming.  There's plenty of reason to think that young tweens are dreaming about these kinds of relationships, and if disapproval of that attitude comes across as sweeping disapproval of the books, I don't object.

Nor did I say that featuring a dysfunctional relationship would be enough to warrant contempt since I'm clearly focused on _reader reaction_, nor did I say that contempt was the only valid response or even _my_ response to the books.

I only said that people who show contempt of the books because they invoke the sense of young women dreaming about dating vampires are perfectly valid in their response.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

I disagree, however. In fact, in many cases I don't even think it is a legitimate belief on their own part; it is merely a convenient argument to throw out there.

What did you read when you were young? I was in 8th grade when we read Hamlet. East of Eden at 14 (my daughter read that one in high school as well). Catcher in the Rye. Girls that age read Wuthering Heights.

"Yeah, but it's different with Twilight. Girls are going to think Bella shows them how they should be in real life!"

Go back to my point about them not being idiots. Teenager girls reading Twilight aren't stupid. So, if a girl in real life gets a vampire boyfriend and an imprinted werewolf, she might think Bella and Edward are OK?

"No, she'll extrapolate that relationship to her own with real boys!"

Really? Based on what evidence? Show me the pandemic of fledgling Bella Swan's in the wake of millions of copies of Twilight sold. Again, these readers aren't idiots. They can read To Kill a Mockingbird and understand the adult issues around racism; they can read Saving Zoe and handle the very adult issues of drugs, sexuality, predators, and murder; and they can certainly read Twilight and handle a fictitious relationship between two characters, one of whom is a creature out of mythology and not even a person.

This reminds me of people coming out against the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, or the people who came out to protest Harry Potter.

"Oh, no, our kids are going to learn to drop anvils on each other (or something) and that hitting is OK!"

"Oh, no, our kids are going to be tempted into witchcraft and spell casting!"

Dude.

No. They. Aren't.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> "No, she'll extrapolate that relationship to her own with real boys!"
> 
> Really? Based on what evidence? Show me the pandemic of fledgling Bella Swan's in the wake of millions of copies of Twilight sold.



Please, I'd be happy to continue this, but only if you don't put words in my mouth.  There is, again, a tremendous difference between _idolize_ and _emulate_, not the least of which is that I've only claimed one of the two to be occurring.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Those quotes aren't meant to refer to you specifically, Devor. Sorry for the confusion.

They're the exclamations of a mythical, yet nevertheless hysterical populace making a last ditch effort to prevent the total and complete moral destruction of their young by Stephanie Meyer (or JK Rowling, or Looney Tunes)

But if you want to address the other points...


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Again, these readers aren't idiots. They can read To Kill a Mockingbird and understand the adult issues around racism; they can read Saving Zoe and handle the very adult issues of drugs, sexuality, predators, and murder; and they can certainly read Twilight and handle a fictitious relationship between two characters, one of whom is a creature out of mythology and not even a person.



I tutored part time in classrooms at a school in Queens and actually talked to people about Twilight, mostly students who were getting Bs and Cs in class.  I'd say I spoke to about six or seven people about the book, some at greater length than others.  Most of them had healthy reactions, by and large, but some of them would get a little dreamy-eyed about it, and several of them made comparisons to their own relationships (or, more so to the relationships of people they know).  The Twilight dream is there for some people, and if some people don't have a wide view of what relationships can look like, I don't think that dream is healthy.




> In fact, in many cases I don't even think it is a legitimate belief on their own part; it is merely a convenient argument to throw out there.



Where's your evidence for that?

It's there.  People view Twilight like this:

_Bella has no personality and dreams about giving over her life to vampires; hrumph.  Does the book have any other redeeming features?  No, hrumph.  It's immensely popular; hrumph.  A bunch of young girls must be at home dreaming about vampires.  Hrumph._

All I'm really saying is, I don't think people who view the book that way are wrong to do so, not in the same way that people who over-react to Harry Potter are wrong.  Harry Potter has a lot of redeeming literary elements, and nobody would reasonably walk away dreaming about their unhealthy relationships.  Nobody reads GRRM dreaming to be Sansa, abused by the king, or Jaimie Lannister, pushing children out of windows - in fact that's partly the point of the book, insomuch as there is one.  But people reading Twilight are dreaming a little bit about being stalked and killed by vampires.  If people want to call it a sad testament to our tastes, I think that's fair game - if anything is.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

To some extent I should probably take all this back, though - there's plenty of people for whom reading Twilight is just fine, even great, and I normally don't like when people come to a fantasy website and make sweeping condescending criticisms of a large portion of the genre.  And I don't personally have any strong feelings about the book.  So I probably shouldn't have said anything.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Devor, I wouldn't make broad statements (or condemning ones) based on how "some" people react to something. The same statements can be (and have been) made about any of a variety of artistic endeavors, from rock and roll music running to gamut of subgenres, video games, movies and television, paintings, to Dungeons and Dragons, MMOs/social gaming, and a vast swath of literature across the span of its history.

Twilight is by no mean unique in this regard; not even close in fact. And yet somehow I find that those who want to bring up this point about Twilight are quite reluctant to follow the same line of thinking in those other areas (or even when it comes to other books). I really can't view it as any sort of thought-out or even consistent argument unless the people making it really are being consistent and want to pursue that viewpoint widely across all of the above (and more).

I don't doubt you can find a subset of the readership who reacts poorly to Twilight. The same can be said of virtually anything. I suspect there exists a very small number of kids who, having read Potter, thought it might be cool to get into the Occult. Given the sheer numbers who have read the work, I'd say it is statistically likely.

I submit, however, that if those kids exist, they had something going on before Potter; and if there are kids who read Twilight as a how-it-should-be guide to relationships, they've got something else going on as well. A generalized, and very broad, criticism of the book on those grounds is not at all warranted.

As for the line of reasoning you say some people have:

"Bella has no personality and dreams about giving over her life to vampires; hrumph. Does the book have any other redeeming features? No, hrumph. It's immensely popular; hrumph. A bunch of young girls must be at home dreaming about vampires. Hrumph."

I suspect you are right that this is in fact the reasoning of some. It is a perfectly fatuous line of "reasoning" (to use the charitable term), and I do think the people who reason in that manner are wrong not to apply a more thoughtful approach to the issue


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Devor said:


> To some extent I should probably take all this back, though - there's plenty of people for whom reading Twilight is just fine, even great, and I normally don't like when people come to a fantasy website and make sweeping condescending criticisms of a large portion of the genre.  And I don't personally have any strong feelings about the book.  So I probably shouldn't have said anything.



Doh!

Yeah, I heard you, and I agree. I don't think it is right to cast aspersions on an entire genre, or even an entire work, based on the misguided reactions of a small minority.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't doubt you can find a subset of the readership who reacts poorly to Twilight. The same can be said of virtually anything. I suspect there exists a very small number of kids who, having read Potter, thought it might be cool to get into the Occult. Given the sheer numbers who have read the work, I'd say it is statistically likely.



I just want to make it clear why Twilight is different, and then I'll be done.

With Twilight, it seems like it's almost the intended or natural reaction to reading the book and the cause for its success.  You get firmly into the head of a girl dreaming about unhealthy relationships with vampires.  It's not an accidental or unexpected reaction.  That's what the book is supposed to be.

That isn't the case with most other works.  It's not the case with Harry Potter, for instance - Harry reacts to the events in his life in a relatively normal and healthy manner.  It's not the case with GRRM, for instance - Tyrion is messed up, but you _know_ when he's messed up, he's supposed to be messed up.  The intended reader reaction is a normal one.  With Twilight, the main character has almost no personality, so you can put yourself into her head and join in on the dream.

That's the difference.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

I don't think Twilight is the only book like that. I also don't find that to be a problem; if the reader can easily engage with the character because they are able to project themselves into that role, so what? That doesn't mean this is how you are supposed to live in real life. Getting back to my D&D, RPG, and MMO analogy, is this exactly what people do in those games? Kids play those games at very young ages. In D&D I can project myself into the role of a noble warrior, or an amoral thief only out for herself. When you "role play" you inherently do that to some degree. I do not believe that teens reading Twilight are any less able to distinguish the two than I was able to separate myself from my dungeons and dragons character when I was 13.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> When you "role play" you inherently do that to some degree. I do not believe that teens reading Twilight are any less able to distinguish the two than I was able to separate myself from my dungeons and dragons character when I was 13.



Well, D&D doesn't give you a particular weird relationship to roleplay, nor does it present a particular lens with which to view that experience.  Nor is my position that Twilight is bad just because you can get into the character's head.  My position is that the particular head you get into in Twilight idolizes some unhealthy relationships, and that the book is written in a way which naturally brings readers - at least while they're reading - into idolizing them with her.  That's the experience of reading the book.

A better comparison might be, let's say, if there's a book about a boy, dreaming about drug use, being lured into the lifestyle by the cool kids, who remain cool and "dream-worthy" throughout the entire book, while in the end the boy sits happy and high on cocaine.  I don't doubt it might be a good book for some people to read - but the natural experience of reading the book would clearly be "drugs are cool."  The natural experience of reading Twilight is clearly "getting stalked by vampires is hott."  That's why it's different.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Devor said:


> The natural experience of reading Twilight is clearly "getting stalked by vampires is hott."  That's why it's different.



I hear what you're saying here, but I think the analogy stretches things a bit, and I can't say I agree with the characterization I quoted above. Let me ask you this, out of curiosity, have you read Twilight?


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I hear what you're saying here, but I think the analogy stretches things a bit, and I can't say I agree with the characterization I quoted above. Let me ask you this, out of curiosity, have you read Twilight?



No, and that's part of why I wanted to take it all back a few posts ago.  But it's definitely the impression I get from people who have.  The "hott" remark is actually a close paraphrase to one of the student's reactions.  I asked her "What did you think of that?" and she said it was "hott."

I only kept posting because I wanted to be very clear about what I saw as the difference between Twilight and other works, and to be clear about why the logic doesn't apply to Harry Potter or D&D.  We seem to be there now.  I don't even want to push it further.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

I think it does apply to video games, though, and there are some very dark and violent ones out there. In that instance, you are even more of an active participant, not just riding along inside a character. There are those who complain about video games too, of course, but I don't hear that coming out of the same quarter as the Twilight complaints.

To be honest, I think what you've heard about Twilight may have been overblown to some extent. I mean, a lot of this is pretty firmly entrenched in vampire romance literature. Look at the _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ TV series, for example (which I do in fact like). Angel stalks Buffy around, particularly early on because he wants to protect her, he watches her in her room while she is sleeping. He is quite the mysterious, stalker kind of guy early on, and maintains some of those 'stalker' aspects later. But at the same time it is clear that he wouldn't hurt Buffy, just like it is clear Edward has no evil intentions toward Bella. The difference between the two female characters is that Buffy is not passive; as far as the vampire stalky-thing goes, there are parallels. 

I think it is much ado about nothing. To be honest, my personal opinion (anecdotally-formed) is that most of the Twilight hate follows the following pattern of reasoning:

1. Twilight is popular
2. I hate popular things (e.g. hipster)
3. Ergo, I hate Twilight
4. Look hard for made-up rationales to hate it so everyone doesn't realize I'm just a hipster.

You're right that we'll probably end up repeating ourselves before long, but I did want to get the last bit in about video games and Buffy 

Also, another criticism I hear of Twilight is that Edward is so much older than teenage Bella. Again, Angel v. Buffy, or just about any other vampire romance.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jun 10, 2012)

I just want to interject something here.  Many young people are troubled, moreso in this current generation than in mine or that of my parents.

When I was younger, we played Vampire the Masquerade a lot, I mean, we were IMMERSED in vampire culture, and spent MANY hours debating how we could do things as a vampire, what powers we would have, how we could rule the world, etc. etc.  I spent many many hours on dungeon crawls in restaurants and LARPing at the local college.  But there was never anything in our group I would call unhealthy (unless you consider the associations and relationships which resulted from a hundred young people getting together twice a week; a fair amount of pot-smoking, a few unplanned pregnancies, some horrible rumor-mongering, and one funny-at-the-time STD outbreak).  But for most of us, it was just good clean fun, and the people who ended up with issues were already on the wrong path in life before the game ever influenced them.

The problem is, some young people are more impressionable than others, and let's be serious, some teens really have issues.  But for most young adults/ teens, reality exists and they can part from it and come back.

There was an issue with some kids in Florida, I think, that killed some girl and drank her blood.  When it came out that they also played the game, it got a bad rap.  So people went mad, up in arms about what the game represented, and I don't know what ever became of it, but to think a game was responsible for that girl's death would be entirely insane.  Couldn't it be just as likely that a deranged rogue group of nutters acted on their fantasies, fueled by nothing more than their own twisted thoughts?

I know it isn't exactly in line with what you two are debating, but I think there are people out there who are easily influenced and LOOKING for a way to go nuts.  Writers cannot and should not be held responsible for their actions.

On the flip side, when you introduce ideas into your work and romanticize deranged or dangerous thinking, you need to do so responsibly.  I'm not sure what is portrayed in Twilight because I've never read it, but if a romanticized view of say rape or drug use was written in a book, I would call that dangerous in some kids' hands, and would very carefully talk with my kids about it.  There is no reason why art itself should affect a person's knowing what is right and what is wrong.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Caged Maiden said:


> I'm not sure what is portrayed in Twilight because I've never read it, but if a romanticized view of say rape or drug use was written in a book, I would call that dangerous in some kids' hands, and would very carefully talk with my kids about it.



Nothing like that at all. The criticisms of Twilight along the "bad message" angle have been overblown to say the least. They seem mostly like afterthoughts, to me. I read it before my daughter, when she was 13 and excited and wanted to read it and be able to talk to me about it. There was nothing worrying in it as far as I'm concerned. As my daughter was reading it, she looked at me at one point and said "man, Bella is an idiot." But she loved the books, and I'm glad she did. She's read other works since then.

I agree that writers cannot and should not try to make their work safe for the most impressionable or troubled.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jun 10, 2012)

Well that's just the thing.  With troubled young people the problem is mostly that often they are left to their own devices.  I wouldn't object to reading something completely amoral, but for an impressionable young mind, it might be dangerous.  Many kids are caught between reality and fantasy as it is.


----------



## Devor (Jun 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> To be honest, I think what you've heard about Twilight may have been overblown to some extent.



You may be right, but I'm not basing this just on hearsay.  I'm also basing it on the reactions I've observed young women make to the book.

A few quick things, and this'll be my last post about it.

First, does anything in my characterization of Twilight apply to Buffy?  She's a far stronger character, her relationships are far more dynamic, she has very vocal and strong friends who help to reframe the lens through which that relationship is viewed, and the viewer has a lot more flexibility to react to her relationship with Angel appropriately.  Not to mention, she dumps him, and kills him, and can beat the crap out of him.  She also yells at him when he does things like stalk her.  Bella, meanwhile.... has no personality and gives her whole life over to him?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on "vampire" when I'm trying to talk about idolizing _unhealthy relationships_.  You don't get an "idolizing" tone out of Buffy the way you do out of Twilight.

The issue is jumping firmly into the head of a character to idolize a negative experience.  There is an similarity, in that regard, with video games - say, Grand Theft Auto or the more recent Mortal Combat, where you might idolize violence.  And I again sympathize with the angst about those games.  But there's also as many differences as similarities.  For instance, playing a video game is as likely to satisfy a violent urge as it is to feed it.  There's also a difference in scale - you wouldn't typically be tempted to go out and disembowel someone, but a negative relationship is somewhat more personal and private and subtly closer to something that might relate to your life.

Lastly . . . has anything I said remotely come across as Hipster?  I'm not everyone else.




> As my daughter was reading it, she looked at me at one point and said "man, Bella is an idiot."



That's _not_ how most of the book's genuine fans view her.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 10, 2012)

Well, I went to sleep and this topic started rolling.  

I think there is a tendency, especially among writers, to sort of "hate" something that is popular, mostly because they haven't written something as popular (I'm not referring to anyone specificially).    I think that's what Steerpike is referring to in general--people hating something just because it's popular. It's not just Twilight that suffers from this.  Tons and tons of books are out there that "can't please everyone."  If Twilight pleases millions of people, better for it.  I don't think anyone is trying to get their doctorate by writing a dissertation on Twilight.  Stephanie Meyer's success can be paralleled to the music industry when someone like Lady Gaga comes along.  There is an audience out there looking for something, but no one is really capturing what it is.  

I've said time and time again if you can capture what 10-15 year old girls like you can become a multi-billionaire.  You may even hit other demographics along the way.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Devor said:


> Lastly . . . has anything I said remotely come across as Hipster?  I'm not everyone else.



Hey Devor - be back in just a bit. My daughter is actually coming to visit tomorrow and I'm taking care of some last-minute things. But I wanted to answer this - you haven't said anything along those lines at all. I just feel like a sizable portion of the critics of Twilight fall into that camp, particularly when you look at the vehemence of some of the criticism reserved for that work and not other comparable books.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> Well, I went to sleep and this topic started rolling.
> 
> I think there is a tendency, especially among writers, to sort of "hate" something that is popular, mostly because they haven't written something as popular (I'm not referring to anyone specificially).    I think that's what Steerpike is referring to in general--people hating something just because it's popular. It's not just Twilight that suffers from this.  Tons and tons of books are out there that "can't please everyone."  If Twilight pleases millions of people, better for it.  I don't think anyone is trying to get their doctorate by writing a dissertation on Twilight.  Stephanie Meyer's success can be paralleled to the music industry when someone like Lady Gaga comes along.  There is an audience out there looking for something, but no one is really capturing what it is.
> 
> I've said time and time again if you can capture what 10-15 year old girls like you can become a multi-billionaire.  You may even hit other demographics along the way.



Yes, I think this is all true.

And I have to add that I know enough Twilight fans to discount most of the criticism out of hand, even though I've only read the first book. I know Twilight fans ranging from teens to women in their 40s with Ph.Ds (including in Women's Studies of all things, though I've been charged on pain of death never to reveal the identity) 

If all of the criticisms of Twilight were really true, only a complete and absolute moron would like the book. Of course, the peope I know who like it are quite intelligent and thoughtful. So I know the criticism is mostly BS. It's not even that badly written, like most people say. It is pretty firmly mediocre. The funny thing is when you get Eragon fans complaining about the writing quality in Twilight, because let me tell you, Eragon is about 1000 times worse.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 10, 2012)

I once heard it argued that the current form of vampire fiction got really popular in tandem with two things--the rise of the anti-affirmative-action movement (since vampires are a race of people with beautiful white skin, who in recent stories are oppressed out of fear of their superiority), and the most recent backlash against unmarried women with careers (since in recent stories, vampires are heterosexual, monogamous, and marry for life, and the females usually become housewives.)

To be honest, I think that particular speaker was reaching, but I don't think she was entirely wrong--at the very least, vampires have become much, _much_ more sexually conservative today than they were in Dracula's time.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> I once heard it argued that the current form of vampire fiction got really popular in tandem with two things--the rise of the anti-affirmative-action movement (since vampires are a race of people with beautiful white skin, who in recent stories are oppressed out of fear of their superiority), and the most recent backlash against unmarried women with careers (since in recent stories, vampires are heterosexual, monogamous, and marry for life, and the females usually become housewives.)



I think "reaching" is an understatement, Feo. This is an example of someone having far too much education and far too little sense.

Also, someone who probably doesn't understand the distinction between correlation and causation (assuming even the correlation exists, which I doubt). They may be wondering why their legs don't grow if they buy longer pants.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm, er . . . well, kind of pissed off now. Her arguments were logical and well-thought-out, and while I don't agree with every premise she put forth, to mock her like that is intellectually dishonest and unfair to her argument. I mean, you can at least agree that recent vampire fiction celebrates traditional gender roles and monogamous heterosexuality, right?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> I'm, er . . . well, kind of pissed off now. Her arguments were logical and well-thought-out, and while I don't agree with every premise she put forth, to mock her like that is intellectually dishonest and unfair to her argument. I mean, you can at least agree that recent vampire fiction celebrates traditional gender roles and monogamous heterosexuality, right?



Considering that I have lesbian friends who read paranormal fiction with homosexual relationships in them, I'd say 'no' to that last point (I think Twilight goes down this road; the author is religious, however; most vampire stuff I've read does not). Further 'celebrates' implies some kind of intent on the part of the writer, and I'd be surprised if any of the writers of heterosexual vampire fiction have the intent your speaker was suggesting anywhere in their minds, even if they do end up that way, Meyer notwithstanding. That's just par for romance, it seems to me. 

It is easy to create a logical flow of argument once you accept a premise as a starting point. If the premise is messed up, then the logical train of though she uses to get from that premise to point B won't really matter. Is there any real evidence that the statements the speaker made reflect anything of the sort she is talking about, or are you basically left some kind of correlation? That gets very fuzzy, because you can start the clock for whatever social phenomenon you want at a self-serving place, and then start the clock for the vampire fiction to correlate with it. And in the end, even if you get to the correlation, that tells you nothing whatsoever about any causal link between the two.

I think this is way more than a stretch. Makes for great papers in academic, probably, but I suspect the relationship to any real phenomenon is tenuous at best.


----------



## Ireth (Jun 10, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> I mean, you can at least agree that recent vampire fiction celebrates traditional gender roles and monogamous heterosexuality, right?



*glances at her vampire novel WIP, which has both homoromantic and polyamorous relationships featuring prominently among the vampire community, as well as at least one vampire who is asexual* Er... well, maybe most of the time.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2012)

Ireth said:


> *glances at her vampire novel WIP, which has both homoromantic and polyamorous relationships featuring prominently among the vampire community, as well as at least one vampire who is asexual* Er... well, maybe most of the time.



Actually, I think the diversity in the genre is there, at least based on what I've see. It is even true in the Romance genre, where traditionally you've got the single heterosexual relationship to focus on. In the vampire fiction where romance isn't the major plot, it's all over the board. And of course they're not all white either, though most are as in most genres.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jun 10, 2012)

I wonder what kind of monsters are being romanticized in YA paranormal romance these days. I remember hearing about a YAPR book which had a _dragon _as the woman's love interest, and this was a couple of years ago.

That said, people can read whatever they like, and I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss the whole YAPR genre as crap simply because of _Twilight_. None of the stuff is my personal cup of tea, and I found vampires revolting long before their current popularity, but I don't suffer if other people like the stuff.

*EDIT:* I've thought about this some more and I have to say that even if there's nothing inherently wrong with the basic premise behind YAPR, the bookstores with whole shelves of YAPR that was all written recently make me wonder whether a lot of those authors are simply trying to cash in on _Twilight_'s success. Again, I would not dismiss a whole genre for this reason alone, but it does seem like YAPR is the latest target for hacks.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Nothing like that at all. The criticisms of Twilight along the "bad message" angle have been overblown to say the least. They seem mostly like afterthoughts, to me. I read it before my daughter, when she was 13 and excited and wanted to read it and be able to talk to me about it. There was nothing worrying in it as far as I'm concerned. As my daughter was reading it, she looked at me at one point and said "man, Bella is an idiot." But she loved the books, and I'm glad she did. She's read other works since then.
> 
> I agree that writers cannot and should not try to make their work safe for the most impressionable or troubled.



My problem with Twilight isn't that it's a bad message (although Edward and Bella's relationship is pretty clearly abusive in a lot of ways, which is not really a great message you want to send to teenage girls who might be absent examples of healthy relationships), it's that it's _bad writing_.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Hey Devor - be back in just a bit. My daughter is actually coming to visit tomorrow and I'm taking care of some last-minute things. But I wanted to answer this - you haven't said anything along those lines at all. I just feel like a sizable portion of the critics of Twilight fall into that camp, particularly when you look at the vehemence of some of the criticism reserved for that work and not other comparable books.



Since it was my comment that garnered your initial accusation of hipsterism on this thread, I feel compelled to respond here 

I don't disdain Twilight just because it's popular and bad; I disdain it because _I know enough about it to render an opinion_. I'm sure there's plenty of other works out there that I would hate just as much as I hate Twilight, if I knew enough about them, but I don't know enough about them, so I don't say anything about them. The reason I know so much more about Twilight is because it's come up a lot. I read _Entertainment Weekly_ and they've had a lot of Twilight coverage; Twilight comes up all the time on MS, whereas I can't recall having heard about any other similarly bad YAPR works here; I'm sure some have been mentioned but they probably went in one ear and out the other, never having made a foothold on my brain.

So I've had a lot more exposure to it. I don't like what I've seen of it, and so when it comes up, I say so.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> I wonder what kind of monsters are being romanticized in YA paranormal romance these days. I remember hearing about a YAPR book which had a _dragon _as the woman's love interest, and this was a couple of years ago.



I predicted that minotaurs would be the next big thing, and literally _the next day_ *this article* came out.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> So I've had a lot more exposure to it. I don't like what I've seen of it, and so when it comes up, I say so.



So...you haven't read it either? 

Another thing that seems somewhat peculiar to this book is so many people with opinions who haven't read it


----------



## Jabrosky (Jun 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I predicted that minotaurs would be the next big thing, and literally _the next day_ *this article* came out.


Pure comedic genius.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> So...you haven't read it either?
> 
> Another thing that seems somewhat peculiar to this book is so many people with opinions who haven't read it



I've read excerpts, and I've read the plot summaries. I didn't enjoy any of that, and nothing I've seen or read makes me want to see or read any more. I've had people whose opinion I trust, and who have read it, tell me that it's awful in all the ways I expected it would be from what I did read of it.

One does not have to stab a fork into one's eye to know that it would be an unpleasant experience.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 11, 2012)

I've seen the movie.  I didn't like it.  But I can see why others would.  It is true that "you don't have to stab yourself to know it hurts" but maybe some people _like _stabbing themselves?


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

I think there is a certain amount of tolerance for poor writing if its about a subject people want to read about.  For me, however, I saw one twilight movie and had seen enough.  

I see some issues with some VERY popular books, and while I am struggling to find my true voice and a style that will be marketable, I wonder how people would hack a chapter part if I simply transposed my own names into one of these very popular works.  In fact, I KNOW they'd rip me a new one.  So that just goes to show that anything has the chance of getting published and marketing is the secret more than mind-blowingly awesome writing.  As with all things in this world, it's not what you know, it's who you know... or something similar in theme.

I was getting pretty discouraged about a month ago when it seemed my work was meeting with only negative criticism.  When I began reading Game of Thrones, I was blown away by the fact that it looked very similar to the "mistakes" I was making.  Loads of info, changing POVs... I can only assume there's something about my style of writing which is preventing a reader from becoming engrossed as they have been with GoT, but it's still beyond me what it is.  

I don't agree that it's pure jealousy which causes writers to "hate" a very popular work, but it is certainly frustrating when you just don't seem to be good enough, and then you read something which ought to be seen as on equally shaky ground flourish.  I began reading a novel the other day, touted for its strong opening, and other than the opening line (which was moderately interesting) the following two chapters were dull and info-dumpy.  How on earth is it praised so highly, I wondered.  I just don't get it.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 11, 2012)

I've said this before, but I'm not one of the people that loves Game of Thrones for its loads of description.  Martin does it well, but he also overdoes it.  Which gets old eventually.  Even if you do something the same as another writer doesn't necessarily mean it's OK to do.  

Which I think is one reason there are lots of Twilight clones.  You can probably find them on Amazon just by typing in "vampire."  They try to emulate what Twilight did, but for whatever reason, the way they're doing it just doesn't click the same.  I think Meyer connected with an audience and captured what they wanted to read.  It doesn't matter if it's good writing or not.  In fact, that doesn't really matter most of the time.  If you're good at telling a story, then people won't notice if the writing's bad.  And like her or not, Meyer can tell a story that is compelling.  Millions of people can't all be wrong.


----------



## Kelise (Jun 11, 2012)

Some people don't read for its depth or various qualities they can take away from it - they read to escape. 

To us, it may be poor writing. To some, who don't read much and know what's out there, it may be all they need in order to escape from the real world for a few hundred pages. It's as simple as that, sometimes.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Caged Maiden said:


> I see some issues with some VERY popular books, and while I am struggling to find my true voice and a style that will be marketable, I wonder how people would hack a chapter part if I simply transposed my own names into one of these very popular works.  In fact, I KNOW they'd rip me a new one.  So that just goes to show that anything has the chance of getting published and marketing is the secret more than mind-blowingly awesome writing.  As with all things in this world, it's not what you know, it's who you know... or something similar in theme.



I'm certain this is true to a degree; how people will treat a work can vary widely based on whose name is on the cover. But I also don't think it's reasonable to say that the name is the only difference; I've read books by famous authors that I ended up not liking very much, even (in some cases) authors who I already liked. I thought Neil Gaiman's _American Gods_ was fantastic; but then a couple of years later I read his book _InterWorld_ and I thought it was simplistic and boring. Conversely, there have been times when I read stuff by authors I'd never heard of (like the first time I read a John Scalzi book) and ended up loving it. (In fact I love everything I've read by Scalzi.)

To publishers, name recognition is huge, because they know that people will buy books by authors they already know, and ignore the reviews. Because of the ebook market explosion (and the subsequent margin collapse), big publishers these days are pretty much only interested in sure things. This is the main reason why I'm self-publishing my novel; one, I don't want to wait several years trying to get one of the big guys to take an interest in it, and two, I want control over what happens with it. (Three, I'm lucky in that I can afford to do this in my spare time.)



> I was getting pretty discouraged about a month ago when it seemed my work was meeting with only negative criticism.  When I began reading Game of Thrones, I was blown away by the fact that it looked very similar to the "mistakes" I was making.  Loads of info, changing POVs... I can only assume there's something about my style of writing which is preventing a reader from becoming engrossed as they have been with GoT, but it's still beyond me what it is.



If you want, shoot me over a couple chapters of your stuff and I'd be happy to take a look. I've read AGoT a couple of times, so I might be able to tell what the difference is. I PM'd you my email.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> Which I think is one reason there are lots of Twilight clones.  You can probably find them on Amazon just by typing in "vampire."  They try to emulate what Twilight did, but for whatever reason, the way they're doing it just doesn't click the same.  I think Meyer connected with an audience and captured what they wanted to read.  It doesn't matter if it's good writing or not.  In fact, that doesn't really matter most of the time.  If you're good at telling a story, then people won't notice if the writing's bad.  And like her or not, Meyer can tell a story that is compelling.  Millions of people can't all be wrong.



I don't claim that they're wrong; there is no right and wrong when it comes to subjective matters of taste. An individual may enjoy a book that everyone else on Earth finds abhorrent, and that's their right. The only thing you can objectively say about Twilight is that it's really popular.


----------

