Twilight...Reality check,

[Springheeljac]

Okay here's a run down of the books. Bella a teenage girl that's incredibly naive instantly falls in love with a a guy named Edward. Her character is extremely broken and is written as if she can't live without a man telling her what to do at all times. Edward the "guy" that she's inseparable from after just meeting her is a vampire. Edward is psychologically abusive towards her and 100+ making him a pedophile. He doesn't want to do anything morally reprehensible even though he's the undead. Forgetting for a second that his character reads like a 13 year old emo kid, we are supposed to believe that he's a 100+ year old virgin. The first book is filled with Drama and angst and reads like it was written by a teenager. Regardless of the intended target audience, it's badly written. The second book is a complete rip off of Romeo and Juliet, except no one dies. It's like Romeo and Juliet the Disney version. The third book is just a continuation of this, it's all about how she loves Edward, but she loves Jacob(A werewolf), but she loves Edward more. The fourth book is the worst. Bella and Edward get married a war is started in which no one dies, and they have a kid. Here's the best part: The child is made to age rapidly and is basically given to Jacob for his soul mate. That's right his former girlfriends 6 month old daughter is his soul mate. So all male leads are pedophiles, and all female leads are brainless teenagers that need a man to tell them what to do. The vampires are neutered to the point of being less than human rather than more. The werewolves are...silly? I don't know the best word to describe them. And I'm sorry teenage girls being in favor of this trash don't make it good. Sorry, but the moral of these books is apparently that all women need a man by their side and don't have sex before marriage. If you do a little bit of research you find that even the actors in the movies don't like the books, and the guy who plays Edward has tried to get out of the sequels multiple times. According to several of the actors the books read like the authors deluded fantasies, to the point of being "creepy". Not to mention that even her own fans hated the last book. Many of them attempted to RETURN them. Stephen King even said that she was "Awful, just awful." She writes like those kids you knew in middle school who tried to pass of the paper they had written in 10 minutes by taking a thesaurus out and replacing a few words. She isn't good with details, and if she had spent the effort on plot, action, and dialog that she spent repeating the same lines and "emotions" over and over again it might be worth a read. This is why it isn't just an opinion. She rips off other material, and badly. She's not a good writer.

[plant eater]

Just because someone looking to win some money says she plagiarized doesn't make it so. When you make the money she has people will try anything to get a piece of it. Don't be that naive. Stephen King is a narcissist. Ask anyone that has ever met him (and yes, I've met him). It must be incredibly hard to see less and less of your books selling and someone as new to the scene as Meyer out do you. I'm not saying that her plot lines or descriptions will pass a literature course but to do what she has done in capturing a audience as large as she has can't be done by just anyone with a pen and paper. To judge whether someone is good at what they do or not you have to look at whether or not they accomplish what they set out to do. She set out to write a book that would sell and she did just that. For an author it takes more than just a lucky break to do that. There are millions of books that are published and circulated by the big name publishers that tank. What makes a good author is his or her ability to capture an audience, and that's it. It wouldn't matter if she wrote it in crayon with every grammar error possible. She still entertained millions which is the goal. If a football player walked every play but still managed to get a touchdown every time he would still be considered a good player no matter how he made it to the end zone. Apparently you are just too narcissistic to get this since you seem to think your opinion is right, no matter what the subject, and the rest of us are undereducated twits. You and Mr. King would get along famously...or kill each other.

[Emily]

plant eater wrote:

...too narcissistic to get this since you seem to think your opinion is right, no matter what the subject, and the rest of us are undereducated twits.

I'm not saying that I am applying this notion to the person you were responding to, but you bring up a really interesting dynamic that I see here in most threads.

Maybe I have a little sadistic humor, but I think it's a little comical to see facts presented in these threads, and then watch people who don't want reality to contradict their own view or wishes attempt to shred the person who dared to bring up some facts, while completely ignoring the facts themselves. It's funny to watch.(I secretly wonder if the ones who show facts get a kick out of it, too.)

It reminds me of a 6 year old. Literally. Manipulative. Emotionally immature. Bright enough to be able to learn, yet uninterested if the subject doesn't appeal to them. Seemingly terrified of having to admit something could be true, if that truth means an opinion they hold won't hold water. It's funny to watch them verbally attack. I really feel like I'm watching a little kid bang on the floor with his fists, as if the poster is pitching a verbal temper tantrum. When I am bored, I find it to be very entertaining!

I really don't have a dog in the whole plagiarism fight. I prefer to not jump on that bandwagon just because one may call for it, and feel time reveals truth more than claims of "he/she copied me" from one who isn't getting the attention he desires.

[Caldwell Observer]

I read all the Twilight books because I have a young daughter that was going to read them. I wanted to know what she was reading. I agree the writing isn't the greatest, but the story was interesting to me.

In my opinion, JK Rowling is a MUCH better writer. My son and I enjoyed reading those books together.

For me, the value of those two series was getting to share them with my children and getting them excited about reading.

[Aggravator]

plant eater wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually...it does. Jerry Springer isn't a good drama, sit-com, or even talk show but it is a good shock factor show. Most people will stop for at least a minute or two to watch as evidenced by the length of time he's been on TV. Hannah Montana, whether you are talking about her music or her show is great for it's target audience which is young girls. But to compare an election to this topic is like comparing apples to oranges. People vote for who they feel is the best potential leader. Even the mass public can't predict the future so how they ultimately perform can't be closely correlated to the number of votes they receive. I'm pretty sure I've made my point and I'm also pretty sure you will still argue that your opinion is fact but the true fact is, your opinion is still just your opinion and really means nothing except that you refuse to acknowledge your own narrow mindedness. What makes something good is whether it lives up to the expectations of the majority of it's target audience, not whether or not it lives up to your expectations.

You're apparently confusing "popular" with "good". One does not equate the other. There are many things in the world that are popular but still terrible. I believe several strong examples were provided.

According to you, the only thing required to be considered "good" is to live up to the expectations of the majority of its target audience. What if the expectations are that something is a piece of sh*t? Let's take your definition and apply a contradictory example - the expectation of Christians is that Satan is evil. If he exists, he by definition lives up to these expectations, so does that make him good? Evil = good?

[plant eater]

Aggravator wrote:

<quoted text>
You're apparently confusing "popular" with "good". One does not equate the other. There are many things in the world that are popular but still terrible. I believe several strong examples were provided.
According to you, the only thing required to be considered "good" is to live up to the expectations of the majority of its target audience. What if the expectations are that something is a piece of sh*t? Let's take your definition and apply a contradictory example - the expectation of Christians is that Satan is evil. If he exists, he by definition lives up to these expectations, so does that make him good? Evil = good?

Yes, that would make Satin good...at being evil. It's funny how some people will try to confuse things. There is "good" as the opposite of "evil", then there is "good" the opposite of "bad". Unless you "speaka no engrish" you must know that many words have duel meanings.

It is very obvious that none of you are artists in any capacity. If you think you are, you are wrong. Literature is a form of art and the way art is judged is whether or not it is liked. So popular does mean good. I don't like Lil' Wayne. In my opinion his lyrics are sexist, vulgar and sometimes disturbing but I don't think he is a bad artist. A bad influence maybe but not a bad artist. Just because I have a negative opinion of his music doesn't mean it sucks.

I think most of you just get a kick out of making it seem like you are somehow better than people that actually make it in life. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself or something but in reality it makes you seem like narrow-minded wanna be know it all's. It's fine to have your own opinion but until you come out and do something better you shouldn't bash those that have worked hard to make something of their lives in an area you haven't. You just wind up looking jealous.

[Springheeljac]

plant eater wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, that would make Satin good...at being evil. It's funny how some people will try to confuse things. There is "good" as the opposite of "evil", then there is "good" the opposite of "bad". Unless you "speaka no engrish" you must know that many words have duel meanings.
It is very obvious that none of you are artists in any capacity. If you think you are, you are wrong. Literature is a form of art and the way art is judged is whether or not it is liked. So popular does mean good. I don't like Lil' Wayne. In my opinion his lyrics are sexist, vulgar and sometimes disturbing but I don't think he is a bad artist. A bad influence maybe but not a bad artist. Just because I have a negative opinion of his music doesn't mean it sucks.
I think most of you just get a kick out of making it seem like you are somehow better than people that actually make it in life. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself or something but in reality it makes you seem like narrow-minded wanna be know it all's. It's fine to have your own opinion but until you come out and do something better you shouldn't bash those that have worked hard to make something of their lives in an area you haven't. You just wind up looking jealous.

butt hurt?

[plant eater]

Springheeljac wrote:

<quoted text>
butt hurt?

You are too funny, and too predictable.

[Springheeljac]

I'm sorry you just seem to be taking this WAY to personally.

[plant eater]

Springheeljac wrote:

I'm sorry you just seem to be taking this WAY to personally.

Nope, just can't stand people like you. But that's pretty typical of Caldwell County.

[Springheeljac]

plant eater wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, just can't stand people like you. But that's pretty typical of Caldwell County.

There are no people like me. But nice try though.

[Springheeljac]

There are no people like me.

Not to mention, you don't know anything about me.

[plant eater]

Springheeljac wrote:

There are no people like me.
Not to mention, you don't know anything about me.

True, I don't know you but your personality comes through in your posts and you really think too much of yourself. You make it painfully obvious that you THINK you are extremely intelligent and you are never wrong. There are many annoying people like that and you are one of them. Hate it for ya but you are not that unique.

[Springheeljac]

plant eater wrote:

<quoted text>
True, I don't know you but your personality comes through in your posts and you really think too much of yourself. You make it painfully obvious that you THINK you are extremely intelligent and you are never wrong. There are many annoying people like that and you are one of them. Hate it for ya but you are not that unique.

I know people who have said similar things before and changed their minds after getting to know me. I assure you I really am that unique. And as for thinking I'm highly intelligent I have empirical evidence of that.

[Ecelectic]

I was so enjoying the literary reviews (some of which were actually well written). Too bad the comments did not stay focused on the subject at hand. A review is nothing more than the opinion of the the reader. The beauty of a review is that it encourages a curious mind to read and form its own opinion of the material.

[Springheeljac]

Ecelectic wrote:

I was so enjoying the literary reviews (some of which were actually well written). Too bad the comments did not stay focused on the subject at hand. A review is nothing more than the opinion of the the reader. The beauty of a review is that it encourages a curious mind to read and form its own opinion of the material.

Right on.

[Jeezy Creezy]

I think Liar is angry because even though Dan Brown rights at about the grade 5 or 6 level, he is now very wealthy from his books and movies.

It really does boggle my mind that it happened. Just pick up his book and read a line or two and then pick up a real author's book and compare. Painful, just painful.

[plant eater]

Springheeljac wrote:

<quoted text>
I know people who have said similar things before and changed their minds after getting to know me. I assure you I really am that unique. And as for thinking I'm highly intelligent I have empirical evidence of that.

Sure you are and sure ya do. And I'm the queen of England. Really, get over yourself. You have said nothing that makes you seem that special.

[plant eater]

Ecelectic wrote:

I was so enjoying the literary reviews (some of which were actually well written). Too bad the comments did not stay focused on the subject at hand. A review is nothing more than the opinion of the the reader. The beauty of a review is that it encourages a curious mind to read and form its own opinion of the material.

I have no problem with a review. If you like it, you do, and if you don't, you don't. It's people that think their opinion is fact and bash others for opposing opinions that seems juvenile and becomes annoying.

[plant eater]

Jeezy Creezy wrote:

I think Liar is angry because even though Dan Brown rights at about the grade 5 or 6 level, he is now very wealthy from his books and movies.
It really does boggle my mind that it happened. Just pick up his book and read a line or two and then pick up a real author's book and compare. Painful, just painful.

Regardless of the grade level in which Brown writes, I find it hard to put his books down as do many others making him the wealthy man he is. Like I've said before, it doesn't take writing skill to be a good author. One just has to know how to tell a story.