Explorations (**BD2 Movie Spoilers!**)

General Discussion on the Twilight Universe

Moderators: December, bac, Bronze Haired Girl, cullengirl

Forum rules
Click for Forum Rules
holdingoutforjacob
Part of Carlisle's Clan
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: Where the wild things are...

Re: Explorations

Post by holdingoutforjacob »

Openhome - Thanks for answering me!! Your answer is pretty much what I was thinking, as well.

Just one thing - Jacob does everything he does to win Bella's heart knowing that even if she recognizes that she's in love with him, it won't be enough, and if she can recognize what she's giving up and still wants to move forward, he can accept that and will back off. SM has stated this somewhere... Being Jacob Black maybe? Or an interview? I think it was in an interview, I'll try to find it. Anyway, wouldn't this be indicative of something?? I agree that he becomes a man when he stands up to Sam - interesting that he also becomes an Alpha then, maybe SM meant for it to happen that way? - maybe this is why I think he's full along into the process of becoming a man in Eclipse.

I don't think that his determination to get Bella to see everything she was giving up, to consider all her options, was the result of immaturity.
Image

death cannot stop true love, it can only delay it for a while...
cullengirl
Cataloging the Cullen Library
Posts: 1310
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Having a book discussion with V.
Contact:

Re: Explorations

Post by cullengirl »

Openhome wrote:
holdingoutforjacob wrote:
Openhome - I wonder what turns a boy to a man? I believe that Jacob is a boy throughout New Moon, Eclipse is his journey to manhood, and then in Breaking Dawn he is a man.
Wow. You don't ask easy questions, do you? :lol:

Cultures for centuries have asked the same thing, so I don't think I will be a whole lot of help here. I would love to hear Cullengirl's view on this as well.
I hate to sound like Aro, but that's truly a fascinating question, Holdingoutforjacob. I'll have to muse about it and draft my answer, but like Openhome, I'll have to address Jacob's growth in terms of the books. More later!
“Darkness will never take me…because I have you. Light of my life, Marissa. That’s what you are.”-LR
Image
Banner by the awesome, beautiful and incredible Nena!
December
Muse of Philosophical Discussion
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Putting the "Longa" into Ars Longa....

Re: Explorations

Post by December »

Openhome wrote:It isn't until his last try with Bella (tent scene) that I think Jake begins to understand the hardships that he will be asked to endure as a man, because it isn't until that moment that he understands he must be willing to accept her choice.

Any child enters adulthood when they are able to think outside of themselves and put their needs aside for a greater purpose - we call this empathy and it is the ability to truly understand others and see the world around them. I know some forty year olds who haven't looked beyond their own needs, so there is no real age at which this occurs. We see that Jacob is still struggling with his childlike desires at Bella's wedding, but we also see that he is now growing beyond himself and willing to TRULY give up himself and his dreams for her. Before that point, he loved her, and he was willing to give up a great deal to love her, but he wasn't willing to let her choose her own fate. In many ways, Jacob in Eclipse is like Edward in New Moon, in my opinion. He is willing to sacrifice for Bella, but he isn't willing to let her make her own choice. He is still a little too immature.


Gosh. Now that is a stunning definition of adulthood. The capacity (and determination) to make one’s own choices -- to move out from the shadow of one's parents and mentors and take control of one's life -- is the vital first step of growing up: the teenager’s boldly-struck blow for freedom we’re all familiar with. The hardest part comes next: the ability to stand aside and let the people you love choose for themselves. Which is not about taking control, but relinquishing it.

By Eclipse, Edward has got there. He’s ready to let Bella make her own decisions, not just the life-changing ones -- to become a vampire -- but the little ones like going to see Jake in La Push. And we feel his quiet air of maturity and power in that confrontation with Jake after Bella punches him. At this stage, Jake is all about what he can get, and what he can get Bella to do. Edward has the steady strength -- and repose -- that comes with knowing how to love and let go.

For Jake it will take another few hundred pages of the series to arrive there. But he does. Watching him grow into it is one of the great pleasures of BD. And I love your insight that it's not just standing up to Sam, but what he is standing up to him about which really marks Jake as having become a man. The moment when he is truly ready to let Bella go, not just to another guy, but to the life she has chosen -- abhorrent as it is to him.

HOFJ -- I hope you can find that quotation from Stephenie, because it's really intriguing!
Image
“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”
holdingoutforjacob
Part of Carlisle's Clan
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: Where the wild things are...

Re: Explorations

Post by holdingoutforjacob »

Wow, so many great answers to such my musing! I'm excited!

Okay so I found this on SM's website in the "Eclipse FAQs" section. It's not everything, but part of what I was saying. I'll keep looking though!
Jacob doesn't have a tragic flaw. He has one goal and one hope. His goal is to save Bella's life. His hope is that he'll win her heart in the process. He fails at both. But that doesn't mean he regrets trying. If he could do it over again, he'd do the same thing. Jacob couldn't live with himself if he didn't give saving Bella his best effort—he knows it's going to hurt when he loses, but he knows it would hurt worse if he didn't try.
So that explains my point about his ultimate goal being to save her life and her heart being secondary. This isn't what I was referring to though.... I'm working on it.
December wrote:By Eclipse, Edward has got there. He’s ready to let Bella make her own decisions, not just the life-changing ones -- to become a vampire -- but the little ones like going to see Jake in La Push. And we feel his quiet air of maturity and power in that confrontation with Jake after Bella punches him. At this stage, Jake is all about what he can get, and what he can get Bella to do. Edward has the steady strength -- and repose -- that comes with knowing how to love and let go.
For Jake it will take another few hundred pages of the series to arrive there. But he does. Watching him grow into it is one of the great pleasures of BD. And I love your insight that it's not just standing up to Sam, but what he is standing up to him about which really marks Jake as having become a man. The moment when he is truly ready to let Bella go, not just to another guy, but to the life she has chosen -- abhorrent as it is to him.
Okay some of this I completely disagree with, though I see what you're saying. It takes a LOT for Edward to be okay with Bella making her own decisions, and even into Breaking Dawn he has trouble with it. Now, before everyone jumps on me, it's not about his need to be in control, it's about him thinking he knows better.

I also do NOT think that in Eclipse with Jake it was all about what he could get. I don't even really understand what you mean by that. Jake is all about getting Bella to see what he knows is true - that she's in love with him. It's about making sure she makes an informed decision. Maybe this is partially for him (he is partly spurred by his pain at the thought of losing her) but in the end it's about her life, if the way to save her life was never to talk to him again, I think he would have done that. This is why I categorize him as in-between in Eclipse - because he is willing to put her needs, her life, what he believes is right before himself.

Again, I completely agree that he becomes a man when he puts even his last scruple aside, and defends her life, even in a form that is his worst nightmare. Do you all think it makes a difference that he doesn't recognize it as such though? I mean, seeing it through is eyes, we know he's just defending her life because he's still in love with her.

Oy, now I've managed to confuse myself again.
Image

death cannot stop true love, it can only delay it for a while...
andypalmer
Learning to Love Green
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 8:24 pm

Re: Explorations

Post by andypalmer »

holdingoutforjacob wrote:Again, I completely agree that he becomes a man when he puts even his last scruple aside, and defends her life, even in a form that is his worst nightmare. Do you all think it makes a difference that he doesn't recognize it as such though? I mean, seeing it through is eyes, we know he's just defending her life because he's still in love with her.
I think the key point in his standing up to Jacob is that his love for Bella isn't his primary motivation. For "Teen Jacob", his feelings for Bella were his primary motivation for everything that he did, whether it was protecting her house, running away to pout, or everything in between. When he confronts Sam though, his primary motivation isn't Bella, it's his belief, his knowledge, that the Cullens aren't evil, that they aren't deserving of death. At this point, Jacob is not only willing to accept his birthright, and the responsibility that entails, but to put his feelings for Bella in the proper perspective and allows himself to be driven by what is truly important.
December
Muse of Philosophical Discussion
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Putting the "Longa" into Ars Longa....

Re: Explorations

Post by December »

First off, I need to apologize. I was happily absorbed in my own Swoony riff, and riding quite cavalierly over Jake for rhetorical effect. I totally agree with you that Jake is NOT only about what he can get: what drives him above all are his fears for Bella. As Stephenie says, he’s fighting for her life: those are the stakes as he sees it and he’d sacrifice anything, including his own happiness, to save her.

Maybe it was just that in that particular episode (which is what I was talking about), those selfless concerns don’t come across as uppermost: one is very aware of the convergence of what Jake wants and what he believes best for Bella. But I like your characterization of Jake as basically somewhere "in-between" in Eclipse. All in all, that’s clearly right: he’s not yet ready to let Bella make her own choice, but his motives are selfless; it’s her happiness he’s thinking of, not his.

I do think there is a contrast with Edward here: by the close of Eclipse, Edward is truly ready to let Bella make this choice, to be ruled by what she thinks right -- and Jake isn’t there yet. But that’s not necessarily purely a matter of maturity: Edward has had opportunities which Jake hasn’t had to see firsthand that Bella really does know exactly what she’s choosing. Edward has been there to watch her face up to the harrowing realities: the massacre in Volterra, Rosalie’s passionate regrets, Bree. Moreover, deep as his own self-loathing may be, it doesn’t come close to Jake’s reflexive, inborn repugnance at what Bella is choosing to become. Letting go of that instinctual horror is going to come very hard.

Now you’re absolutely right to point out that one crucial piece of the equation is Bella’s recognition of her feelings for Jake. Until she’s properly acknowledged this, both Edward and Jake have good reason to think she’s unready to make an informed choice, and to want to interpose their own better judgement between her and the cliff edge she’s racing towards. Jake’s mission to get Bella to confront her feelings (and I think Edward is complicit here) is wholly justified -- even if it looks like imposing his beliefs on her. (And the upshot is actually to reinforce Edward’s willingness to let Bella make her own choice. It’s after that night of tears that he finally and unequivocally tells her: your way is right, mine is wrong). In that sense, Jake’s determination to keep struggling against Bella’s decision is totally valid: his side of the equation, unlike Edward’s, hasn’t yet been worked through.

As for whether Edward has got over thinking he knows what’s best for Bella....I have to agree that if you look at BD, it doesn’t much look that way. My only reply to that is -- well, as I’ve said before, I don’t think the events of BD altogether take account of what has happened in NM and EC. (Which is exactly what you might expect of a book faithfully based on a manuscript which predates either volume). In this respect, as in several others, it seems to me that BD is the natural successor to TW rather than EC: a point in the story when Edward clearly still reckoned that his 107 year old’s vampire experience trumped Bella’s adolescent naiveté.* So yes, what we’re watching in BD is Edward learning all over the lessons he seemed to have learned already -- because when Forever Dawn was drafted, he hadn’t yet learnt them (and that's the story which went through into BD). Another reason why BD makes better sense to me when read independently of NM and EC....

But because of this, I think it's not ridiculous to discuss the events of EC independently of what transpires in BD. And the Edward I see at the close of EC...well, he seems to me like someone who has learnt the difficult lesson of letting go....



hofj wrote: he becomes a man when he puts even his last scruple aside, and defends her life, even in a form that is his worst nightmare. Do you all think it makes a difference that he doesn't recognize it as such though? I mean, seeing it through is eyes, we know he's just defending her life because he's still in love with her. Oy, now I've managed to confuse myself again.

*giggle*

Actually, what you say makes perfect sense to me. I think it's because he loves her, that Jake is able to embrace what Bella has chosen. That's what truly grown-up love makes possible: taking someone for who they are and accepting their choices -- not just out of some abstract principle of respect, but because you just can't help it. Because it's their choice and you love them: hopelessly, unwaveringly, with a passion that your own beliefs and scruples are no match for.


_______________________
* Fast forward through the intervening eighteen months and Edward never gets the chance to watch Bella acknowledge the downside of what she’s choosing, to reconcile himself to changing her, to recognize that he has to let her make her own decisions and take her own risks (as when he stops trying to keep her from La Push). If BD picks up right where TW leaves off, Edward has still got a world of growing and learning to do....
Image
“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”
Knives
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:01 pm
Location: Trudging Through the Ashes

Re: Explorations

Post by Knives »

Aaaaand new discussion!

(@Openhome - I'm sorry, but I'm not going to weigh in on the subject of the Jacob/Edward/Bella triangle. The politest words I could use to describe my fury and malice would get me banned from the 'Lex, and the truest expression of my belief in Ms. Meyer's incompetence in both the portrayal of the relationship and Jacob as a character would get me lynched through the internet by the sheer force of the fan-hate brought to bear against me. Again, my apologies. Consider it a paradigm difference, if you will - which is what I'm about to get into.)
Author vs. Storyteller
"The dialogue was terrible, the filming was all over the place, the actors practically fell over under all the make-up, and I just bought all twelve season on DvD. Marathon?"
How does a novel, movie, cartoon, or comic suspend our disbelief? Is it just an effort on the part of the author, the reader, or both? What are the techniques involved, and do they even matter?

In an attempt to explain my views on this, I've simplified the two most common approaches into Authorship and Storytelling, which I'll get into shortly. Keep in mind that these two approaches are not exclusive. That said:

A Storyteller is out to make you feel something. Rage, passion, obsession, fright, happiness, the need to wet oneself - whatever. A Storyteller tries to suspend your disbelief by grabbing hold of the reader's heartstrings and yanking until they get the desired response. Certainly, many Storytellers are much more subtle than this, and advanced techniques can include everything from word choice to paratext/filming, illustrations to expositions. The important bit is that the goal of the Storyteller is to wring an emotional reaction from the reader, all else being immaterial. Plot holes, bad writing (except where it detracts from the effect), world verisimilitude and characterization are all irrelevant except insofar as they are tools with which to manipulate the reader, and as such fall by the wayside. Some examples of good Storytellers that are also bad authors include George Lucas, Stephenie Meyer, Christopher Paolini, and James Cameron (Avatar was Pocahantas in space. Top-grossing film of all time my *grumble mumble rant*).

An Author, on the other hand, is typically out to make you think about something. An Author tries to suspend disbelief and provoke thought about their chosen subject by creating a believable world or scenario. To an Author, emotional considerations are secondary to world verisimilitude, deliberate characterization, symbolism, and an academic exploration of themes, questions, or ideas. Like Storytellers, Authors vary in skill levels, and not all of them are successful. However, some examples of good Authors that are also bad Storytellers include George Orwell, J.R.R. Tolkein, Orson Scott Card (to an extent) and Thomas More (the author of Utopia, from which we get the popular noun. Fun fact? Literally translated, it means NoPlace.)

These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but differ most in how they choose to explore their themes. Storytelling is, to be frank, blunt. While it's certainly possible to be subtle (read a book on mind control sometime) while playing on emotions, the way Storytelling approaches its themes and ideas has all the subtlety of a brick to the face. Characters typically are whatever they're supposed to represent; the foolish youth IS a foolish youth, the concealed evil is a murderer, et cetera, so forth. In a novel where pure Storytelling rules, everything is skin-deep, and any further inference is on the part of the reader alone (think of it like a meditation aid). Often, but not always, Storytelling novels are characterized by plot holes, an incomplete or poor command of the language in use, shallow or inconsistent characterization, and/or purple prose. At the same time, they have a profound "hook" effect on the reader, and involve them personally and emotionally with the story at hand.

Authorship, on the other hand, approaches its themes on the intellectual and/or academic levels. It is frequently quite subtle, often to the point of wasting its point on some readers, who never suspect a thing going on. Characters often symbolize one or more themes beyond what they actually are within the context of the story (consider the role of Czernobog, Slavic god of evil, death, loss, pain, et cetera, in American Gods, where he appears as an aged immigrant who wistfully remembers the old days of blood, honor, and glory). Authors make painstaking attempts to set up realistic worlds and characters, and works where Authorship is the dominant force are often characterized by a profound command of the language, blunt, short prose (ironic that flowery prose - "purple" prose - is less subtle than simple sentence structures), and deliberately crafted dialogue. On the other hand, Authored works take a lot more effort on the part of the reader than the Author; lacking a compelling emotional hook, the reader needs to invest themselves into the work and be willing to actually think and ruminate on the themes and concepts being presented - thus getting out of the work that which they put into it.

The primary reason that Ms. Meyer's work draws such polarization when, say, Neil Gaiman's does not is because she is a superb Storyteller, but a rather bad Author. At the barest minimum, Ms. Meyer has an unsophisticated command of English, and an inadequate editor. Many readers also see inconsistencies, lacks of realism, poor characterization (including whiplash-inducing turn-arounds in some cases), badly-designed world rules, and prose with more purple than a global Synod. On the other hand, Ms. Meyer excels in making her reader feel. I see it over and over again in the fan responses - the characters feel believable, they can feel Bella's heartbreak - the emphasis on emotion is constant and all-pervasive. THAT is how Ms. Meyer works to suspend disbelief, but it doesn't work on all readers, leading to people not liking the books or, like myself, actively striving against what we perceive to be the dangerous, destructive, backwards, or downright malevolent themes, ideas, and/or concepts put forth by the work. After all, if Ms. Meyer makes Bella's self-destructive (*coughsuicidalcough*) behavior in New Moon feel sweeping, romantic, and justified, many of her readers - especially young ones - will take that concept into their lives as well.

Ms. Meyer is by no means the only author to write like this, and there are numerous other works one can examine which exhibit similar traits, such as Fallen, James Cameron's Avatar, or Christopher Paolini's Inheritance cycle. Likewise, there are numerous examples (Utopia, Common Sense, The Jungle) of Authored books that wouldn't know good Storytelling if it bit them on the Why are we talking about a donkey?. However, there are a great deal of creative thinkers who can combine both concepts with great skill and finesse, and of their works, I would highly recommend American Gods, House of Leaves, and the stellar movie American Beauty.

Thoughts? Opinions? Refutations? Psychic assaults via fan-hate?

- Knives
Last edited by Knives on Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Openhome wrote:Knives, I believe that..
wait for it...
you are right.
GrayceM
Banging Out Dents with Tyler
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:30 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Explorations

Post by GrayceM »

So...just to be clear...
Do you like Twilight Saga? Movies, books, storyline, characters, themes, genre...any part of it? Please don't misunderstand. It would seem from some of your posts that you don't seem to care much for the story, the characters, the writing style, and so I just wondered how you found yourself here...

I agree that some of the titles mentioned are written more for an emotional response from a reader, but we as humans are ruled by are emotions. That is what sets us apart from Vulcans. ;) I admit that I read for enjoyment and not to constantly have to consider any underlying themes to what I am reading. Sometimes I read so I don't have to think... :oops: But some of these titles have made incredible movie adaptions. It all depends on your perspective, your stage in life, your own experiences and what you can relate to. My own personal opinion is that most books are better than their movie adaptions, but there are those few exceptions to everything...
I have to disagree that Tolkien was a bad storyteller, for his time. Most find his work difficult to read due to the large volume of information and that the reader must delve deep enough into the world to find the part they can identify with. Most people would rather not put in that kind of time and effort to get the same soul searching that you can get from reading a "surface" novel.
The difference that I see is that authors such as Tolkien (and I'll throw in Stephen R. Donaldson, Jean Auel, and Terry Brooks) is that the stories they tell us from each series is not limited. The author does not limit their writing so that the person is restrained by their own experiences. They give enough detail that the person who has not been to; The Land or the Four Lands or quite obviously would be gone had they really lived over 25,000 years ago, can use their own imagination to envision the story as it unfolds. Is that not, after all, the entire purpose of fiction lit? To escape into a fictional world so that your own problems or troubles seem insignificant? A world where maybe, just maybe, that hero or heroine looks a little similar to you or has some of your mannerisms. A world where it is possible to do impossible things.
Each person who reads their novels can find some part of a character that they identify with. Some part of a situation that they have dealt with or have dug deep enough into their own personality to know without a shadow of a doubt what they would do were they presented with the exact scenario that the hero/heroine of the story finds themselves in. They detail every small bit of the world, situation, and characteristics so that the reader has no choice but to find something they can relate to.
These authors are not writing Owner's manuals or instruction books, they are writing fiction novels. Yes, they try to suspend disbelief and provoke thought but they rely on human emotions to do that. The ability to see the good in their characters, champion their cause, find a way out of their situations, go through the trauma and emotions even if they are at the same time presenting an idea that is more radical than anything anyone imagined or the same simple story told from a different perspective. The age of the reader the book is projected towards also has a great deal of how the sentence structure is designed and how profound or "flowery" the dialogue or language is.
At different stages in our lives we can get a different meaning or concept from the same story or song, you've heard or read many times before. It's all in our perspective. If you are looking at Twilight Saga from the position of an advanced age male instructor of liturature or science at an Ivy League school, you most likely will see a difference in style and get something vastly different from the story than a middle school girl who lives in the suburbs in a broken home.
I do not think that Bella's behavior in New Moon was particularly suicidal...and sadly, not uncommon in reaction to such a devastating and lifechanging event. Adults who have lost their spouses either in death or by separation and divorce, act more suicidal than this description to me, and it is in no way romantic. Contrary to popular belief, it is acceptable and even necessary to grieve for any relationship when it is over. To avoid that process comes at a great personal cost. The way Stephenie describes Bella's handling this devastation is actually more mature than how most adult handle their emotional upheavals and that is the only justification that is necessary. She didn't overdose or turn to alcohol. She didn't jump off the cliff to kill herself. She wanted to live...but part of living is the actual living and part of living is surviving the day to day after a loss. Sometimes, that includes pushing yourself to extremes to embrace life completely.
I've never been much on romance novels because they are predictable and unrealistic. And this is entirely my own opinion, but this story, though flawed, is still a great story.
Grayce
Image
Openhome
Corralling the Cullens while Esme's Away
Posts: 2598
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Chatting with Esme and giving her parenting advice
Contact:

Re: Explorations

Post by Openhome »

Knives wrote:Aaaaand new discussion!

(@Openhome - I'm sorry, but I'm not going to weigh in on the subject of the Jacob/Edward/Bella triangle. The politest words I could use to describe my fury and malice would get me banned from the 'Lex, and the truest expression of my belief in Ms. Meyer's incompetence in both the portrayal of the relationship and Jacob as a character would get me lynched through the internet by the sheer force of the fan-hate brought to bear against me. Again, my apologies. Consider it a paradigm difference, if you will - which is what I'm about to get into.)
Yes it would. :D Good call.
However, the question I ask wasn't about the love triangle at all. It was about the point at which a boy becomes a man. I have raised numerous children, both sons and daughters, and I can tell you that each child reaches adulthood differently, but there is a pattern that seems to be connected to the child's gender. I was wanting your input on such things: when does the man finally emerge enough to differentiate himself from the boy?

I love your new discussion.
Gracey: Knives is one of the few members here who does not like the books. He comes on to discuss things that interest him. I love your response because it shades what I am about to say.
Knives wrote:A Storyteller is out to make you feel something. Rage, passion, obsession, fright, happiness, the need to wet oneself - whatever. A Storyteller tries to suspend your disbelief by grabbing hold of the reader's heartstrings and yanking until they get the desired response. Certainly, many Storytellers are much more subtle than this, and advanced techniques can include everything from word choice to paratext/filming, illustrations to expositions. The important bit is that the goal of the Storyteller is to wring an emotional reaction from the reader, all else being immaterial. Plot holes, bad writing (except where it detracts from the effect), world verisimilitude and characterization are all irrelevant except insofar as they are tools with which to manipulate the reader, and as such fall by the wayside. Some examples of good Storytellers that are also bad authors include George Lucas, Stephenie Meyer, Christopher Paolini, and James Cameron (Avatar was Pocahantas in space. Top-grossing film of all time my *grumble mumble rant*).
Yes it was, and only a great story teller could have made an entire planet want a tail. ;)

As you mentioned, story tellers do not always make for technically good writers. If I may, they are the artists of communication. The are not concerned with the meat of it, but the beauty of it. They want an emotional reaction from their audience because that is their goal. Just as not all art is technically advanced, and yet is often great art, so not all writing. However, if it communicates and elicits the emotions that the author desired, or if it forces the reader to think a certain way, then the writing is successful. It is art. This does not detract or lessen the story they created.
Knives wrote:An Author, on the other hand, is typically out to make you think about something. An Author tries to suspend disbelief and provoke thought about their chosen subject by creating a believable world or scenario. To an Author, emotional considerations are secondary to world verisimilitude, deliberate characterization, symbolism, and an academic exploration of themes, questions, or ideas. Like Storytellers, Authors vary in skill levels, and not all of them are successful. However, some examples of good Authors that are also bad Storytellers include George Orwell, J.R.R. Tolkein, Orson Scott Card (to an extent) and Thomas Moore (the author of Utopia, from which we get the popular noun. Fun fact? Literally translated, it means NoPlace.)
Here we do have a paradigm disagreement. First off, I think Tolkien was a great storyteller, but he wasn't going for a modern tale. He was going for an epic tale. Nothing moved me more than his work, so I must say that for me, he is an example of both Author and Story Teller. I also think that George Orwell also got to that point in some of his works, though not all. Secondly, while I love how you have separated the two forms of the craft, Storytelling and Authorship, I do not weigh one as greater than the other. From these two paragraphs and your quote below, I can tell that you believe that truly great works come more from the Authorship side of the coin. Yet, what is your criteria for judging?

As a historian, I can tell you that the TRULY great works are, as you said, written by authors who are able to master both (Harper Lee). However, the stories that change the course of humanity are often more art than technique. If we judge a book by how it affects humanity, then Storytelling is the more important of the two.
Knives wrote:These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but differ most in how they choose to explore their themes. Storytelling is, to be frank, blunt. While it's certainly possible to be subtle (read a book on mind control sometime) while playing on emotions, the way Storytelling approaches its themes and ideas has all the subtlety of a brick to the face....At the same time, they have a profound "hook" effect on the reader, and involve them personally and emotionally with the story at hand...
Authorship, on the other hand, approaches its themes on the intellectual and/or academic levels. It is frequently quite subtle, often to the point of wasting its point on some readers, who never suspect a thing going on. Characters often symbolize one or more themes beyond what they actually are within the context of the story ... On the other hand, Authored works take a lot more effort on the part of the reader than the Author; lacking a compelling emotional hook, the reader needs to invest themselves into the work and be willing to actually think and ruminate on the themes and concepts being presented - thus getting out of the work that which they put into it.
All excellent points. I disagree with you about the bluntness and the overtly stereotyped characters in good Storytelling. It is prominent in many such works, but a good story teller can weave a tale that is deep and surprisingly new. As you pointed out, authors can loose track of what they are trying to say because they haven't been able to create the story as well and grab the reader's heart. Authorship is the more technical aspect of writing, and as Stephen King pointed out, one that comes with time and practice. Something, by the way, not many first time writers are able to master in any way. And even the most proficient of authors can still produce a real stinker.

If by her tenth book, SM is still only a story teller to you, then I say have at her. However, I wonder if your anger at the books comes from her newness to the craft or the REACTION to her. Are you angry that she got published (if so then you must stay angry a lot) or that she is popular?

In your last paragraph, you mentioned that the primary reason SM 's work is popular is that she is a good story teller. Yes. Absolutely. What makes that less important or at least less beneficial than a good author? What is your standard here? If she has captured the hearts of those who read her stories, and that was her goal, what is wrong with that?

EXCELLENT topic!
Knives
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:01 pm
Location: Trudging Through the Ashes

Re: Explorations

Post by Knives »

Openhome wrote:However, the question I ask wasn't about the love triangle at all. It was about the point at which a boy becomes a man. I have raised numerous children, both sons and daughters, and I can tell you that each child reaches adulthood differently, but there is a pattern that seems to be connected to the child's gender. I was wanting your input on such things: when does the man finally emerge enough to differentiate himself from the boy?
Aaaah. I'll deal with that later - don't let me forget!
Gracey: Knives is one of the few members here who does not like the books.
To put this more accurately: Mod Edit: to avoid flaming torches, this comment is still here, just invisible. Hi-light to read

My hatred for Twilight burns with the unquenchable fire of ten thousand suns! When I view pictures of Ms. Meyer, the poison of my hatred taints the water supply for miles, and when I hear commercials on the radio, children weep in terror and mothers scream that the end is surely nigh. May my fighting spirit never die!
Yes it was, and only a great story teller could have made an entire planet want a tail. ;)
Eh. It was shiny, and little else. That movie annoys me. I don't hate it, mind. But it annoys me.
As you mentioned, story tellers do not always make for technically good writers. If I may, they are the artists of communication. The are not concerned with the meat of it, but the beauty of it. They want an emotional reaction from their audience because that is their goal. Just as not all art is technically advanced, and yet is often great art, so not all writing. However, if it communicates and elicits the emotions that the author desired, or if it forces the reader to think a certain way, then the writing is successful. It is art. This does not detract or lessen the story they created.
Some of my personal biases may have been coloring my prose, but I would like to note that both pure Storytelling and pure Authorship are inherently flawed; truly great works must have both, or inevitably they'll attract as many (or more) antis as fans. However, my personal preferences skew towards authorship and thought; I prefer vivid worlds that stay consistent to their own rules. I also like complex characterization, realistic dialogue, et cetera. On the other hand, I hate purple prose - such as Ms. Meyer's - with a burning passion that borders on obsession.
Here we do have a paradigm disagreement. First off, I think Tolkien was a great storyteller, but he wasn't going for a modern tale. He was going for an epic tale. Nothing moved me more than his work, so I must say that for me, he is an example of both Author and Story Teller. I also think that George Orwell also got to that point in some of his works, though not all. Secondly, while I love how you have separated the two forms of the craft, Storytelling and Authorship, I do not weigh one as greater than the other. From these two paragraphs and your quote below, I can tell that you believe that truly great works come more from the Authorship side of the coin. Yet, what is your criteria for judging?
I consider Authorship to be the essential foundation for any great work, upon which Storytelling elements are framed and hung. American Gods is both an emotional and thought-provoking story, but it was Authored first. Indeed, it examines the concepts of religion, stories, and even divinity - highly emotional and personal concepts - from a point of view which is simultaenously academic and personal. The characters are vivid, living people - and also abstract gods. I can feel for the characters - Shadow's pain when he speaks to his dead wife (you read that correctly), Wednesday's sorrow, anger, and frustration at being abandoned, Czernobog's exhaustion - while also being able to parse them out into the symbols they so obviously represent and the ones that are rather more cunningly hidden.

I guess, then, what I'm looking for is inherent complexity. Certainly, I read hack, and there's nothing wrong with that - as long as it's recognized as hack. You'll never hear me argue in favor of a Fabio novel, even though I read them all the time. You'll never hear me say that Mercedes Lackey re-invented fantasy. Yes, I enjoy these works, but they are a far, far cry from greatness, and I tend to take offense - especially as a writer myself - when some hack artist starts touting her work as the next evolution in literature. Many attributes may be ascribed to Ms. Meyer, but public humility is not one of them. That, in and of itself, also irritates me to no end.
As a historian, I can tell you that the TRULY great works are, as you said, written by authors who are able to master both (Harper Lee). However, the stories that change the course of humanity are often more art than technique. If we judge a book by how it affects humanity, then Storytelling is the more important of the two.
This right here is part of the reason I object so strongly to this series, especially as Ms. Meyer publically interprets it. See below.
All excellent points. I disagree with you about the bluntness and the overtly stereotyped characters in good Storytelling. It is prominent in many such works, but a good story teller can weave a tale that is deep and surprisingly new. As you pointed out, authors can loose track of what they are trying to say because they haven't been able to create the story as well and grab the reader's heart. Authorship is the more technical aspect of writing, and as Stephen King pointed out, one that comes with time and practice. Something, by the way, not many first time writers are able to master in any way. And even the most proficient of authors can still produce a real stinker.
Certainly; see my comment above about both approaches, in their "pure" forms, being inherently flawed.
If by her tenth book, SM is still only a story teller to you, then I say have at her. However, I wonder if your anger at the books comes from her newness to the craft or the REACTION to her. Are you angry that she got published (if so then you must stay angry a lot) or that she is popular?
My rage comes in many parts. Listen, then, to the litany of my vengeance! [/melodrama]

- Stephenie Meyer's professional conduct when dealing with other authors, the media, and her fans strikes me as childish. She's cried on public TV because of standard criticisms. She's attacked other authors' works without provocation, loftily declared Bella and Edward's relationship to be greater and more realistic than that of countless classical authors, and now hides behind Mr. Seth, unwilling to accept mail even from fans. I'd have expected her to have learned that authors need a thick skin.

- Many fans - especially those I meet in real life - take these books as guiding stars. They actually seek relationships like Edward and Bella's, expecting some kind of love at first sight to hit them just around the corner. Interpreted realistically (as opposed to mythically), B&E's relationship seems to me dysfunctional, co-dependant, and in my view, emotionally abusive - and they seek to emulate it. Other such behaviors in the novels are no exception to this trend. This worries and angers me greatly. Ms. Meyer is shaping culture - and she's doing so with an irresponsible, encouraging attitude wherein she refuses to acknowledge any of the negative ramifications her series has had. A twi-hater in my high school was attacked over these books. She was hospitalized. They got away with it, too, because I was the only other witness and they came from the respectable half of town.

- It's my publishing market too, damnit, and Ms. Meyer and her copycats have flooded it with works that are similar in general concept to mine while simultaenously being (in my honest opinion) vastly inferior. I now need to cut my way through the inertia of their works to get published. I'm sure you can see where that might be a little enraging.
In your last paragraph, you mentioned that the primary reason SM 's work is popular is that she is a good story teller. Yes. Absolutely. What makes that less important or at least less beneficial than a good author? What is your standard here? If she has captured the hearts of those who read her stories, and that was her goal, what is wrong with that?
My problem is that, because the reader gets personally and emotionally involved, they become biased. You can't critique the series without running into a brick wall of defensive reactions and anger. They see attacks on the work as attacks on themselves because they're so connected (a point which Jazz Girl actually brought up on another thread). As such, even if you try to tell the reader/author that there's room for improvement, they won't listen, or won't care. Futhermore, when you get down to it, Ms. Meyer has not contributed anything new to the literary base; purple novels about sweeping romances are older than writing, and when you flay away the emotional layers, all that's left is some bad worldbuilding and worse editing. Storytelling is essential to a great work, but alone, it fails miserably.
EXCELLENT topic!
Thanks ^_^

Hoping to hear back,

- Knives
Openhome wrote:Knives, I believe that..
wait for it...
you are right.
Post Reply