Explorations (**BD2 Movie Spoilers!**)

[Jazz Girl]

Another piece of the argument cannot go unaddressed, though. If you love the content, the story and/or message, than the technicalities are so much less a consideration. However, if you despise the content, find it offensive, than every piece of novel, from the author's technical skills to their editor's professional qualifications ALSO comes under scrutiny. It just adds to the reasons why the novels should be swiftly forgotten in a person's eyes. I am one of those individuals who can overlook the occasional editing error or gramatical mistake IF it is a story that touches me, that moves my heart. Granted, I'm the first to tell you I do take note and read the word, phrase or sentence as it should be. But, it doesn't detract from the story, the message, for me.

Taking SM's work as an example, absolutely there are phrases or passages that make me cringe. But, I am lost in the story, the whirlwind of the TwiVerse. So, while I take note, I bypass it just as quickly to race forward into the world of Edward & Bella's epic love story.

In the end, it boils down to one issue. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you object to the content, pass it by on the shelf, leave it for those whose interests and heart go there. Just as you have the right to your publishing world, so do we as well.

[Knives]

Another piece of the argument cannot go unaddressed, though. If you love the content, the story and/or message, than the technicalities are so much less a consideration. However, if you despise the content, find it offensive, than every piece of novel, from the author's technical skills to their editor's professional qualifications ALSO comes under scrutiny. It just adds to the reasons why the novels should be swiftly forgotten in a person's eyes. I am one of those individuals who can overlook the occasional editing error or gramatical mistake IF it is a story that touches me, that moves my heart. Granted, I'm the first to tell you I do take note and read the word, phrase or sentence as it should be. But, it doesn't detract from the story, the message, for me.

The first part of your statement is absolutely true; if you despise something, you want to find the flaws, and if you like something, you often tend to ignore them. However, not everyone reads the same way you do; I see flaws even in books I love, and some of them naggle like crawling fire across my brain until I simply must say something about them. This process is only intensified when dealing with work that I detest.

Taking SM's work as an example, absolutely there are phrases or passages that make me cringe. But, I am lost in the story, the whirlwind of the TwiVerse. So, while I take note, I bypass it just as quickly to race forward into the world of Edward & Bella's epic love story.

Superb storytelling at work ^_^

In the end, it boils down to one issue. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you object to the content, pass it by on the shelf, leave it for those whose interests and heart go there. Just as you have the right to your publishing world, so do we as well.

I'd like to address this statement, because I've heard it before - and I have to disagree.

Even if I WANTED to follow that credo (which ignores such practices as reading opposing points of view and reading to understand another person), Twilight and other novels have (and will) saturated the culture thoroughly. Even if I wanted to ignore the series, the merchandise, movies, commercials, promotions and - especially - fans constantly talking about it are everywhere. Not reading the books wouldn't allow me to live in peace from them, it'd simply put me in a position of ignorance when talking about them. I'm certain that no one wants that - you breed trolls that way.

[Openhome]

In reply:
We are talking about the craft of writing and specifically the two sides of it: art and technical accuracy. To that point, I will post the following...
It is a fair criticism that very few authors ever successfully master both sides of their art. It may be unfair that the technically superb writers do not have the following of readers that the storytellers have, but that is the way of it.
Is SM a better storyteller than a technical author? Yes. Absolutely yes. Is there room for her to improve in coming books? Again, absolutely yes.
This doesn't detract from her ability to touch many reader's hearts.

Knives, what I hear you saying is a bit confusing to me as well.
- You said you read "hack" and are fine with it. What you don't like is threads like this one that try to glean why the story is so popular by having as a foundational principle that the novels might actually be more than "hack."
-You also said that you are angry at SM, and all those like her, because her stories make yours harder to publish. Did the Black Dagger Brotherhood do that to you as well? What about Vampire Diaries or the Sookie Stackhouse series?
Could it be that you are taking out your anger on the wrong thing? You have personified what is wrong with the publishing industry by blaming Mrs. Meyer. Perhaps it isn't her that's the problem.

Let's stay on topic. The topic isn't about SM, it's about writing. Is she the best author ever? Well, not in my opinion. I love what she wrote because it touched me deeply. I like other stuff, too, by the way.

On that note, what other authors have you read that can draw you in to their story so that you are engrossed? Why? Was it their Authorship and attention to detail? Was it their ability to tell a story? What about the two sides of the craft? Which is more important in your opinion?

By way of a mod reply to this topic:

So long as this thread stays on the topic I think that the topic at hand, the two sides of the writing craft, is a great topic. However, at no point in time will I or any other mod allow this thread to become a bashing thread for any member or author. I have several authors that I really don't like. I may say I don't like their work, but I will not ever throw in a personal attacks. The Lex, and specifically this board, are not ever to be used in that way. Any further attacks will be edited out by a mod.

[Knives]

This doesn't detract from her ability to touch many reader's hearts.

No, it doesn't - but that ability isn't anything special, either. Tamora Pierce, Mercedes Lackey, the writers of D&D and George Lucas touched hearts too, and several of them display quite the bit more technical prowess than Ms. Meyer.

Knives, what I hear you saying is a bit confusing to me as well.

Why must I always do this to myself? T_T

- You said you read "hack" and are fine with it. What you don't like is threads like this one that try to glean why the story is so popular by having as a foundational principle that the novels might actually be more than "hack."

My problem isn't this thread or even the concept of ruminating over hack; see my comment about using Storyteller works as a sort of self-reflection aid, above. My problem is when people elevate hack to the level of greatness. It hits my buttons to hear throw-away romance/fantasy/action/whatever novels described as being "better than Shakespeare" or worse, being compared by ignorant fans (who haven't even bothered reading the other works) to its contemporaries, which are usually better. It slams my buttons hard, especially when said fans cannot - or will not - explain their viewpoints intellectually (the way you are, right now - I cannot BEGIN to tell you how much I appreciate that.)

-You also said that you are angry at SM, and all those like her, because her stories make yours harder to publish. Did the Black Dagger Brotherhood do that to you as well? What about Vampire Diaries or the Sookie Stackhouse series?

For all future reference, I've never heard of the Black Daggers. However, copycat authors (Vampire Diaries, Fallen, et all) are a symptom, not a cause. You need a single, defining work to start the fad to begin with, and that blame I can lay squarely at Twilight's feet much in the same way as I can blame Underworld for the whole Vampires vs. Werewolves thing.

Could it be that you are taking out your anger on the wrong thing? You have personified what is wrong with the publishing industry by blaming Mrs. Meyer. Perhaps it isn't her that's the problem.

The publishing industry in and of itself cannot be blamed for anything more than nepotism (see Twilight for a minor example, Christopher Paolini for a huge one) and following market forces. Ultimately, authors and readers shape what will be published, not the abstract entities that publishers represent.

Let's stay on topic. The topic isn't about SM, it's about writing. Is she the best author ever? Well, not in my opinion. I love what she wrote because it touched me deeply. I like other stuff, too, by the way.

Many, many, many, many MANY other fans - again, IRL especially - cannot differentiate between "touched" and "best invention since the handaxe enabled the rise of civilization", which is the source of part of my irritation. Ms. Meyer also does little, publically, to discourage this attitude, which is part of the reason that I rage in her direction as well.

On that note, what other authors have you read that can draw you in to their story so that you are engrossed? Why? Was it their Authorship and attention to detail? Was it their ability to tell a story? What about the two sides of the craft? Which is more important in your opinion?

In my humble opinion, Neil Gaiman may be the greatest English writer of our century. I can state without exaggeration that he is a master of the art; his technical prowess is superb, and he tugs and weaves with the reader's heart-strings with a virtuoso skill that is hard to match. Check out his Sandman series of graphic novels, his seminal work American Gods (and it's much-funnier companion novel, Anansi Boys), Neverwhere and, for a romantic example, Stardust. All of these novels are beyond my feeble ability to describe correctly, and they come with my unconditional approval.

One story that bears mentioning in and of itself as an example of deliberately crafted Storytelling (essentially, Authored Storytelling) is House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielwiski. The book follows (simultaneously) the stories of Johnny Truant (a tattoo apprentice who finds a manuscript in the apartment of a blind dead man), Zampano (aforementioned corpse, who wrote an in-depth analysis of The Navidson Record, a film which does not exist), Will Navidson and his family (the characters in the possibly-fictional Navidson Record) and how these three lives intrude upon each other. The book itself is a brain-trip from the ninth dimension, flaying away at the reader's concept of trust in the medium, trust in the characters, and even trust in their own space and spatial relations while also provoking thought about the nature of love, commitment, madness, home, sanctity, faith, honor, relationships, lust, addiction, fear, motherhood and even reality. All or none of the characters portrayed therein may or may not be real; some might be real, some might be half-real but presented incorrectly, many might even be the fever dreams or multiple personalities of Johnny's mother, Johnny himself, or even Zampano. The deeper you delve into the book (finding translations for foreign phrases, looking for Freudian slips, doing research into mental illnesses, parsing the text for codes, crunching numerological formula, reading up on myth) the novel grabs hold of your mind and your heart and won't let go until you've finished it and lie awake in your bed, tape measures tacked to the walls, unable to sleep and desperate to do so. I know that my thoughts ran feverish with theories, fears, half-formed phobias, and notes (filling several notebooks) by the time I was done, all sprinkled with just the right amount of lust and wistful longing.

...Wow, I just went on for awhile about that novel.

>.>

Y'know, it's also a love story. Seriously. Actually, it's several love stories, but the one between Will Navidson and Karen Green is, I feel, a much better example of what Ms. Meyer was aiming at in her portrayal of Edward and Bella as being "devoted to each other".

So.

Yeah.

Read it >.> <.<

[GrayceM]

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?"

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 Moore (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.

I am a little more than confused on this comparison. I have to assume that you are comparing the two sides of the craft, as Openhome suggests. Generally, storytelling and authorship are the same with slight variation that one is written while the other is oral or acted. You seem to define an author as approaching the same topic as a storyteller with the difference being a more "intellectual and/or academic" level? But you are trying to define them in separate categories and that should not be done. In using that definition you simply can't put fiction writers in the same category as non-fiction. They are both writers, authors and storytellers (unless you're factoring in those manuals I mentioned earlier), but they are telling very different types of stories. Fiction writers can generally make up whatever they determine is possible or feasible to pass through over an editor's desk and be published. Non-fiction must be researched and reported, factual and/or scientifically proven. There is usually very little that the author gets to add personally to the flavor of the book.
Disney movies have always had an underlying message and most often dual meanings in the dialog. The underlying message is designed to teach you lessons, asks you to think differently, or gives you an alternative perspective. Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Bambi. The characters are not always what they appear to be and often can be debated that the characters and plot can symbolize a very different meaning/lesson/message. Though they may be designed with a target audience in mind, every human can take something away from the story. The more recent movie, Up, is a great example of this.
Yes, I agree, the editor should have read further into the book and asked Stephenie to correct/answer some very vivd inconsistencies. But, I had to read the book several times to see those because I was caught up in the emotion of the story. Again though, that is why I read fiction after all. In reading again I found some grammatical errors and some unexplained choices or actions. But as with some of the others, it did not take away from the original story. If I read everything with the intention of finding the flaws, it takes away the enjoyment of reading. For me anyway...
The story that was told in the movie Twilight, though altered from the original book, is still the same basic story. The same is true with LoTR, and many others. There are a few exceptions. Chris Weitz stated about the movie he directed, "The Golden Compass", that he was very unhappy with the outcome (the movie) because somehow, through editing, scriptwriting etc., the story was changed from what he originally signed on for. The message that the original story told, was quite different from the movie, but the movie was more acceptable to the general public.
What I see is that you are demanding that your opinion is the only one that can be right but the examples you give only prove that it is your opinion.
What matters at the end of the day is that this created world of Twilight (or Pandora, or Middle Earth) and the characters and actions are fictional. Yes, they are human (some of them) and there is some real world stuff thrown in, but that is the human factor. As I said previously, most readers will find something they can identify with in a story or at the very least, will try to see from the main character's point of view. It's the only way to enjoy reading. Again...maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way, but that's why it's my opinion.

For all future reference, I've never heard of the Black Daggers. However, copycat authors (Vampire Diaries, Fallen, et all) are a symptom, not a cause. You need a single, defining work to start the fad to begin with, and that blame I can lay squarely at Twilight's feet much in the same way as I can blame Underworld for the whole Vampires vs. Werewolves thing.

Hmmm...I'm thinking that some of the blame should be placed with Dracula (1897 novel) as the defining work. Wolfman can shoulder some of the blame for Underworld, and maybe Frankenstein along with the other two should take some of the responsibility as well for movies like Van Helsing. I don't think that Twilight Saga was every pointedly put out as a original concept so to place blame at it's feet for creating a fad would be like blaming women for high heels. They didn't invent them, they just made them more popular.

[rollie715]

Knives wrote:
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.

This conversation seems to have elevated both sides to a more defensive reactionary state. A possible result of continuing might be to further entrench the opposing views, as it appears many of us are now personally and emotionally involved.

Knives, I appreciate you bringing your comments to this site and thread, as it may be difficult to find people inclined to discuss these issues at this depth amongst the millions of surface level crazed fans. I too, found it refreshing to associate with people here for the same reasons. But I'm wondering if further efforts might bring about further strong reactions. I agree with you on many of the issues, but I also tend to agree that many of us here, do react similar to how you have stated in that we assume a defensive posture even though we try to remain civil and discuss things on an intellectual level.

Please continue, as I do enjoy this whole conversation.

Rollie

[ringswraith]

For all future reference, I've never heard of the Black Daggers. However, copycat authors (Vampire Diaries, Fallen, et all) are a symptom, not a cause. You need a single, defining work to start the fad to begin with, and that blame I can lay squarely at Twilight's feet much in the same way as I can blame Underworld for the whole Vampires vs. Werewolves thing.

Hmmm...I'm thinking that some of the blame should be placed with Dracula (1897 novel) as the defining work. Wolfman can shoulder some of the blame for Underworld, and maybe Frankenstein along with the other two should take some of the responsibility as well for movies like Van Helsing. I don't think that Twilight Saga was every pointedly put out as a original concept so to place blame at it's feet for creating a fad would be like blaming women for high heels. They didn't invent them, they just made them more popular.

Actually, you can't use Dracula as you do in this paragraph. Dracula did not start a fad. What it did start was the basic concept of the vampire: a monster that feeds on human blood, something to fear. I don't even know if you can establish a connection between Wolfman and the Underworld series (aside from both having werewolves).

However I won't say that Twilight started the fad of the romantic vampire. That's been done before (and though I can't pinpoint a novel I can at least mention the somewhat complicated relationship between vampire slayer Buffy and vampire Angel/Angelus on the eponymous TV show). What Twilight did however was make the romantic vampire more accessible, especially to a new generation of readers. Then we have the boom of fans, and whether or not they intended to, all the other vampire/werewolf stories and shows that followed rode the coattails of this phenomenon.

Which I think is what irks Knives so. You have all these fans of the books, and while not every one of them is rabid and thinks that the series is the best thing since blood transfusion packets, there are enough of them to cause a shift in the media. Even the department store I work at has a section just for the series, and to the side all the other vampire/werewolf/(insert mythical cuddly monster here) novels. And I can definitely understand the frustration that stems from trying to put out something with a similar concept into this setting- I'm fairly certain that anyone trying to get a novel published that even mentions vampires in them is going to be faced with "Is this another Twilight/other published vampire story?"

[Knives]

Grayce, I truly do mean this as friendly advice - separating your paragraphs makes your post easier to read. Walls of text are intimidating and also painful on the eyes T_T. That said, here's hoping I can clear up some of your confusion!

I am a little more than confused on this comparison. I have to assume that you are comparing the two sides
of the craft, as Openhome suggests. Generally, storytelling and authorship are the same with slight variation that one is written while the other is oral or acted. You seem to define an author as approaching the same topic as a storyteller with the difference being a more "intellectual and/or academic" level? But you are trying to define them in separate categories and that should not be done. In using that definition you simply can't put fiction writers in the same category as non-fiction. They are both writers, authors and storytellers (unless you're factoring in those manuals I mentioned earlier), but they are telling very different types of stories. Fiction writers can generally make up whatever they determine is possible or feasible to pass through over an editor's desk and be published. Non-fiction must be researched and reported, factual and/or scientifically proven. There is usually very little that the author gets to add personally to the flavor of the book.

You appear to be getting hung up on some technical definitions; I've taken those two words (Storytelling and Authorship) and assigned my own personal definition, seen above. As such, a movie, comic book, novel, play, or puppet show might be Authored, Storytold, or some combination of both, regardless of fiction or non-fiction. For example, I saw (and partially read) a book at my local book store the other day which purported to prove how Sarah Palin was an American Hero who was pushed down by her evil Liberal foes. The goal was to tug on the reader's emotions; thus, it was Storytold. On the other hand, the documentary Zeitgeist (look it up for a laugh sometime; the research is terrible) is supposed to play on logic and learned reasoning, and thus could (laughably) be known as Authored.

Fiction, too, can have these differences. Have you ever read, say, Animal Farm by George Orwell? Though it contains some Storytelling elements, it's almost entirely deliberate, concise, and kinda dry. It's Authored. Contrast that to the vivid emotional impact of, say, Twilight, or the film Deep Blue Sea. Does that clear things up any?

...Aaah snap, I gotta get to work. More later!

- Knives

[GrayceM]

I can use Dracula as I did because that was directly in response to the statement of needing a "single, defining work to start the fad" to blame. It was in no way to suggest that Dracula started the entire vampire concept...only that it is a single, defining work and it did start the fad. If part of the blame should be shouldered elsewhere, I apologize. It is the oldest cinematic/literary reference I could come up with for this, and I may be wrong (it's been known to happen). I only know that it was not Twilight that brought out the vampire craze. There were many before this, as you mentioned.
And as for trying to get something published at this time involving a similar story or even mentioning vampires, it is perhaps the same problem that a lot of writers had when Tolkien was published. Here they had created another world that involved elves and now everything out there on the market that has elves in it is another LoTR. If you are going to blame the marketing and media for the phenomenon becoming so widely popular, keep in mind the same venue must be used to successfully market any concept in this age. Every concept, idea, invention or design is going to somehow be compared to something else. Usually what it's being compared to is the most popular current trend.

[GrayceM]

Grayce, I truly do mean this as friendly advice - separating your paragraphs makes your post easier to read. Walls of text are intimidating and also painful on the eyes T_T. That said, here's hoping I can clear up some of your confusion!

I apologize again. I was unaware that I violated posting etiquette.

You appear to be getting hung up on some technical definitions; I've taken those two words (Storytelling and Authorship) and assigned my own personal definition, seen above. As such, a movie, comic book, novel, play, or puppet show might be Authored, Storytold, or some combination of both, regardless of fiction or non-fiction. For example, I saw (and partially read) a book at my local book store the other day which purported to prove how Sarah Palin was an American Hero who was pushed down by her evil Liberal foes. The goal was to tug on the reader's emotions; thus, it was Storytold. On the other hand, the documentary Zeitgeist (look it up for a laugh sometime; the research is terrible) is supposed to play on logic and learned reasoning, and thus could (laughably) be known as Authored.

If I understand your clarification, you are now saying that authors are storytellers? That every work of fiction or non-fiction can have a combination of authorship and storytelling. If I do not to let your personal definitions of these two words cloud my understanding, I find that we are in agreement. I must have been extremely confused, and I apologize. It seemed to me as though you were trying to separate Stephenie into a different category than any other writer/author and to separate Twilight into a separate category from any other fiction novel.

The personal preference and comparing a modern novel to a "classic" that is from another century is only a matter of taste, in my opinion. It's comparing Gone with the Wind to one of those "Fabio" novels you admitted to reading. It's comparing The Godfather to Grease. It's comparing Leave it to Beaver with Survivor. Because you choose a "classic" over a modern, a reality TV series over a comedy, or a drama over a musical, does not mean that the other choice is terrible and should not be put on the market.

I think I understand now. You were simply stating that your personal preference is for more traditional literary authors over "creative" writing in general, and that your interest in this series is strictly as a hater or anti. Nothing we say or example we give is going to convince you to change your preference because your mind is set. No further discussion is necessary or desired because you can not be swayed to like this series that clearly has no redeeming qualities in your opinion. I apologize again for misunderstanding your goal.

...I will move on to another topic then...

I will have to come back to something posted previously about Jacob and the point that a boy becomes a man...got to get back to work here.