Books you think are overated.

Just because a particular version of the teen vamp story was very successful, it doesn't mean the writing and telling of it was particularly good. It just means that, regardless of the awful novel structure and 2d characters, people still fell in love with the idea of them. Sucess isn't always dependant upon the author doing something particularly right, just dependant on people loving what it represents anyway.

I'm rather bored of Twilight talk now...

 

One doesn't have to write the best to have a book make it. It just needs to be good enough, really.

That said, I despise everything about the Twilight phenomenon, but only one with blinders looks at the book and thinks it was dumb luck or just a trick of marketing. One is missing out if they can't look at the very first paragraph (of chapter one, prologues aren't real writing) and see the aspects of writing most definitely at work. It's full of foreshadowing, based in action. The paragraph is a microcosm of the books theme; meaning even in the first paragraph she's already controlling the message and meaning of the book (not world building or character introductions or any of the number of things lesser writers do).

Maybe she lucked into it and it was all an accident, but there are a ton of things from a technical aspect she's doing right.

I still thing it's insipid, vapid trash that could have used an editing pass by a skilled editor, but that doesn't mean there aren't very tangible aspects of writing working to make it a successful story.

But, it's usually easier to just parrot what the general consensus is, that it was little more than the blank-slate character and general idiocy of teen readers that made it popular.

What does the POV have to do with the terrible delivery of the plot? Umm, everything, as in most fiction? What was the last book with a completely flat, text-book style POV with no style or life or genuine perspective they read that was still popular or great simply because the plot was expertly outlined? It doesn't really happen in fiction, because the important thing--even in popular fiction--is rarely what happens, but to whom. Even the shallowest plot-based pulp-fiction still has characters that, even if they're completely two-dimensional or contrived, are designed to make the plot matter, and without those characters, the story doesn't work.

Readers don't want to read a plot outline or synopsis of a book. And if the poor plot structure is really the main complain of a novel, then it proves it must have done other things right. Instead of continuing to harp on poor plot structure and cite that as a reason the book SHOULD have failed, and then crediting everything but those other things done right for the books success, perhaps a better approach would be to actually study the text a bit closer and try to figure out what it did do right.

It's easy to find things wrong with a book. It's actually much harder to look at what was done right; both from a technical standpoint in that writers are predisposed to always look for what's wrong and in the way writers hate giving credit to anything they don't absolutely love or approve of (more predisposition writers have to overcome).

Like I said, I absolutely hate and despise everything that is Twilight, but before I actually started claiming to hate the writing, I read and studied it, and not just to self-servingly discredit it in my own mind, but to figure out what, if anything, it did right so I could learn from that. Writers don't usually learn from dismissing the things wrong with a text, but from embracing the things done right, even if it conflicts with our personal predispositions to want to hate and dismiss something as a fluke.

 

I suppose it all comes down to what the precise definition of what good story telling is. In a term so vague and ill-defined, I only see one remotely accurate way of defining it. And that is, as a matter of fact, success. If you have the second largest fanbase in the world you've obviously told a good story. There's no such thing as an awful novel structure, only novel structures less likely to be effective. But if you've won over millions with that structure, then you've made it work. The structure was simply about what she chose to emphasize.

And those ideas have been around for a long time. It's how she represented them that made people fall in love. I don't think one can say Meyer didn't do anything particularly right, but just used ideas that people fell in love with anyway.

So am I...

 

Pretty easy for most people. What I personally like is good, obviously, duh, I wouldn't like something if it weren't. And if I don't like it, sheesh, I have such perfect taste, so things I don't like are totally bad! That's why I didn't like them!

 

When did it become acceptable to defend and applaud an author or novel just because they did something right? As far as I know, doing something right is the bare minimum that any and all writers need to be achieve in order to be successful. sheesh, I mean, if I got a dollar for every right thing I did in my life, then seriously I'd be rich. So what if Meyers was successful and did something right, it's not enough. Her simply doing something right wasn't enough for me as a reader and I'm not going sit here and defend her and claim that despite all the negative aspects of the books, "you can't deny she did something right" (aka: defend the twilight books and discredit an opinion that says Meyer's is horrible). I mean so flipping what if she did something right. So what? Does that automatically mean I need to applaud her, defend her, learn from her ... or otherwise be labeled narrow-minded and someone who is wearing blinders?

I'm not going to put her up on a pedestal and put her up on a list of 'author's to defend' simply because she did something right. She didn't appeal to me, and that is the BIGGEST thing. It's like people who automatically praise Faulkner because he's a regarded as a great writer by many but who in reality have never read any of Faulkner's work or secretly don't like him but still continue to praise him because others saw something in his work that you didn't and therefore, you should say that "yep, he's great." Why? Why? Why? I can say communism is a system that can be implemented correctly and be system received well by hundreds of people, but I'm not going to defend it because I have no interest in implementing it nor does the simple fact that it was previously implemented correctly/rightly by another person mean that I have to like it, defend it, or need to on some level respect it.

I have no interest in reading the books again. I have nothing but negative things to say about the book. And yes, I do acknowledge that she has done something right, but at the same time, I still hold a deeply-seeded abhor towards the books. I can break down the technical aspects, the psychological aspects, the fad aspects and say, yep she did something right, but why should I? I have no interests in writing books like Twilight, I have no interest in writing the way Meyer does because I personally don't like that style regardless of the fact that it was successful. And almost everyone that defends the books are either those that love them and therefore rightfully defend it, or those that feel the need to defend the books simply because the author did something right yet at the same time put a disclaimer or a big BUT that further states that they hate twilight. It makes no sense. And so why should I be forced to acknowledge that she did something right when any blind man can see that yes, she was successful with what she did do.

Why use your energy to defend something that doesn't appeal to you, especially for the bare minimums. Why not instead defend something that not only did something right but and then some! Because aren't those the books that we love to read? Those that not only did something right with the story-telling or technical aspects of writing, but went beyond that and gave you something extra?

The only thing Twilight left me was an impression on the current market out there and what it takes to appease the same-like readers.

And the arguments that say that say that it is easy to look for the bad stuff instead of the good stuff is just one sliver of a whole lot of great area. I pretty much disagree with it.

Take Harry Potter for example. I love the books and any time I talk about the books I can't help but praise them and can't help but talk about all the things Rowling did right. Yet despite all of that, I know there are flaws, I know there are parts of the book that could have been improved, but they don't matter as much because so much of the books were done right and then some, that the bad parts didn't matter much. Whereas in Twilight, so much was bad that I can't focus on any good without actually have to search and focus on searching for any good in the book.

And maybe that is the Achilles heel of this whole thing. When a book is horrible on so many levels, people say that you're narrow-minded and not looking at what is done right. And when a book is wonderful on so many levels, people say that you're biased and aren't looking at what is wrong and what isn't done right.

Well flip! I guess I should applaud, learn, and commend a horrible book that didn't appeal to me at all simply because it appealed to a million other people out there.

I don't want to write something like Meyers. Heck, I'm embarrassed to even say that I've even read the books. When I talk about the books, I roll my eyes; that is not work that I want to learn from, that is not what I want to emulate, nor do I want my future work to received the same way that Meyer's work has been received . And I don't care if she was successful and became rich for it. I rather write something like Rowlings', whose work I can't help but smile at, whose work I can't help but praise and use in examples, whose work I am proud to say that I have read.

No one can say anything purely positive or anything purely negative anymore it seems. When people say something is horrible, maybe they've thought about it, and maybe that despite the something was done right, the overwhelming final conclusion is that it is still horrible in the end. What is so wrong with that?

 

No.

Keep in mind some of us are writers trying to learn the business and craft of writing. We aren't judging the personal opinions of others because we don't really care about the person opinions of others. Disliking something because of personal taste a) is in most cases not the concern of people trying to become better writers, and b) not really really relevant to the study and education of a writer (whether self or of others).

Aside from that, I think it's pretty awkward to make it so personal. The frustrating thing is half of us seem to want to discuss the merits of a book based on it's merits, while the other half want to get into personal debates about individual taste. To make the matter so blatantly and awkwardly personal is, well, awkward, but also well beside the point for a public writing forum where, in theory, writers are trying to discuss the merits of a highly successful book to improve their own writing, not get into personal cat fights that improve nothing but the callouses on my face and palms.

If you're a writer looking to improve your craft you shouldn't really care about applauding her or defending her because that's not the point. Just like you shouldn't get personally offended if someone doesn't have the same taste as you, particularly if they're simply looking at the content of a highly successful book trying to decode what was objectively done right.

Basically, if you don't like a book for objective reasons, there's no reason to get personally worked up in a discussion of the technique and methods employed.

I'm not a Christian, for instance, but I don't freak out if someone mentions the effective use of parables in The Bible. Unless, perhaps, I'm personally invested to the point I'm unable to see beyond my own tastes and biases and objectively engage a text... which is not a good place for a writer to be if they're ever hoping to seriously study or educate themselves on the craft of fiction.

The good news is fiction is entirely subjective and the only thing that matters is a positive attitude, not studying or objective analysis!

What's wrong, I suppose, is that writing isn't some personal journey where people lavish praise, money and publication credits on one for having strong personal biases and distinct tastes they're willing to defend in emotionally charge rants, but instead a career where studying fiction (all fiction, not just things one 'likes') is of paramount importance to learning the craft and objective aspects of what make fiction work. And learning to objective engage and dissect a text doesn't mean someone is personally defending, justifying or excusing that text... it means they're simply trying to learn something other than what they already know (that, ironically, has already shaped their personal biases and tastes and is the biggest block most writers face in learning the craft of fiction).

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. In the end, it's essentially subjective, I suppose. You can find examples of works in any art widely regarded as "great" and find plenty of people who hate them. I found Meyer to be mediocre from a personal standpoint. Moving beyond my personal thoughts and as much as possible into some kind of objective assessment, though, I have to admit that she did a tremendous job of connecting with millions of readers who love her work. So if that is one goal of an author and storyteller, than by an objective reckoning, she succeeded.

Another example of such an author from my own point of view is Terry Goodkind. I think he's terrible. But he has a lot of fans, so he has been objectively successful at connecting to a large group of readers.

 

You know, as I was reading this whole thing, I was laughing the whole way through because I agree with it yet, my 'emotional rant' was a direct reaction to the fact that this debate steamed from a personal opinion and is why I made it personal - to make a point. And how could it not, just look at the title of this thread? And I disagree, as I read the above posts there were judgements made, there were underlying assumptions being made about someone saying Twilight is horrible.

Yet, what compromised someone saying it was horrible wasn't defined and instead people take it, apply their own meaning to how someone uses the word 'horrible' and inject their thoughts, judgements, reactions to it. I guess you can do that but it gets to a point where what you're doing is defending an opinion. No matter how you look at it, all the posts were defending an opinion whether it was that the work was horrible, or that there was something that was done right.

I have no problem with talking about Twilight objectively to see what was done right, in fact it would be interesting because I do have a lot of thoughts about what was done right which have nothing to do with a lot of why dislike the books, but the discussion isn't revolving around what exactly was done right and why, but instead the fact that something was done right and defending the opinion that it was done right.

And there is the difference.

But yes, I agreed with your whole post. It just irkes me that on this site, simply stating an opinion has to have thesis paper attached and it's all defensive position of an opinion when what would be more constructive is to start another thread to actually discuss what was done right and what wasn't done right, specifically.

 

Alright, so the Twilight series's success is hugely debatable, and of course there will always be opposition to such success. I hope I don't offend by saying that a decent amount of people outside of the target audience are willing to defend the series, whether because the criticizing is unjust or the story itself is good, so then we can finally push past that and take a look at the series as a whole.

To say that it was well-written for the target audience is an understatement. From what I've read and heard, Edward is the face of perfection, and Bella, being the connecting factor, is able to "succeed" (Please bear in mind that, again, I NEVER touched the series. This is all off of what I've heard) in a relationship with Mr. Perfect. So of course they are attracted to the book like moths to a flame, but from many people who AREN'T initially hooked on that catch usually have bad reviews of the series, myself being one of them. So in a way, it really is the story that sold the book.

And according to Steerpike, it's not just authors like Meyer that are getting lucky when their writing isn't as good as others. Well, "lucky" being used as a relative term. Every story has been written before, and if it hasn't then the writer will be the first of very few to come up with something original. I mean, look at how much research people will do for books. The Alchemyst, for example, has a lot, a LOT, of research behind each character, all being real or mythological gods, goddesses, and people from ancient times. If you look at it in such a way, all he had to do was make a few invisible connections, write up a small back story for said parts, and then all he has to do is continue on. So, while the story is original, it still becomes a tale based on past tales only interpreted separately. Inspiration will also come from sources, even if not intended. All one has to do is think of when, where, and why they went with a certain idea. Meyer, perhaps, read one of her rival's books and thought she could do better. Terry Goodkind looks like he takes after... Well, countless fantasy authors. I really can't think of a "Mother of all fantasy" outside of Rowling. Bottom line, though, Nobody's ideas are original, and why some stories swim and other sink, well, the public's eye is fickle.

 

Yeah, Nicholas Sparks is one of these authors for me, thought it's reversed for me. I personally think he's terrible story teller, but a very skilled writer. I dislike almost all of his stories, but I have high praise for his writing.

 

I guess it's the difference between an online writing workshop and an online writing share site. Some people are here to study and learn, at which point someone's opinion alone isn't really relevant. Others just like sharing their opinions with anyone that listens, which is great too.

My assumption is that people are here to learn. And having an opinion for the sake of having an opinion and not wanting to discuss the how's and why's that led to that opinion, or worse having opinions that are objectively simply not supported by anything in the realm of fact or analytic thought, doesn't do much good.

I hate Twilight. Oh yeah, well I love Twilight. Oh yeah, well I hate it because it's just a fad idiot teens like! Oh yeah, well I like it because it's obviously good or a billion people wouldn't buy it! Oh yeah...

/slit

There are sites like Facebook and Twitter (and Youtube comments, lol) for people to just shout their opinions back and forth. You may be irked that you can't simply share an opinion for the sake of sharing an opinion, and it irks me that everything is so freakin' personal with writers and it seems nearly impossible to get any actual discussion or learning done around here at times.

So, we should specifically start threads that request posters actually think and perhaps even explain their opinions... I thought being forums for an online writing workshop and the word 'think' in the title of this thread was enough to imply it was more than a thread for people to just spout their opinions in parallel and think something meaningful just happened, or, for people to turn things into a emotionally charged catfight and suggest different threads should be started anytime anyone actually wants to delve into a subject matter deeper (you know, the 'think' thing again).

But it is more congenial for everyone to just state their opinions and move on, as if a tally is being taken and discussions shouldn't factor into the results.

So, for the record, I don't like Stephen King!


[edit: I don't mind discussing things in a new thread, if that's what's desired, but I also don't mind simply having discussions where they occur organically. Shrug]

 

All this is more explaining away success rather than studying how fiction was crafted that ended up being highly successful.

For instances, as I brought up, Meyers is very good at something very hard in writing, which is constantly telling the 'same' story. Sure, to the hyper-discerning eye, at times it may seem redundant or obvious, but to most readers creating constant microcosms that reinforce the same messages, meaning and themes are often a hallmark of successful fiction (across genres). The story she's telling in page one, even paragraph one, is the same story she's telling throughout, the same way Romeo and Juliet is always the same story, reinforcing the same themes and meanings every moment.

Good stories don't just ramble through plot points and then at the end try to make sense of it. Good stories, under a microscope, are almost embarrassingly obvious in every scene, over and over, hammering the same message home so that by the time the climax happens that same story is still being told, just in a heightened way, only it's now more believable because it isn't a surprise.

Dislike the writer or the phenomenon of Twilight all anyone wants, but like Chakira's hips, the text don't lie.

 

Everything by Jane Austen. =-)

 

How dare you!

 

The Magic Tree House! No! I loved those books when I was a child! My mom reads them to her first grade class! How can you not love Jack and Annie?

 

I liked the movie, but The City of Ember. I tried reading it. I really did. But I just couldn't get into it. And so I never finished it.

Hidden, you don't like the Chronicles of Narnia???? Ow, that hurts. I LOVE them. I especially love the Silver Chair with the character Puddlegum. He's probably my favorite character to Aslan.

 

Honestly, I wanted to love them, but I just couldn't get into it. I might have enjoyed them more if I had read them as a child, but the first time I read them was a few years ago. This was after I had read "On Christianity" and formed my (negative) opinion of CS Lewis, so that could also have had something to do with it...plus I just really don't dig things with such hit-you-over-the-head religious "undertones." :/

 

I must admit, I didn't massivly enjoy The Lion, the Witch and the Waredrobe which I was surprised about as I generally love children's stories. I tried reading it last summer and I just found that the book didn't pull me in as a reader. I can't comment on the rest of the series though.

 

Atlas Shrugged is the book I've been most disappointed with....

 

I'm sorry to say it, but I think The Hunger Games are overrated. It's not bad, by all means, but it's not... great. The writing is decent and the characters likeable, but it takes too long to get to the point and is making me loose interest even though I'm only about halfway through. I still bought the other two, though. :redface:

 

This, this, this. That's what really ruined that series for me. Ugh.

 

Glad it wasn't just me. Although I will admit, it was great fun going to see the movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe with my ex-boyfriend, who had just come back from his mission, and pretending I had no idea what he was talking about when he brought up the religious symbolism afterward. He was pretty upset.

 

I'm not religious, but to me it makes no difference whether a story has religious undertones or symbolism, or not. If the story succeeds in its own right, the religious undertones don't bother me. If it doesn't succeed, religious undertones certainly won't save it. I'm not sure why the presence or absence of them would matter to many readers.

 

For me, I suppose it's because I was forced to be in a religion I didn't believe in for 21 years...reading heavily religious things leaves a bad taste in my mouth after that...

 

I can see that I suppose. I was brought up with a Southern Baptist preacher for a grandfather, and spent a lot of time at church, but even though I'm not religious now I don't have any ill will towards it.

I figure when I'm reading fiction, I'm going to encounter all kinds of people and stories I don't endorse. For example, I'm generally opposed to pillaging, rape, and the like, but I might nevertheless enjoy a story about Genghis Khan or Vikings. Likewise, a story with religious symbolism doesn't bother me even though I don't subscribe to the religion