Writer's Block: Twilight becomes you
Nov. 22nd, 2009 06:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
verushka70[Error: unknown template qotd]
I will see New Moon when I get a DVD bootleg or it comes to the $3 bargain theater. Twilight was so bad, I regretted the $3 spent, but it was WAY better than the book Twilight. However, I seriously doubt the movies could EVER be as bad as the books. Stephanie Meyers is a terrible writer. So I'm cheered to hear from critics that New Moon, the movie, is not as bad as Twilight, the movie, which was not good, although it was still way better than the book.
I can't believe Writer's Block is asking about this, but since they asked...
"It was seventy five degrees..." "I was wearing..." "It was in this town..." "I was a little worried about..." "I was suspicious..." I was, I was, I was... this is seriously the worst writing in first person passive I have ever read. Do they have Darwin awards for bad writing that wasn't intentionally bad? Because, if so, Stephanie Meyer should get first place. How about some action verbs in there? "I wore" instead of "I was wearing"; "In this town," instead of "It was in this town"; "I worried" instead of "I was a little worried"; "I asked suspiciously" instead of "I was suspicious" -- come on, this isn't even Fiction Writing 101 quality. If she submitted this for a paper in college she would (and should) get a C or D.
Charlaine Harris (Southern Vampire series, the novels behind HBO's True Blood) is WAY MORE COMPETENT a vampire writer than Meyer. Anne Rice is way, WAY more competent than Meyer (although, imo, her first was her best: Interview With The Vampire really has no competition; it's prose may be a bit florid, but the entire thing is written so grippingly and descriptively, it's like an opium hallucination or fever dream.
When I finished Twilight -- and it was an impossible chore; I had to struggle because the prose is so stagnant and stultifyingly boring with it's constant first-person-passive construction -- I realized that now a thousand typing monkeys could get a multi-book publishing deal, too. Because if Stephanie Meyers could on the basis of the novel Twilight, then a thousand monkeys typing at typewriters (or computers, now) certainly can.
Go for Charlaine Harris. Or Anne Rice. Even Laurell K. Hamilton's stuff is better than Meyer (and Hamilton has gotten unbelievably shlocky; the first few Anita Blake vampire-slayer novels were the best, imo, although the last several were the porniest) -- and that's not saying much.
See what *real* vampire writers can do with the story, how their prose and plots pull you in and drag you with, rather than boring you to death and putting you off.
Seriously, I am not seeing New Moon in the theaters unless it's a bargain theater long after New Moon has burnt out at the box office. I don't think I can stomach the fanbase in a first run theater, and I most certainly am not paying $10.00 for a full price movie ticket to go see it. Even naked male abs in the rain, repeatedly, isn't really worth the $10 when I can see that (and so much more) on the Internet, for free.
I will see New Moon when I get a DVD bootleg or it comes to the $3 bargain theater. Twilight was so bad, I regretted the $3 spent, but it was WAY better than the book Twilight. However, I seriously doubt the movies could EVER be as bad as the books. Stephanie Meyers is a terrible writer. So I'm cheered to hear from critics that New Moon, the movie, is not as bad as Twilight, the movie, which was not good, although it was still way better than the book.
I can't believe Writer's Block is asking about this, but since they asked...
"It was seventy five degrees..." "I was wearing..." "It was in this town..." "I was a little worried about..." "I was suspicious..." I was, I was, I was... this is seriously the worst writing in first person passive I have ever read. Do they have Darwin awards for bad writing that wasn't intentionally bad? Because, if so, Stephanie Meyer should get first place. How about some action verbs in there? "I wore" instead of "I was wearing"; "In this town," instead of "It was in this town"; "I worried" instead of "I was a little worried"; "I asked suspiciously" instead of "I was suspicious" -- come on, this isn't even Fiction Writing 101 quality. If she submitted this for a paper in college she would (and should) get a C or D.
Charlaine Harris (Southern Vampire series, the novels behind HBO's True Blood) is WAY MORE COMPETENT a vampire writer than Meyer. Anne Rice is way, WAY more competent than Meyer (although, imo, her first was her best: Interview With The Vampire really has no competition; it's prose may be a bit florid, but the entire thing is written so grippingly and descriptively, it's like an opium hallucination or fever dream.
When I finished Twilight -- and it was an impossible chore; I had to struggle because the prose is so stagnant and stultifyingly boring with it's constant first-person-passive construction -- I realized that now a thousand typing monkeys could get a multi-book publishing deal, too. Because if Stephanie Meyers could on the basis of the novel Twilight, then a thousand monkeys typing at typewriters (or computers, now) certainly can.
Go for Charlaine Harris. Or Anne Rice. Even Laurell K. Hamilton's stuff is better than Meyer (and Hamilton has gotten unbelievably shlocky; the first few Anita Blake vampire-slayer novels were the best, imo, although the last several were the porniest) -- and that's not saying much.
See what *real* vampire writers can do with the story, how their prose and plots pull you in and drag you with, rather than boring you to death and putting you off.
Seriously, I am not seeing New Moon in the theaters unless it's a bargain theater long after New Moon has burnt out at the box office. I don't think I can stomach the fanbase in a first run theater, and I most certainly am not paying $10.00 for a full price movie ticket to go see it. Even naked male abs in the rain, repeatedly, isn't really worth the $10 when I can see that (and so much more) on the Internet, for free.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-24 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-24 06:18 pm (UTC)I have a love/hate relationship with LKH's Anita Blake books. From the very start, I was like,
(1) Tell me more of this Jean-Claude, and please leave your personal opinions out, because he is way intriguing and yes, you should give him the time of day, what, are you an idiot???
and
(2) "Oh, this character has such a big chip on her shoulder, I'm guessing it's the author's chip." It just seemed so obvious to me that this author was workin' out her issues via the protagonist. Not that there's anything wrong with that; I think everyone who writes does that to a certain extent.
I got past it, but I found Anita unbelievably uptight in the first few novels. Color me super-surprised when she became polyamorous and kind of a femdom to the submissive weres -- yet somehow still managed to be wank wearing LKH's issues on her sleeve, and still kind of whiny and annoying.
Now, I have nothing against people working out their issues in fiction writing. I think pro and amateur writers do this all the time; it stems, at least in part, from the adage "write what you know." Hell, I worked out some issues of my own while writing a Fraser/RayK BDSM story series.
The difference is, neither Fraser nor Ray "was" me. I let them be, as much as I could, their otherwise canonically plausible selves in the stories. I tried to write what I felt was believable for each man, which was that both would also have some issues with and conflict about doing BDSM with each other (Fraser rather more than Ray), and each would (or wouldn't) come to terms with that in very different ways. I didn't impose my world-view or issues on either character: I was neither as guilt-ridden as Fraser, nor as occasionally self-serving as Ray.
Then later I found out just how much LHK was working out her issues via her fiction. I was kind of amazed at how unable she was to take criticism about what she'd done to certain characters (like Richard, who is the fictional stand-in for her ex-husband). What really irked me was her response to the fans. (From what I read, like SMeyer, after she got her big-girl pants back on, LKH removed some unflattering blog entries she'd hastily made that slammed some of her fanbase. To be fair, I had not read them myself when they were posted because I didn't read her blog or anything about her, I just read her books, up until about '07... I'm perpetually a few/several years behind on LKH's Anita Blake books.)
Apparently, when some fans raised the issue that Richard had become a one-dimensional, axe-grinding asshole/thorn in Anita's side, LKH's reaction was that those fans was were slamming/criticizing her "lifestyle" (which I guess is polyamorous/swinging*).
No, man, they're criticizing your writing. There is a difference... or, at least, there should be...
(I found all this out WAY after the fact, on Amazon reviews/comments/forums. I'd already continued well down the path of post-Narcissus In Chains porniness even after Richard had become the asshole ex in the books, so it wasn't like I had stopped reading/buying her stuff. But that's kind of my point: I paid for it. When it sucked, I felt I had the right to think, let alone say, that it sucked, and not be slammed by the author.
But every once in a while, I stop in a bookstore or pass by one of her books in a mass market book rack at a grocery store or duty-free shop and I can't stop myself from buying it. It is sometimes crack-tastic.
* This seemed to confirm something I had read and heard a while ago, which was that St. Louis has both more churches per capita than anywhere else in the US, and also has more swingers than anywhere else in the US...