I don't know about this argument. Not sure how characters' "blandness" makes them more relatable.
Again, this is for teenagers who don't read, as most of us who do or who've grown up begin to look for characters who are people in themselves and not our gateways.
As someone mentioned previously on here, I was under the impression that Martin's title was generally confused with the popular ski film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093027/
Also, as far as complexity and depth goes, I think Bella remains unrivaled.
I've seen lots of debate about Twilight, in fact far more than I've seen about Animal Farm. Twilight certainly makes people think.Don't you think though that the ability to debate books such as The Old MAan and the Sea and Animal Farm happens because the books have substance. They may you think, they bring up issues that effect or could effect everyone to a deep level.
Absolutely. Many of the books readers like are ones that have elements that make them inaccessible to non-readers, so naturally there is going to be divergence of experience.I mentioned Pulitzer Prize winners, but I think many of them are way beyond more audiences' reading and interest level. Some of them, like the Hours, really require context to understand the brilliance. Others, like the Shipping News and the Road, take a reader willing to stray from the norm in terms of prose and enjoy something different. And then there are novels like Middlesex, which asks the reader to embrace a hermaphrodite as the main character, that focus on subject matter that makes some uncomfortable.
Often the best books demand something from the reader that popular fiction does not.
A few things that caught my attention:
However, I'd wager that you are aware yourself how ridiculous the second line is, right? I mean, sculpture and painting are among the most snobish and elitist-driven arts, but most respectable museums' standards have little to do with either quality. Not putting a Tom of Finland next to Monet is NOT elitist, it's good taste...
As for critics, I do honestly believe that there IS such a thing as a reliable critic. I have people that I know have infinitely more wisdom than me where literature is concerned, and even though I might not always agree with them, their opinions matter to me and I pay attention to them.
As for the complexity and demands of the reader, you made a good point but in my opinion went entirely the wrong way with the examples. It is not ASoIF and WoT that demand a lot, it is the symbolic meta-fantasy books like The Book of All Hours, Little Big or Book of the New Sun that do it. It is SF like Stand on Zanzibar or Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang, not the hardcore SF. All you need to appreciate it, is scientific knowledge. This is not a demand, it's a prerequisite.
I can find the article from Reader's Digest anymore, though I have all ready said where I found my sources. It has been over a few years of 'noticing things on the side,' and people must know what I mean because alot have agreed that, at least, media does do this.
I know it is not ideal for me to not have snap-links off the top of my head, sorry about that.
It's not the youtube videos of people screaming, 'I LOVE TWILIGHT!' Though I feel horribley devoid of hope from them, they're still just oppinions.
First off, I'd like to state that I'm not a Twilight fan. Not at all. I have no idea why it is so popular. That said, I am going to defend it to the point where many of you are going to think I'm being ridiculous.
I think a lot of what gets forgotten in this conversation is intention and degree of difficulty. Meyer was never trying to write a book of literary genius. She knew as soon as she wrote the book that it was never going to come close to a Pulitzer Prize. She wasn't trying to be Hemingway, she wasn't trying to make a statement on the world as a whole. She was trying to write an entertaining paranormal romance novel involving vampires. And not only did she succeed, she succeeded to the point where it has become the most famous paranormal romance in the world right now.
And here I'm going to drop a bit of a bombshell. Roland, don't go berserk. Stephanie Meyer is just as good a writer as many of the literary geniuses in the world. And it is because no paranormal romance that I can think of has reached the popular success that Meyer's has. And popular success what was exactly what she was looking for. You don't think that takes an incredible amount of skill to do what Meyer has done? If it doesn't, then are you saying Meyer's success is simply due to luck? Of course not. There's been 90 Pulitzer prize winners in the past 90 years. There's only been a select few authors who have achieved the amount of popular success Meyer has in that time. I am certainly not going to say that each of those 90 authors is better at what they do than Meyer is.
And I don't want to hear the argument that Meyer is only popular because her readers haven't read anything better. There are plenty of well read people who still worship Meyer. It's a very narrow opinion with very little fact behind it made from people looking for explanations why a book they couldn't stand is so popular.
So successful and popular equals incredible amounts of skill and talent? If a lot of people like it, it MUST be good, right? I wish I could argue against it, but I can't.
Well, it is fairly easy to argue with this sentiment as it is a textbook logical fallacy (seriously, it is in any logic textbook under "Argumentum ad populum")
Popularity does not by necessity equal quality.
That being said, good for Ms Meyer, I have not read her books, nor do I intend to but she has created something extremely popular. Congratulations.
It's interesting. Although I am a notorious Hater on this forum, I have absolutely no problem with Twilight. I think it's because Twilight is not even close to being my thing, and I respect people who like very different things from what I like. In contrast, I get annoyed when the public likes things that are very similar to what I like, but which I consider inferior.
For example, Terry Goodkind's books are similar in many ways to the epic fantasy that I like, but suck so hard that it annoys me to no end that Goodkind's works are actually more popular than the series I think are good.
But Twilight is just something for People Other Than Me.
we need a sarcasm smilie
edit; well said quixote
Last edited by heretics fork; August 21st, 2010 at 12:44 PM.
For example, in Twilight's case, 'Are you a plain, dull teenage girl who no one listens too? Well, you can have a passionate romance and an exciting life too.'
Exciting pace, unorigional but sub-plot stubbed story, easy reading, lots of romance seem to be the usual.
This doesn't equal a good book, or a good writer.
Not every person who says Popularity does not equal quality is simply pining over their own works not having sold so well. Not every person who disagrees with something you say has an alterier motive. It's all just oppinions and that above is mine.
Last edited by Luya Sevrein; August 21st, 2010 at 01:42 PM.