![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jedibuttercup"I suddenly realized that I had never once noticed what he was wearing-- not just tonight, but ever. I just couldn't seem to look away from his face."
--Twilight, p. 169
Okay, now she's lost me. *stifling a giggle* Have you ever read any of those older Harlequin-type novels? The ones where they start out hating each other but quickly shift into mutual obsession, and there are all these nebulous reasons the couple should never be together; and while they may not get around to sex before The End they of course have a Passion For The Ages, and so on? That's what this is; that's why the dissonance between the internal voice and outer actions (straight-up "romance" is the only genre I can think of where the main characters are supposed to be Mary Sues to better enable a reader to fantasize herself in their shoes) and the distinctly unimaginative way the supernatural element is treated. Substitute "vampire" for any unusual ethnicity you care to name, et voila.
I read boxes and boxes of horribly clichéd romances out of my grandmother's closet as a child, most of them from a Harlequin subscription but with a few Regency and Grace Livingston Hill for leavening; and as a direct consequence, I used up my tolerance for such themes before I was old enough to drink. I mean, I knew this was a "supernatural teen romance", but the movie had led me to believe that the "supernatural" part was more than exotic window dressing. It's really, really not. I mean, for what it's turning out to be, it's a well-written example of the genre; but for what it's pretending to be, gag me. Can anyone tell me whether that ever changes? *hopeful look*
I think I'm going to try reading the rest of the book mentally editing out the word "vampire" and replacing it with random other sci-fi races, and see if it makes any real difference. Should at least keep my attention on the text!
~
--Twilight, p. 169
Okay, now she's lost me. *stifling a giggle* Have you ever read any of those older Harlequin-type novels? The ones where they start out hating each other but quickly shift into mutual obsession, and there are all these nebulous reasons the couple should never be together; and while they may not get around to sex before The End they of course have a Passion For The Ages, and so on? That's what this is; that's why the dissonance between the internal voice and outer actions (straight-up "romance" is the only genre I can think of where the main characters are supposed to be Mary Sues to better enable a reader to fantasize herself in their shoes) and the distinctly unimaginative way the supernatural element is treated. Substitute "vampire" for any unusual ethnicity you care to name, et voila.
I read boxes and boxes of horribly clichéd romances out of my grandmother's closet as a child, most of them from a Harlequin subscription but with a few Regency and Grace Livingston Hill for leavening; and as a direct consequence, I used up my tolerance for such themes before I was old enough to drink. I mean, I knew this was a "supernatural teen romance", but the movie had led me to believe that the "supernatural" part was more than exotic window dressing. It's really, really not. I mean, for what it's turning out to be, it's a well-written example of the genre; but for what it's pretending to be, gag me. Can anyone tell me whether that ever changes? *hopeful look*
I think I'm going to try reading the rest of the book mentally editing out the word "vampire" and replacing it with random other sci-fi races, and see if it makes any real difference. Should at least keep my attention on the text!
~
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 04:42 pm (UTC)That would be awesome.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 10:23 am (UTC)Please forgive the edit to fix fumble fingered coding. :-p
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:23 am (UTC)The thing that gets me is that Meyer does have plenty of moments of excellent writing quality; they're just nearly drowned out by the *facepalm* of what passes for plot, and the lapses into thesaurus-raiding whenever Edward's qualities are mentioned.
I'd love to see what she's writing ten years from now.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 04:21 pm (UTC)That's exactly my problem with "Twilight" and Stephenie Meyers. I expect that sort of writing from someone starting out writing fan fiction, not from a published author. Frankly, I think Meyer's editor needs to go back to school and take a few more Editing for Publication courses. As for Meyer herself, a few more creative writing courses covering plot and character development and world building would definitely not be amiss.
Every time I feel inclined to cut Meyer some slack, I read some of your stories, or Polgara's, or Synecdochic's or those by the myriad other excellent fan fiction authors out there. I'm afraid there really is no excuse for a work published by a major publishing house to be as bad as "Twilight" is.
And, yeesh, I really need to step off of this soap box! :-p Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 11:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:27 am (UTC)Between the Mary Sue issues and the airbrushed sparkly handling of the supernatural, not to mention the Romeo-and-Julietness of the romantic plot, I don't think I'll be reading any of the rest of the series, easy read or no.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 06:09 am (UTC)It's bad when a chick writes about abusing women and thinks that it's great behaviour.
I found this review (http://www.illiterarty.com/reviews/book-review-twilight-stephanie-meyer), you need to read it if you haven't already *LOL*
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 03:41 pm (UTC)Proper vampires burst into flame in the sunlight. Not sparkle.
[shakes head]
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 03:59 pm (UTC)Actually, what disturbs me about most Harlequins is not the Mary Sue protagonists, it's how misogynist the men they end up with tend to be. A huge percentage of the stories involve men who abuse the women emotionally and sexually, but since he loves her and is sorry in the end and he never actually hit her the fact that he's been abusing her for the whole story is somehow romantic. And yeah, for some women it's a relatively harmless fantasy of tall, dark, and dangerous, but what about all the women in emotionally abusive relationships? It reinforces the idea that somehow it's okay for a guy to treat her like crap if he "really loves her". My skin started crawling the first time I read one like that, and crawled even more when I took a good hard look at the couple of grocery-bags worth she hadn't thrown out yet and realized just how many of the Harlequins had that plot.
(Example of a standard Harlequin plot: Guy has a grudge against heroine for something she is innocent of, decides to take it out on her sexually. Blackmails/otherwise forces heroine into his bed, usually someplace far away from all her normal mental and emotional supports, and treats her like crap any time they're not actually in bed. When they are in bed, she says no and he ignores it, and eventually she stops protesting because the sex is good. He thinks things are going well and he has every right to abuse her because of whatever he thinks she/her family did. Meanwhile, she's miserable. There is some kind of revelatory scene in which he finds out she's innocent, realizes he loves her, and she agrees to live happily ever after because it's true love and he didn't really mean all the bad stuff. There are other standard plots involving mental/sexual abuse, but this is the most common. Check out the Harlequin section in any place that sells books--this is the basic plot of any book with "Revenge" in the title or the phrase "... revenge--in bed!" in the blurb on the back.)
Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!"?
Date: 2008-12-31 11:19 pm (UTC)Re: Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!"?
Date: 2009-01-01 01:25 am (UTC)There are only a few standard plots, and they don't even try to dress them up--they are formulaic in the extreme. Still, I was desperate for something to read. And the ones that don't involve abuse are good reads if you're incredibly bored or don't want to put much effort into reading, but still want to read.
Re: Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!"?
Date: 2009-01-01 02:48 am (UTC)Re: Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!&am
Date: 2009-01-01 03:07 am (UTC)I would hate writing Harlequins. I could see myself writing some of the higher class books (higher class isn't precisely the word I want, but you know what I mean); but Harlequins are incredibly formulaic. I would get frustrated and feel like I was in a straightjacket before long. My understanding is that the writers of the larger/more expensive books get much greater leeway in their writing.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:36 am (UTC)Yeah. My growing beyond the genre had a lot to do with my growing up in general, which in turn had a lot to do with jettisoning the emotionally abusive relationship with my ex-fiance. 19 was a very big year for me, in terms of shaping my adult outlook on life.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 06:35 pm (UTC)I can't believe I actually read that crap.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 08:13 pm (UTC)I think Twilight is for the people who want the 'love at first sight,' 'the hills are alive tawdry music' and 'OMG! we're so soulmates' kinda story. Which there's nothing wrong with that. I'm actually happy that these books are making the younger generation pick up something other then a Wii remote.
It's refreshing to get into a discussion about a book with my 14 year old cousin who adores the series. I in turn slipped her a book that dealt with the supernatural in more adult tone—hopefully I don't get in trouble again, but this one lacks the smutty edge of the Harlequin series.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:44 am (UTC)People internalize all kinds of crap from what they take in, from books as well as TV, and these kinds of books are like french fries: tasty on the surface, but horrible for you in the long run.
Victoria Holt, from the Dark Ages of romances?
Date: 2008-12-31 11:14 pm (UTC)Re: Victoria Holt, from the Dark Ages of romances?
Date: 2009-01-03 05:52 am (UTC)It kind of seems like, in the older romance novels I've picked up, the author had to make more of an effort to get the characters to the point of sex; these days, it's more of a shocker if the characters want to wait for any reason, rather than falling into bed at the first pretext and substituting mattress-pounding for more constructive means of getting to know one another. *sigh* That's prevalent in other genres as well, of course; but mass-market romance is the worst I've seen.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-01 06:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-01 06:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 05:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-01 07:30 am (UTC)