Talk:Stephenie Meyer

	This authors related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Bad Science

I think a section on Meyer's portrayal of vampire evolution is warranted. Yes, suspension of disbelief is normally assumed when we discuss vampires. However, Meyer sincerely believes and suggests throughout the books that her vampires are scientifically plausible beings who could have evolved naturally. This separates her from other fantasy and horror writers who use vampires and know that they are dealing with myth. It is a CRAZY idea which deserves some ridicule. Jonee (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Though in the realm of the Twilight universe, we see that vampires exist, therefore they must have evolved given the rules of that universe. That we don't see vampires in our own reality shows that they didn't (or can't) evolve under our rules. Most of the things presented as plausible and realistic in science-fiction like Star Trek are the same, but wouldn't warrant a section refuting it, because it's not really worthwhile nor does it accomplish anything. Now, if Meyer was an out-and-out creationist and was pushing it in the book (as she does with the Mormonism, if you choose to read Bella's doormat-like attributes that way) it would be warranted. ^pathetic 01:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In Star Trek, we normally see wild, but sometimes informed, speculation as to the future development of science. We also see outright fantasy and devices existing solely for plot purposes, like universal translators and inertial dampeners. All of this is just science fiction. However, when we see a gross misrepresentation of real world scientific theory, as when individual organisms like Tom Parris and Harry Kim "evolve" into a species humans are somehow destined to become, I think this is a legitimate subject of criticism, even if it's a low priority. I think this is what we have here and I think it's even more worthy of criticism in a work with so little redeeming value and yet with such a fanatical following. Is it really not worth a little snark when the same author says a trait developed as a mechanism to attract prey and then notes that the exact same trait almost universally repels prey? Jonee Chit chat 05:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We did mention the absurdity of the vampire/human hybrid. But otherwise it's just poking at a stick. How many evolution quotes were there in the books? Osaka Sun (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't give you an exact number off to top of my head. Maybe two or three explicit, a dozen or so implicit, over the five books. There's more in a few interviews I can cite. Look, I don't think Stephenie Meyer is a relevant threat to the evolutionary consensus. I just think it's another example of how stunningly ill-conceived her universe is and I don't see what's so wrong with mentioning it. I think it's funny and I think it's a good example of Meyer's general irrationality. Jonee (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick run through Google suggests it's just one throwaway comment to the effect of "maybe vampires evolved, maybe they didn't, who knows". It's not worth attacking in the slightest. ^gnostic 02:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I"m totally confused. So should we add a section to Harry Potter, cause the non muggles are assumed to have evolved alongside the muggles? are we supposed to discount X men, which EXPLICITLY states that the next step in human evolution is - whatever xmen are? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I have found material about evolution connected with Harry Potter. There's a controversial evolutionary theory proposed by a certain Hambledon Quince. Should we include Hambledon Quince in the Harry Potter article? I'm not sure. I am sure Godot should at least make an effort to be tactful when other users are trying to give helpful suggestions and improve the wiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember a scene from one of the Breaking Dawn films where they are deciding whether they should or shouldn't abort Bella's monsterbrat. One of the Cullins refers to the unborn child as a foetus and another yells at her for it, and defends her pro life stance by saying it's called a baby, not a foetus. It's almost as if Stephanie Meyer believe that diction is a proper argument for or against abortion. - Radical Zap

Damn, where will Arcueid Brunestud (Tsukihime) be to kick the ass of those shitty vampires?. Or Van Helsing? --93.191.139.9 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories

I dispute the addition of the paedophilia category as although Bella is a lot younger than Edward, she's still a grown woman. Jacob "imprinting" on Renesmee just means that he loves her like a little sister although admittedly, he will full in love with her eventually but only when she's a grown woman. That's still creepy but it's not the "P-Word." I realise that Twilight is a dreadful series but really, that's not a word that should be used lightly. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It'd be different if Renesmee were an alien/elf/whatever who looked like a human child but was an adult by the biological standards of her species. However, she's partially human, so even though she's basically born with an adult mind and matures at an accelerated rate, human mores about what is and is not an appropriate relationship (whether actual or expected down the line) with someone her age arguably still apply. I wouldn't have an issue applying the "p-word" category to an article about the Twilight series based on the "imprinting" plot element, but since this is nominally an article about Stephenie Meyer herself, I don't think it's appropriate. Shtrominer (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Rename

Since the majority of the article is about Twilight, and not about Meyer herself, I believe we should rename the article to Twilight. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a bad idea, reestructuring it to separate the parts about Twilight from the others about Meyer. Also expanding on what happened after "Breaking Dawn" (Scroll down to comments). --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Neat. Anyone want to vote on the rename, or should I just do it myself? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Twilight (books)" or "Twilight" seems appropriate. In addition it leaves us wiggle room in case there's Woo in the future about the time period. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Should Article Be Toned Down?

I just watched this video:

Lindsay Ellis is, generally speaking, an intelligent and thoughtful critic of films, television, books, etc. And I have to ask, after having watched the video, might this article be taking too vitriolic of a stance on this particular author? Because the article seems to be feeding into the same mindsets Lindsay criticizes. I can understand critiquing Meyer's Mormonism and its influence on these books, but the rest...I don't know. I'd appreciate hearing someone else's thoughts on the matter.

73.174.31.205 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Old response but yeah I think this article can go close into the harmful bashing of teen girl culture. I know that sort of thing contributed to my internalized mindset of "not like other girls"; I was repulsed by Twilight because of that culture. That being said, I don't think I can get in to the thing, since it's just not for me, but I feel bad for bashing on something that a lot of girls grew up on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wish fulfillment

Why are we singling out Stephenie Meyer for engaging in wish fulfillment fantasies? Isn't a huge portion of media basically wish fulfillment fantasy? Power fantasies are ubiquitous. What's creepy about projecting your personality on your main character, especially when you're successful enough that you get other girls projecting on that character (which projection is something you aim for when writing likeable characters; not saying Bella is necessarily intriguing, but apparently enough girls relate). What's creepy about loving characters you make? Authors and artists also love their creations and have expressed feeling mixed feelings when their characters take on new lives especially when granted control by corporate. I see there's a hint of contradictory beliefs about "lusting after someone" and Meyer having her character go with another fantasy character, but I'm pretty sure Mormons are aware of the differences between fantasy and reality. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I dislike Meyer as much as any other male, Gen-X Jack Mormon, but this article barely seems missional and certainly not at this size. The criticisms fit damn near every YA female focused author that walks the earth right now. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This article seems more about how bad Twilight is then anything else.

It barely links back the RationalWiki mission statement. Epic Games (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Mind you, I think that a serious, detailed critical examination of why Twilight is bad and how it (from what I heard) teaches regressive values, starting with the internalized misogyny, would be warranted and missional. I stress the "from what I heard" part, and the article would be warranted only if it's true; I never actually read a word nor watched a second of Twilight. As for Meyer herself as a person, as far as I can tell, she isn't nasty or nutty enough to warrant an article here. - Linneris (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)