Talk:Stephenie Meyer/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Rude?

Can I add this? or is it just rude? "I think that I serve that purpose for some writers, and that’s a good thing. Both Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people. ... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn." Steven King. En attendant Godot 21:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The shoe certainly fits. But the purpose of this article was not to highlight that Meyer writes bad books so much as that she writes books filled with crazy. Specifically, far-right, religious type crazy. Shtrominer (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete

I wondered why we have it, myself. I'm just not ballsy enough, yet, to suggest dumping something. I vote "not on mission statement".En attendant Godot 22:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I find your use of upper case "d" to be pretentious, and I believe my delete section is better--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No. 3: "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." Meyer is a Mormon. She wrote a series of books in which a teenage girl meets a creepy stalker a century her senior, chastely courts him for three books, marries him, gets pregnant with his demon spawn on the honeymoon, and nobly opts against abortion despite having to endure vomiting blood and spine-shattering kicks. She may not write completely off-the-rails political columns like Orson Scott Card, but one only need look at her writing to piece together what her ideas are and where she gets them. Perhaps the religious angle could be better covered, though. Shtrominer (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But is that really why she is getting her ideas? Or is she just stuck in a rather girly girly mentality. I've written Twilight at least 3 or 4 times (in gawky, awkward, 13 year old "god i am so depressed at being 13 so i'll write the worst best novel in the world and the world will see my pain - way) in my youth. All of mine sucked as bad as hers. it's called being 13 and a fat outcast. doesn't mean her ideas come from her morman upbrining unless you have some kind of evidence of that.--En attendant Godot 18:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This article seems rather pointless, yes, but where does RW draw the line? I mean, the obviously off-mission is scrapped, but exactly who decides what is scrapped?--George (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what I use to answer "delete" vs. "not-delete". are we adding anything of value that you cannot get at wikipedia? If it's snark and humor, insight, a point of view that pushes a logical agenda, etc., i'd always vote "keep". But there was a time when I first started here (just after lenski (sp)) that there was a rush for article creation, and we were in a sense, just trying to have an article on everything. We aren't WP, we don't claim or want to be. so **to me** i figure "is what we are talking about, useful to someone or will they rather go to WP for the info".--En attendant Godot 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the idea of Twilight being the product of Meyer being stuck in the mentality of a moony lovesick 13-year-old girl if what she had written was in any way consistent with the kind of daydreams/fantasies moony lovesick 13-year-old girls entertain. While they certainly dream about falling into the arms of some unattainably perfect, slightly "bad" guy like Edward, how many of them have fantasies that involve getting knocked up with demon spawn at 18 and almost dying because of it? And how many 13-year-olds churning out bad fanfic would resolve a love triangle by having the guy who didn't get the girl "imprint" on said girl's just-born infant daughter?

The books are filled with the influence of Meyer's religious background, from the obvious abstinence and no-aborton-ever messages, to the more subtle like teenage Bella marrying someone decades her senior and Renesmee (Bella and Edward's daughter) being "sealed" "imprinted" to Jacob. Shtrominer (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. They are extremely religious books, veiling frequently-made Christian arguments under a thin veneer of metaphor. Definitely keep.--^talk 04:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll look real smart, bashing a teen romance author. Seriously, though: this isn't the Da Vinci code, and I doubt anybody but us has made these accusations. I find it sad that we have this and that people want to keep this. I can't help but imagine a bunch of bitter high school nerds waxing angry because the girls were reading Twilight instead of talking to them (no, I haven't read them. I heard and am willing to believe that it's literary garbage, but I'm not going to start a pogrom because of that. Certainly not in RationalWiki's mainspace).--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Took me like thirty seconds:[1][2][3][4][5]

Probably about a thousand more.--^talk 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only are the accusations being made elsewhere, I highly doubt anyone here made them before main stream critics were making them. just cause we don't read teen porn that often. It's just a pathatic book. I would not let my daughter read it, until she'd read "Are you there god, it's me Margaret" or "Ring of endless light", or 100's of other books that actually have girls being girls, not shells. That actually show girls attempting to deal with their issues, and not just sorta becomming background pieces to their own story. En attendant Godot 14:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... I wouldn't say none of us had gone after it...--^talk 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this yours? - either way, reading now. I love blogs by people I know.En attendant Godot 15:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is funny. the paragraph quoted in this review sounds like it's directly from Wikipedia. I mean, who talks like this? what bad writing!En attendant Godot 15:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. And the writing is terrible. Far worse than you could imagine for such a big hit. It's about the level of most fanfiction.--^talk 15:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, her mind is the level of most "fanfiction". I watched quite a few of her interviews around the time it broke about bella being preggers and deciding to give up her life for the baby (or so she thinks...ohhhh, ahh...). Anyhow, meyers talks like her charaters think. She hasn't moved beyond that very basic highschool clique, i didn't fit in, mentality. You listen to her talk about the "choice" bella makes, and her defense of it, and it's so very "talking point" esque. so "unconsidered". This is a woman who likely has never eally said "what is the meaning of life, or my life". Who has never sat under the night sky and said "my god, I'm an ant. I'm less than an ant, yet I'm also the center of the universe". who has never wondered if food from outter mongolia would be tasty. And that's sad. It shows in her own interviews. It shows in her characters.

For a comparison, check out a book called "sucks to be me". It's no great novel, it will not win a Newbery. But it's everything "Twilight" isn't. En attendant Godot 15:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

delete

Maybe fun space, although I the more I look at fun space, the less fun I think it is.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

keep

1. Pushing Mormon non-abortion and abstinence values on kids in a sneaky way? I'd say keep if that's the aspect that's played up in the article. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
2. I vote keep for the same reason as stated above. --Danfly (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Keep.--^talk 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
4. A reasonable article. Blue (pester) 04:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Agree with Palpatine. Тy^talk 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
6. I'm erring on the side of keep for this one. ADK^{...I'll revolve your exhaust pipe!} 13:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
7. These books have sold 100 million copies, read by young kids. Keep. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mectrixctic / talk / contribs}
8. (I'm a couple months late in adding my opinion but) Glorifying domestic abuse and making people believe that it's the pinnacle of romanticism, think that qualifies as a crank idea --Sammygirl (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

delete

1. --User:Brxbrx/sig 22:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
2. --ceradon 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, you guys can't come up with reasons!

"pro choice rhetoric"

Just thought I'd point out that "pro choice" means that people are free to choose. Specifically they can choose not to have an abortion. Now, I haven't read it in detail (more precisely, I haven't read it on Reasoning With Vampires yet) but if the protagonist declines an abortion and chooses to carry a baby, that's pretty pro-choice. It doesn't mean you must have the abortion in all circumstances, even if it put you in harms way. That's the choice. The quote from Meyer is actually correct, you shouldn't put limits on people based on ideology, it's a rightful reaction to "feminism" that is prescriptive and limiting. ADK^{...I'll orate your earlobe!} 13:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's less that it isn't "pro choice' (which you're right, that's a mis nomer for any individual making an actual choice), but that it glorifies her sacrifice as the "right thing to do", and "look how much move **i** did than a normal teen mom". I'm not saying it was "pro life", but i'm saying it gave me the uber willies out of context. I hate teh serries, though, cause it's a very dis-empowering view for women. She is a bimbo who revolves her life around the "hot" guy, and has nothing truely there as a human. It's very needy; it's very non contemplative; it's very weak teen girl who is comfortable letting everyone around her tell the story. And that bothered me from the first. She is a shadow. without personality of her own. so that she sacrifices herself for her child isn't really out of character. En attendant Godot 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. Considering her character motivation seems nothing more than "EDWARD IS SOOOOOOOOOOOO PRETTY!!!!11" to call it empowering would be wide of the mark. I'm just unsure whether the whole context makes it a pro-life screed as for that you'd expect certain things to crop up. ADK^{...I'll accentuate your chromosome!} 15:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I like Meyer's quoted defense - it's reasonable. I think the main attack comes from the fact, though, that while others urge Bella to have an abortion, she refuses to even consider it, even though she is literally being killed by the baby. To me, this is a valid choice, but many consider the prospect of a mother choosing her unborn child over herself as an inherent rejection of the pro-choice agenda.--^talk 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, cept it's not a valid choice if you don't even "consider" it. Maybe that's what bugged me. well, one of many many many many bs things about bella. She just said "no, i'm keeping it". No woman/girl in her right mind should EVERY say that. She should actually think about it, talk about it, etc. She did not make an informed decision. which again, is telling about her entire character. I don't care what you choose, when you've considered all your options. I care that you don't actually consider them.En attendant Godot 15:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong. I don't think books, fiction - teen or otherwise - is there to guide young minds into some... "thing" that is better than they were before they read it. But it is a hugely successful book, and i would love mothers to say to their daughters, "ok, what did you think of bella, and why?"En attendant Godot 15:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's brought up to her, but she rejects it. To me, that's pretty pro-choice, regardless of whether or not she considers it as something she would ever do. My wife and I are both pro-choice, but if she gets pregnant, we wouldn't consider aborting it, either. You can support the availability of choice without being willing to take one of the options, and that's something I think Meyer does pretty okay.--^talk 15:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree that she "does it pretty ok", but again, books are not there to teach or make people think. especially this drivel. En attendant Godot 15:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an argument to be made that Juno is a pro-choice movie because it depicts someone exercising her right to choose. "Choice," of course, is not synonymous with "abortion." What makes the Twilight series inconsistent with the pro-choice viewpoint, though, is not that Bella won't consider abortion at all, but that her situation is so extreme. It's not just your average unintended pregnancy, but life or death, and that places Bella and her decision not to have an abortion on a moral pedestal. She isn't depicted as simply exercising her right to choose, but as making a heroic sacrifice, and the implicit message there is, "no matter how hard it gets, abortion is never the answer." Shtrominer (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

+1. Though I always get a chuckle when Blood Libels loves the movie while most of the actors involved were feminists. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)