Let's continue the discussion about SK & SM...

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:Lol, sorry to jump in this again... I just wanted to comment on what Lola said. I don't want anymore sparks to fly. xD

He is entitiled to his own opinion, but to actually say she can't write worth a darn? Uncalled for. What makes his story so much better?

I don't really recall King comparing his stories to hers. If someone has published a book, every remark they make about a certain story - whether good or bad - doesn't mean they are comparing the published work to their own. I happen to dislike Meyer's writing, but I'm not saying mine is much better.

no, but he did compare it do JKR's writing. harry potter and twilight are COMPLETELY different. im not going to get into why that is wrong again, but they shouldnt be compared....

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:Lol, sorry to jump in this again... I just wanted to comment on what Lola said. I don't want anymore sparks to fly. xD

He is entitiled to his own opinion, but to actually say she can't write worth a darn? Uncalled for. What makes his story so much better?

I don't really recall King comparing his stories to hers. If someone has published a book, every remark they make about a certain story - whether good or bad - doesn't mean they are comparing the published work to their own. I happen to dislike Meyer's writing, but I'm not saying mine is much better.

Um, Josephine? Have you ever read his books before? Him saying his writing is better is like saying his stories are better. I don't think his writing about an evil clown is so much better than twilight. Not only was he dissing the author, but fans as well. Just because her style of writing does not satisfy you, it does NOT make it bad. At all. JK Rowling also has a habit of repeating certain words in her books, as well.

LoXcaXlove wrote:

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:Lol, sorry to jump in this again... I just wanted to comment on what Lola said. I don't want anymore sparks to fly. xD

He is entitiled to his own opinion, but to actually say she can't write worth a darn? Uncalled for. What makes his story so much better?

I don't really recall King comparing his stories to hers. If someone has published a book, every remark they make about a certain story - whether good or bad - doesn't mean they are comparing the published work to their own. I happen to dislike Meyer's writing, but I'm not saying mine is much better.

Um, Josephine? Have you ever read his books before? Him saying his writing is better is like saying his stories are better. I don't think his writing about an evil clown is so much better than twilight. Not only was he dissing the author, but fans as well. Just because her style of writing does not satisfy you, it does NOT make it bad. At all. JK Rowling also has a habit of repeating certain words in her books, as well.

Er, like I said before; King never compared his books to hers. Yes, I have read his books, and It is actually a horror novel with a unique concept that did very well as far as sales went (it was the best-selling book of 1986). I see that you have not read the book yourself, as the novel is not about a clown, but a shape-shifting entity. Please check your facts before you try to use them against someone, Lola, because you know what happens when you assume.

I admit that comparing Meyer's work to J.K. Rowling's was not appropriate under the circumstances, but he did connect both authors by saying that their work is speaking out to teens, then proceeding to state the differences. Lola, of course J.K. Rowling is going to repeat words in her books. How can you write a grammatically correct novel without repeating words? What makes J.K. Rowling's writing so magical is not her ability to use a thesaurus, but the way she can somehow create an amazing and captivating plot with realistic characters (that can easily be related to, I might add), all while using words and figurative language that not only contribute to the story but make it all the more appealing.

So what makes a writer a good writer? What makes a writer a bad writer? Is it solely based on grammar & using the thesaurus?

And, oh: "green jets of light" is JK's "chagrin." It's not from a thesaurus, yes. Just her own, but still repeated a lot of times. It doesn't matter to me, though. Like "chagrin" doesn't hurt me.

SK may not have literally said his works were better compared to SM's, but the idea was there. Subtle, yet clear enough for people who read between the lines.

Flair wrote:So what makes a writer a good writer? What makes a writer a bad writer? Is it solely based on grammar & using the thesaurus?

And, oh: "green jets of light" is JK's "chagrin." It's not from a thesaurus, yes. Just her own, but still repeated a lot of times. It doesn't matter to me, though. Like "chagrin" doesn't hurt me.

SK may not have literally said his works were better compared to SM's, but the idea was there. Subtle, yet clear enough for people who read between the lines.

I agree! I'll try to find some more words J.K repeats alot...And about SK. IT'S A STORY ABOUT A CLOWN.

LoXcaXlove wrote:

Flair wrote:So what makes a writer a good writer? What makes a writer a bad writer? Is it solely based on grammar & using the thesaurus?

And, oh: "green jets of light" is JK's "chagrin." It's not from a thesaurus, yes. Just her own, but still repeated a lot of times. It doesn't matter to me, though. Like "chagrin" doesn't hurt me.

SK may not have literally said his works were better compared to SM's, but the idea was there. Subtle, yet clear enough for people who read between the lines.

I agree! I'll try to find some more words J.K repeats alot...

I consider Rowling's novels examples of exemplary novels. Like I said, I like her writing and her work in general because of "her ability to use a thesaurus, but the way she can somehow create an amazing and captivating plot with realistic characters (that can easily be related to, I might add), all while using words and figurative language that not only contribute to the story but make it all the more appealing".

I'm not calling Meyer out on using the thesaurus. I use it all the time. I just think that using it excessively is a bad idea. There are many cases in writing where, as they all say, "less is more". All the descriptions you make, all the things that you "show", not "tell" - they have to contribute to the story. I once read a girl's paper where she went on and on, describing how her character looked, every little detail of her dress... the descriptions were filled with exquisite vocabulary and were well-phrased, but in no way did any of them contribute to the actual plot.

It's not the fact that Meyer uses the word "chagrin" so many times in her novel that bothers me. It's not the fact that she often uses the same words to describe Edward's skin, appearance, et cetera that bothers me. It's the fact that she does it repeatedly. We know that Edward's skin is cold; we know that he looks like an angel. Her descriptions would be alright if they varied a bit, describing different things, but they are constantly reminding you of similar concepts and retrospectives. It does not contribute to the actual plot at all, and gets very tedious.

Whenever Rowling uses "green jets of light", it contributes to the story. I mean, really, people; how can you add something like that as a side note? It's part of the action. That is the true difference here; Rowling has more experience and knows how to make her descriptions work, whereas Meyer makes her writing sugary with synonyms and tries to pass it off as a masterpiece. In my opinion, Meyer is not allowing her story to live up to its potential. I was attracted to Twilight because of the main pairing - it sounded interesting, looked interesting; the blurb captured my attention. It was a steamy vampire/girl romance, and I love romance novels.

But, like I said, Meyer failed to live up to her potential and relied on her descriptions to liven the story rather than an actual plot. I also think that she relied on her characters too much to bring in fans; I mean, honestly - can any of you imagine Twilight without Edward?

I'm just saying. I don't like debating these topics in small forums since I'm often outnumbered, but I just wanted to explain the views of the other side of the specturm.

EDIT: Lola, I have read the book myself. 'It', the monster in King's book, is not a clown. It's a shape-shifting entity that lives in the sewers. Please get your facts straight.

Nope. IT'S A CLOWN. .

This is fun.

LoXcaXlove wrote:Nope. IT'S A CLOWN. .

This is fun.

Um, no. It's not a clown. I've read the book myself; I think I would know. It's true that It takes the shape of a clown in the novel, but It isn't actually a clown. Stop twisting the facts and just get over it. Sorry, but I'm getting really tired of you trying to shove this down my throat when I KNOW for a FACT that it's not true. I know I'm overreacting, but it's one of the things I'm OCD about. xD

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

LoXcaXlove wrote:Nope. IT'S A CLOWN. .

This is fun.

Um, no. It's not a clown. I've read the book myself; I think I would know. It's true that It takes the shape of a clown in the novel, but It isn't actually a clown. Stop twisting the facts and just get over it. Sorry, but I'm getting really tired of you trying to shove this down my throat when I KNOW for a FACT that it's not true. I know I'm overreacting, but it's one of the things I'm OCD about. xD

I can keep saying that all day, cause your points are good enough to get to me. So I would suggest you post in the other threads, they have better topics.

How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

hehe. Since this happened so long ago, can we just lock this thread? It's kinda boring now, LOL. But yes, he's a clown.

Flair wrote:How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

Lol. I'm just saying, I know Edward's skin is cold; it doesn't need to keep being pointed out every time she meets him. xD I'm glad you actually agree with me on the repetitiveness, though; some Twilight fans are so narrow-minded and refuse to see things from a different point of view. Same thing with a lot of anti-'s. It drives me nuts. If you want to take sides, you have to be able to see things from different perspectives as well. xD

Lola, I don't get how my point about It is not getting to you, considering that I'm not making a point; I'm just stating the facts. xD

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

Flair wrote:How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

Lol. I'm just saying, I know Edward's skin is cold; it doesn't need to keep being pointed out every time she meets him. xD I'm glad you actually agree with me on the repetitiveness, though; some Twilight fans are so narrow-minded and refuse to see things from a different point of view. Same thing with a lot of anti-'s. It drives me nuts. If you want to take sides, you have to be able to see things from different perspectives as well. xD

Lola, I don't get how my point about It is not getting to you, considering that I'm not making a point; I'm just stating the facts. xD

I agree with the repeating thing, too. But that doesn't make the story bad at all.

LoXcaXlove wrote:

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

Flair wrote:How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

Lol. I'm just saying, I know Edward's skin is cold; it doesn't need to keep being pointed out every time she meets him. xD I'm glad you actually agree with me on the repetitiveness, though; some Twilight fans are so narrow-minded and refuse to see things from a different point of view. Same thing with a lot of anti-'s. It drives me nuts. If you want to take sides, you have to be able to see things from different perspectives as well. xD

Lola, I don't get how my point about It is not getting to you, considering that I'm not making a point; I'm just stating the facts. xD

I agree with the repeating thing, too. But that doesn't make the story bad at all.

I never said it's what makes the story bad. Please stop assuming. You know what happens when you assume. xD

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

LoXcaXlove wrote:

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

Flair wrote:How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

Lol. I'm just saying, I know Edward's skin is cold; it doesn't need to keep being pointed out every time she meets him. xD I'm glad you actually agree with me on the repetitiveness, though; some Twilight fans are so narrow-minded and refuse to see things from a different point of view. Same thing with a lot of anti-'s. It drives me nuts. If you want to take sides, you have to be able to see things from different perspectives as well. xD

Lola, I don't get how my point about It is not getting to you, considering that I'm not making a point; I'm just stating the facts. xD

I agree with the repeating thing, too. But that doesn't make the story bad at all.

I never said it's what makes the story bad. Please stop assuming. You know what happens when you assume. xD

I'M NOT ASSUMING! And no, i don't know what happens. thats not even the topic right now

LoXcaXlove wrote:

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

LoXcaXlove wrote:

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

Flair wrote:How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

Lol. I'm just saying, I know Edward's skin is cold; it doesn't need to keep being pointed out every time she meets him. xD I'm glad you actually agree with me on the repetitiveness, though; some Twilight fans are so narrow-minded and refuse to see things from a different point of view. Same thing with a lot of anti-'s. It drives me nuts. If you want to take sides, you have to be able to see things from different perspectives as well. xD

Lola, I don't get how my point about It is not getting to you, considering that I'm not making a point; I'm just stating the facts. xD

I agree with the repeating thing, too. But that doesn't make the story bad at all.

I never said it's what makes the story bad. Please stop assuming. You know what happens when you assume. xD

I'M NOT ASSUMING! And no, i don't know what happens. thats not even the topic right now

You brought it up, though... and you're assuming it's about a clown just because a clown is on the movie poster. xD

No, i'm not. I know it's not about a clown, but I love joking that it is. plus i love that clown smiley. it looks like a reindeer with white make-up on

Actually, i can picture Twilight without Edward, he was missing in the seond book, and that is my favourite of all of books in the series....so yeah!

And as far as the entire thing goes...

I didnt have a problem with Meyer's writing style, i can see what you mean about repetitivness, as i noticed it as welll.

As far as Stephen King goes, i have read almost all of his books, but i find them a bit repeptitive sometimes, on the other hand, when he writes under his alias (which i cant remember at the moment) his books are amazing, fresh and different to anything else he has written.

Now, i also read people comparing JK Rowling to S Meryer, well ii found, personally, that i didnt relate to any of the characters in the Harry Potter novels, at all. Whereas, i did relate, entirely to Jacob. Which isnt taking anything away from Harry Potter, they are great books, with the exception of the last one which seemed to drag out too much and then finally got to the good part, the big battle we have all been waiting for, and it didnt go for long enough and just sort of ended. But in saying that, S Meyer did the same thing with Breaking Dawn, it lead up to this big thing and was over too quickly, for me anyway.

This debate could go on for ages, i am not as narrow minded as some people may think i am, but i just lost a lot of respect for SK when he said what he said about SM, there was no need for that at all. He could have just said it as a personal point of view, a simple, i didnt like the Twilight Series, but he just took it that bit to far in my opinion....

And just for the record, IT the book was sooooooooo much better then the movie....lol.....

JOSEPHINE ! wrote:

Flair wrote:How does Edward's skin being cold (since he's a vampire) not contribute to the story? errmmm... And you may have a point there regarding repetitiveness. But how else can you describe something cold & hard? Well, you can say freezing, below zero, uhm... sturdy... It sounds really weird.

Lol. I'm just saying, I know Edward's skin is cold; it doesn't need to keep being pointed out every time she meets him. xD I'm glad you actually agree with me on the repetitiveness, though; some Twilight fans are so narrow-minded and refuse to see things from a different point of view. Same thing with a lot of anti-'s. It drives me nuts. If you want to take sides, you have to be able to see things from different perspectives as well. xD

Lola, I don't get how my point about It is not getting to you, considering that I'm not making a point; I'm just stating the facts. xD

If you relate to Bella, you'd know why she had to repeat describing how he looked like or how he smelled like. Even his skin... the sturdy, freezing, below-zero skin of a vampire. LOL.

And yes... If Bella was me, I'd go on and on about how Edward looks, feels & smells like... A drug that gets me high & an antidote to get me by.

"IT" is some kinda like a boggart in Harry Potter. That's how I see it. But it did look like a clown. You both have a point.

This might go on forever...we all already agree on SK needing to grow up, LOLZ. Let's temporary lock it for now..