I was very disappointed in Breaking Dawn, but I read the first 2 Anita Blake books with very high hopes and REALLY disliked them. I personally think it's sour grapes, though neither author is exceptional.
I agree...SM is nothing but a hack, but let's give credit were credit is due. She understood marketing and what the best target audience was. You cannot fault someone for what has been done for ages and hate her solely for her success and I am a fan LKH,TH,AR and so on....
I have to agree and do give credit where it's due. SM (or her agents) know marketing and how to ride a wave of enthusiasm and I give them full credit and high marks for that. And I also completely agree that anyone may read whatever they want and if they think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, more power to them.
Having said that I stand by my opinion that SM is the worst kind of hack who has come to believe her backers and rejects anyone who nay-says her or her third rate work. I admit to initially enjoying Twilight while thinking the writing was mediocre at best and saw that each subsequent book declined to BD which I found unreadable. I refuse to crack open the last book (Bree something) as I think it's just SM's ego run amuck in thinking that a character who appears for three (or whatever) sentences matters to me. She doesn't and the book she appeared in bit the big one.
The argument that at least people are reading has some merit so long as those people continue to read--something I question is happening if it's not SM related.
And yes, the message she sends--female subsegation (sp?) to a man is okay, that if your man dumps you life isn't worth living, nothing matters more than finding your own true love and sticking to him like glue no matter how much you're emotionally abused or manipulated, having a man takes precedence over female (or any other male) friends--not what I would want a daughter or friend of mine to embrace and one which my 21 year old son sneered at as BS. The boy makes me proud now and then.
Why does it have to be a competition, and apparently a brutal one? I have read both series, as well as other writer's series on vampires (and there are a lot of them.) I like Stephanie Meyers books, including The Host. I like Hamilton's books, especially her Gentry Faerie series.
As a woman who works full time and has a teenage daughter, I appreciated Meyer's willingness to have a male lead who was willing to wait - it's a good example for my teen. Her female lead was more stubborn than needy, but she was insecure and that's common in today's teen girls. Hamilton's books are far to racy for a 14 year old girl (in my opinion.)
In addition, it doesn't offend me that she refers to herself as a 'girl'. I don't understand why it should? I feel like a 'girl' in certain circumstances, and I'm glad I do. I don't think Meyers considered her term offensive, or a step back in the liberation of woman.
Ultimately, all of this conjecture is founded on opinion. Who's opinion is valued more? I'm sure it's whichever most resembles yours. Well, my opinion is; we should all get a life, read what we like, and enjoy what we read - Happily ever after!
LaMonita....that's exactly was the Anita Blake series is trashy sex novel with some gore thrown in. Not to mention AB became more unbelievable with each book. Couldn't stand her by the time I got to the 6th or 7th book and sold mine on Ebay.
I liked the first few Anita Blake books, and yes I do see a few similarities to Twilight. The main character in love with both a vampire and a werewolf, well actually that's pretty much where the similarities end. I didn't continue to read the Anita Blake novels once they went pure erotica, but I would highly recommend the first several books to someone unfamiliar with the series. I wouldn't say L. Hamillton pioneered the genre, having read Bram Stoker in grade school and Anne Rice in Junior High. But I think she contributed a lot with her mixing of paranormal creatures and powers. I appreciate the Twilight books on a different level, these are books designed for younger readers, written from the perspective of a teenager. I think people are overly critical of the writing style of these books given the fact that they were never intended as adult literature. I enjoy these very different perspectives for what they are. There is room enough for every writing style in the vampire fiction genre, it's clear that our fascination for vampires will continue to create a demand for these books for as long as they are written.
The only similarities are... vampires and shapeshifters. Beyond that, they have NOTHING in common. I read Anita Blake, I liked that there was a story in it for the first few books... Then her stuff turned into straight porno crap. I won't read anymore Anita Blake books. LKH ignores her fans when they BEG her to stop writing (not even good) smut. She is a better writer than SM but, not by much anymore.
i can only say that after reading this series of postings that there is a glaring lack in reading for entertainment. i own and have read both series. not just the first 4 or 5 of AB. i actually enjoyed both including BD. both authors had their reasons for writing what they did. SM "braking her own rule." was the plat of that book. what happened was not supposed to happen and threw everyone in the supernatual community for a loop. yes LKH could tone down the sex but they are infact her books and if you read the details its not usually just her being slutty. the fact is that they keep to the premis of their characters. i hear that BD was choppy and influid. i persoally dont feel that way, rather i found myself drawing infrences and conclutions from other areas as well as older places in the series. as for comparing the two the simularities are very bare bones but are deffinitely there. personally i would never pick up a book from this ganera and bother criticizing grammer or punctuation. just a habbit i picked up from a creative writing class. the truth is writing creatively, which fiction writing is, has no hard set rules. i.e. poems dont always rym or even have a regular rythem. a story is a story, if you can put the picture togeather in your head then the author did their job. since there are now movies of SM's series she apparently managed to do that. i've reantted long enough now. appologies to anyone i offended with my opinions.
The author does have to follow the rules that she herself established though, or the book makes no sense. Twilight and New Moon had a distinctive 'feel' to them which is why I became so wrapped up in the series. Eclipse felt a little different but you could still excuse it at that point. But BD had such a different tone that I honestly thought for a while Meyer didn't write it. That was a mistake and inconsistency on her part.
For her to have kept the tone consistent, I feel the book would have the same melancholy feeling Twilight had. There was just something about that book, you felt totally wrapped up in Edwards character and the developing relationship, but at the same time you felt this certain sadness because of the impossible situation they were in where it almost couldn't quite work out. Breaking Dawn SHOULD have had the same feeling to it. There were a few ways Meyer could have went with it-never in a million years did I think she would throw the whole series away by having Bella give birth to Reneesme, and having Jacob subsequently imprint on her. For the series to have a satisfying conclusion something had to give.
Good writing has consitancy in how it is written, and adherence to the rules set by the writer.
Great writing does all that and more, such as rich and varied language, great use of figures of speech, and strong voice.
Twilight, on the other hand, fails to achieve any of those things. It is repeditive, inconsistant, and has some of the weakest voice I have ever read in a published work. the only people who I have read who had as weak of a voice in their writings were unpublishable works written by other students in creative writing courses.
I have to agree with Cory here. If a writer--any writer--invents and sets up their own universe and the rules of how it works they're making a bargain with their readers.
Meyers did that and then threw her own rules out the window. It was a betrayal of not only her readers but also of her characters. It caused her story to become inconsistent and simply made no sense in the context of the fantasy she created. Because of her choices to do this she seriously weakened her story and her own characters.
She'd written (IMO) a sophomoric sci-fi/paranormal series which had a strong following and then destroyed the story and her own fans when she had Bella become pregnant by a supposedly sterile partner, had Bella obviously turn into an adolescent Marysue (more than the character already was) and simply threw logic and common sense out the window. And her writing, particularly in the last book, was simply not well done both in terms of simply grammar and sentence construction but also in terms of plotting. It was a poorly written and conceived effort.
What alot of people dont realize is that the Fantasy Genre is even more beholden to a need for consistant rules. Rules are highly important to fantasy, because they give us the context in which to view what can and cannot happen. It creates the boundaries that allow us to understand what about the fantasy world is significant, and helps keep the stories in line.
When you set a rule in a fantasy world, you have to stick to it. If you dont, that is a literary middle finger to the reader. When Meyer, both inside and outside the books, said that vampires cannot produce children, she set a boundary that added a emotional deliema to the story: does she sacrafice the chance to be a mother just so she can spend eternity with edward as a vampire, since edward cannot give her a child? or does she stay a human, and experince life to its fullest potential?
When meyers broke her own rules, she threw out the deliema completely, invalidating that whole plotline by deciding to just give Bella something Bella herself was saying she did not want.
She did the same with the newborn rules she set, by making Bella have no real newborn phase to make her xtraspeeshul.
The only consistant thing Meyer did was each time she set a rule that added dynamic tension and potential to the world she was writing, she broke them to invalide all conflict and demension in her story and just give bella everything she wants without any effort or sacrafice.
otherwise, she crap-outted the entire story over and over because she couldn't bear to stick the courses she was setting for herself.
in otherwords, she blew it over and over and over again, proving she never deserved to be published in the first place.
her publishers get a pass because publishing a series from a unpublished writer is always risky. You cant trust with certainty they know what they are doing.
My impression about the last book was simply Meyer's ego run amuck. I have to believe that her editors and agents all told her that it wasn't a good book, didn't make any sense for a number of reasons in context of the series and that it needed a rewrite--which I've heard she flatly refused. I thought when I read it, as I think now, that she believed her own PR and fan comments; always a bad idea.
I agree Elizabeth. I remember reading that the publisher fought her on the pregnancy being in the book, but Meyer wouldn't budge. They probably just gave in to her because they knew the book would make money either way.
This is why you should plan the basic core structure of a series before you finish the first book. The pregnacy was inapprorpirate, yes, but at the same time, it was contradictory to what she already wrote. If she had not said it was impossible, people would have stomached it a bit better, even though it was highly gross.
That's my whole problem with it Cory. She spent three books talking about how miserable life was as a vampire and Edward wouldn't wish it on his worst enemy. Then..POOF! It's all rainbows and unicorns! Just like the pregnancy, this was supposed to be one of Bella's 'sacrifices' when she became a vampire. And again, it was completely abandoned.
I doubt that she planned a series. She was a housewife writing as a hobby and was likely happily astounded when the first book was actually picked up, published and then, against all odds, became a best seller. At that point the publishers (and Meyer) wanted to keep the wagon rolling so she wrote sequels and, being an inexperienced and mediocre writer, produced what she did.
Barbara Hambly - "Those who hunt by night" -1988. Excellent Vampire book. BTW I started out liking Hamilton's books until they turned into a trashy foray of succubus/sex -raise the dead, how about some group sex pradictable snoozers. The genre has been around for a very long time. No need to be so passionately insulting.
"And dear, if you wish to call others uneducated perhaps you should take a few grammar lessons and have a look in a dictionary occasionally. A dictionary is a book of how to spell words in case you're not familiar with one. But I would start with the grammar first if I were you."
Chortle. Lesson here: if you are going to insult others, maybe you should be sure the insult can't be applied to yourself.