I thought that was pretty stupid actually, and I do love to laugh at certain things at Twilights expense (Team Khaki!) but that wasn’t funny, it was the same old “oh your prose is too PURPLE!” argument people have against the writing. Which is fine, whatever, you don’t have to like that style of writing, but if Smeyer is so awful then THEY can go out and write their own damned best-seling novel showing how THEY think vampires should be. Sorry, I wasn’t amused =/
-Twifan on IMDB after reading my article (emphasis mine)
I’m sick of this argument. In fact, I’m so sick of this argument, I had to cram several corks in my mouth to keep myself from unleashing a long string of profanity at my computer instead of typing an article like I’m supposed to. If I don’t do this article, I’m going to lose my rations for the rest of the week, and I’ll have to eat the dirt (which tastes like feet and gunpowder).
First off, the majority of people here have tried their hand at writing. I can say with confidence that most people here can, in fact, write in a more compelling way than Meyer or Paolini can. The point most fans make—that we are not writers and have no right to mock bad books—is moot.
Second: the truth is that anyone who uses this argument has violated Ebert’s Law, which states that you do not have to be of some field to criticize something in it.
Here is an example: say you go to a sushi restaurant and you decide to try the eel. You do. You don’t like it; in fact, it tastes a little like deep fried combat boots, and you tell the chef so. Are you a sushi chef? It’s quite likely that you aren’t. Could you tell that you didn’t like it, that it was made of inferior materials? Indeed you could.
Lastly, if we cannot criticize something such as Twilight or Inheritance because we haven’t tried our own hand at writing, then fans of the series who have not tried their hand at writing cannot say something is good. If they haven’t tried, how would they know if their favorite series is really as good as they say?
And a tangent just to shake things up—bestselling does not necessarily mean good. Hype does not always surround good things. References: boy bands, The Da Vinci Code, and Tom Cruise.
My point: This argument is old, tired, and unoriginal. Come up with something that’s, you know, actually logical and will take more than a moment’s recitation of Ebert’s Law. Pretty please?
Amelie on 19 March 2009, 21:01 said:
I’ve come to understand that publishing a bestselling novel nowadays is really a matter of circumstance. It’s not exactly correlated to talent; therefore, it’s no great feat, as these people seem to be arguing.
CometStorm on 19 March 2009, 21:08 said:
It’s okay, I wouldn’t be amused either if I just got TOLD.
Also, trying to verbally harangue someone with an ambiguous, unoriginal, and all around ludicrous argument, and predictably failing would make me very unamused as well :D
Mehehehe. Now every time someone tries to use this argument I will send them the link to this page!
+bookmark
Snow White Queen on 19 March 2009, 21:18 said:
XD
Love this, Kitty.
Especially this part: First off, the majority of people here have tried their hand at writing. I can say with confidence that most people here can, in fact, write in a more compelling way than Meyer or Paolini can.
glows with pleasure
No, really, my stuff’s pretty bad, but I loved your article, just because it makes sense and totally sweeps up people’s feet from underneath them. Mwahaha. I love doing that. prints paper off as ammo and charges into battle
SlyShy on 19 March 2009, 21:47 said:
Woo! Activism! So it’s not changing the world quite the way a food shelter will, but having good writers is important too. Good writers can write pamphlets for other causes. :D
Rand on 19 March 2009, 21:52 said:
I love Ebert’s Law! It lets me criticize things I’m just jealous I can’t do. :)
Kitty on 19 March 2009, 21:54 said:
Rand, my point flew so far over your head that it got hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.
Godslayer on 19 March 2009, 22:18 said:
Ebert’s law is a double edged sword. I feel at least some background in a field is necessary to make valid criticism. For example, I’m sick of people who have no scientific background making claims as to what is scientific and what isn’t. At the very least you should study a field before your opinion is worth anything…
On the other hand stating your opinion on a subject matter is acceptable. But for your opinions to be worth anything at all you must display some knowledge about what you’re talking about.
The Angel Islington on 19 March 2009, 22:22 said:
And a tangent just to shake things up—bestselling does not necessarily mean good. Hype does not always surround good things. References: boy bands, The da Vinci Code, and Tom Cruise.
Not to mention the Nazi party.
SubStandardDeviation on 19 March 2009, 22:45 said:
Yeah, this argument really bugs me too. Especially when paired with the counterargument “Well I HAVE written a book, so there!” which doesn’t answer it at all.
@ Godslayer: I agree. However background =/= having done the thing. To reuse the eel example, suppose I try it, and I hate it. If I’ve never eaten eel before, it’s possible that the food is really bad, but it’s also possible that I simply don’t like eel. If I’m a food connoiseur who’s tried many different eel dishes, some of which were good and some of which weren’t, I would be seen as more qualified to state my opinion about quality. (Versus “I did/n’t like it.”) Neither requires me to be a sushi chef, or even a cook at all.
Likewise, just because we’re not best-selling authors doesn’t mean we don’t know what we’re talking about. Everyone on this site who has read enough books to develop a literary taste can critique the merits of Inheritance.
@ Islington: Wow, Godwin’d already?
Kitty on 19 March 2009, 23:05 said:
Oh no, you’ve violated Godwin’s Law!
Now all we need is someone comparing Twilight fans to the girls who were mean to you in high school, and we’ll have violated Snacky’s Law.
SlyShy on 19 March 2009, 23:20 said:
Well, there are two parts to this, I guess. First is that, for the most part, the members on this site aren’t ignoramuses about writing, so we have the base line of knowledge. But even then, with a book it doesn’t take any expertise to say “I didn’t enjoy it”, as that’s a purely visceral experience.
One thing that bothers me is that in almost all cases members of this site are more knowledgeable than the fan making this argument.
Godslayer on 20 March 2009, 00:36 said:
I guess you are right. The humanities as a whole is pretty subjective. I don’t think a person has to write a book before stating what they like and what they don’t like.
One thing that confuses me is how definite some of the articles are over here. I really don’t agree with some of the writing advice over here. In my personal experience there really aren’t any baselines, just guidelines to writing a good story.
Kitty on 20 March 2009, 01:44 said:
Uh, example?
Gray Falcon on 20 March 2009, 09:08 said:
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned the hard-core fans’ varied reactions to Stephen King, who has written best-selling novels. Or at least a lot of novels.
Nate Winchester on 20 March 2009, 09:36 said:
I’ve been thinking about showing the Vampire wiki entry I’ve been creating for my fictional world (like my magic one) and here we have what feels like a personal challenge to do so…
Ah well, I won’t bother unless any imps (is that what we’re calling ourselves?) around here want me to.
Nate Winchester on 20 March 2009, 09:50 said:
That reminds me SlyShy, we should have an “activism” page on the site. (not too serious of course) We can talk about our efforts to stop thesaraus abuse, or my own personal crusade.
CGilga on 20 March 2009, 10:49 said:
The fan actually thinks we complain that Smeyer’s writing is too purple?
SlyShy on 20 March 2009, 10:55 said:
I think there is an implicit disclaimer that should go with any advice on writing, which is “this may not apply to you”. If you would like some nuanced analysis which thoroughly discusses multiple sides of an issue, I recommend Reading Like a Writer by Francine Prose.
A lot of advice is presented as definitive when it really shouldn’t be. The classic example being “show don’t tell”. This is a maxim people use because the majority of novice writers tell too much. Eventually most people realize showing too much is just as much of an error, and balance is needed.
In my articles I’ve tried to make it clear that nothing I say is a definitive answer, and could certainly be flat wrong when applied to someone’s particular instance. Writing is difficult like that. There are no fast and true laws.
Kitty on 20 March 2009, 11:54 said:
No, I did. The fan was complaining about my article specifically.
Nate Winchester on 20 March 2009, 13:30 said:
I thought it was clear enough from my articles’ titles as TIPS not rules (and let’s face it, if I thought they were rules, I would have gone with that since it appeals to alliteration).
Do you want us to start adding pages of disclaimer to everything SlyShy?
Kitty on 20 March 2009, 14:16 said:
Nate, Sly wasn’t addressing you, relax :B
Juniper on 20 March 2009, 14:26 said:
You could just have at the top/bottom of every article:
WARNING: This article may not apply to you. If after reading this article you experience symptoms of disagreement, intense doubt or discouragement, stop reading and chill. If symptoms persist longer than you are comfortable with, consult your common sense immediately.
…or something along those lines. :)
@ Kitty: But….those evhul Twilighters DO remind me of the school yard bullies who plagued my childhood… :P
Seriously though, good article. Are you willing to share the thread link where you found that quote?
Kevin on 20 March 2009, 15:46 said:
Kitty, magnificent as usual. My only quibble is that Twilight fans don’t have anything to prove to us. As somebody stated above, enjoyment of a book is largely a visceral experience. Meyer’s fans – delusional as they may be, in believing her a competent author – need not possess logical counter-arguments in the event that somebody criticizes.
I don’t think it’s even possible for me to enjoy a book – just as a reader, without thinking too critically about it – and have somebody logic me out of enjoying it.
Nate Winchester on 20 March 2009, 16:17 said:
Oh I know, but I think Godslayer was, seeing some his recent comments on other articles. So I was then “turning to” slyshy to ask about it. (imagine a play with 3 characters where one turns to another with a hint of sarcasm…)
Win. This.
The Angel Islington on 20 March 2009, 17:55 said:
er….Godwin’s law…?
Kevin on 20 March 2009, 18:25 said:
“As a (internet)** discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
**Godwin actually said ‘usenet,’ as he formulated the law in the before time.
Lauren on 20 March 2009, 19:27 said:
Haha, I was actually the one who posted the link on IMDb. Nice rebuttal.
Godslayer on 20 March 2009, 22:25 said:
Well, I do have ample amounts of common sense; I can verify that for a fact. Your sarcasm is not appreciated.
It is a weak defense at best, to say it’s all subjective. Then if the tip is indeed disposable what is it about the tip that makes it anymore ‘correct’ than not following it? At best you are giving tips for people to write the kinds of stories you want to read. Then what, can we say, is the best type of story to write? Fantasy? If so, why? And why should other writers who don’t write the specific kinds of stories you like fail miserably?
Don’t get me wrong. I think Twilight is a piece of literary garbage. But that doesn’t mean that because you and I both know that twilight sucks… it doesn’t mean we are suddenly people who can decide what is best and what isn’t. When I read advice like ‘Don’t put politics in your writing’ online I immediately can think of countless counter-examples that void that advice absolutely.
If we place rigid rules we always risk breaking them when the moment of true creativity strikes. I know for a fact that if we take the advice too seriously we lose the ability to write anything at all. And if the tip shouldn’t be considered seriously, does that mean it has no value to a writer who wants to write outside your specific literary tastes? What sort of tips are these if they ruin the open mindedness any writer should have?
I know I am just one speaking out to many, but I really can’t fathom why writing advisers and bloggers online speak with so much inflated authority. Yes, we may agree both agree that Twilight is awful, but that doesn’t mean that your advice is any more ‘correct’ for it. It could lead many beginning writers astray if they take your words to heart.
At any rate, I am leaving now. I found this site after leaving a very poisonous writing community. It was poisonous in the sense that nobody had the mind to critically question all the writing advice, and since everybody gave advice nobody had the courage to share their works because everyone constantly found themselves breaking the community’s ‘sacred’ advice. In the end by being so definitive in the way they gave each other advice, it prevented people from writing the best they could and honing their skills over time because they didn’t want their fellows to think any less of them for writing like a ‘bad’ writer—when in fact many pieces were pretty good for not following the advice.
I sense this same kind of subtle poison brewing here, given how angrily Nate is reacting when I point out some problems with the advice he gives, so I am leaving now. Good luck with this site and this community.
Juniper on 20 March 2009, 23:13 said:
Well, I do have ample amounts of common sense; I can verify that for a fact. Your sarcasm is not appreciated.-Godslayer
You assume a lot. Like, assuming I was being sarcastic. I wasn’t. Assuming that this site enforces a set of hard, fast and sacred writing rules. It doesn’t. Assuming that Kitty and co. are purveyors of poison. They aren’t.
I apologize if my comment seemed to be an attack against you. But remember what assumptions do: they make an…
I do not always agree with Nate’s tips. Sometimes I have to follow my own warning label’s advice. A writing tip only pertains to you if it helps you.
Good luck with this site and this community.-Godslayer
kthnxbye.
Kitty on 20 March 2009, 23:32 said:
Gtfo. If you want to start shit, try the forums instead of the comments bit of my article.
Nate Winchester on 20 March 2009, 23:39 said:
We should discuss sometime Juniper. I am looking to improve myself.
My anger is mostly in your head. Although I think it’s unfair how little context your complaints use. Not unlike taking a person’s sentence, removing the subject and verb and then criticizing the author for bad grammar. But more of that on my article soon – don’t want to incur the wrath of Kitty, I’m looking forward to sporking with her some day. =)
Reggie on 21 March 2009, 11:18 said:
Apparently the internets are serious business.
Nice article! The problem is that an argument involving logic or actual evidence from the books requires the ability to read critically, and if they could do that, then they would probably be on the other side of the argument. XD
OverlordDan on 21 March 2009, 12:02 said:
Assuming that Kitty and co. are purveyors of poison. They aren’t.
Wait, wait wait wait, wait. You aren’t ?!? Umm… ignore my order of “consumables”, Kitty; I’ll have to find another dealer to buy poi… pie. Ordinary pie.
Lame jokes aside, I have never felt that anyone here was especially bitter. Maybe that’s because the voice in my head reading aloud is that of Morgan Freeman :/
Eragon'sShrink19 on 21 March 2009, 13:23 said:
Wow, Kitty, you got some random chick at IMDB to respond to your article. You’re famous!
However, next time, could you provide a link to the girl you’re verbally beat-downing?
Kitty on 21 March 2009, 14:05 said:
A link? No, I’m not that horrible…
Juniper on 27 March 2009, 13:16 said:
I’ll have to comment more often. Like I said, when advice doesn’t help me, I consult my common sense and get over it. I wouldn’t say I think your tips are “wrong”. Maybe just “not applicable” to every situation—something you’ve said yourself. No worries!
Jerk on 30 March 2009, 19:51 said:
So why don’t you write a bestselling novel?
SlyShy on 30 March 2009, 19:58 said:
I’m sure there are people here who are working on novels they hope will be bestsellers one day. I’m not, because I’m looking forward to a much easier career in software. The whole getting an agent and getting picked up is the chance based part. It’s the same reason there are so many indie and garage bands that aren’t picked up by a major label.
Snow White Queen on 30 March 2009, 20:00 said:
Quote Sly: ‘I’m sure there are people here who are working on novels they hope will bestsellers one day.’
Guilty.
Not like I’m relying on my amazing American classic to get me through life or anything, but it’d be a nice thing to accomplish. For my own sense of vanity. :D
First, however, I must start ACTUALLY WRITING.
Yay, laziness.
Juniper on 30 March 2009, 21:53 said:
Working on it.
Taylor Lee on 28 May 2009, 20:13 said:
If only getting your book to be bestselling was easy.
I’ve written novels that I hope will be bestsellers one day, but it’s all a matter of luck, not talent. I learned that when I read Twilight, I’m sure a lot of us did.
I’m only a teenager, the quality of my writing isn’t amazing, but if Stephenie’s books can be bestsellers, then my recently written unedited novel could possibly be published, and become famous now.
But I prefer editing my work before sending it to a publisher, something that Smeyer and Christopher Paolini have never heard of.
helvengurl on 29 September 2009, 08:59 said:
You know what? TWILIGHT ISN’T A FUCKIN VAMPIRE NOVEL. IT’S JUST A WAY TO BRAINWASH TODAY’S YOUTH. You know what I have to say to all who say it’s a vampire novel?
Bite me.
‘Cuz no way in hell, is that a vampire novel. Has anyone read Dracula?
And, those aren’t werewolves, either.
However, Taylor lainther is totally still spankable.
CommentPerson on 20 January 2010, 19:46 said:
Lautner. Sorry felt like saying that it’s Taylor Lautner. I’m stuck in the middle. I love the book. (Sorry personal opinion) But, I also agree that Smeyer uses way to many adjetives, and the stone thing with Edward is WAY over-used. I still love the series. (again sorry personal opinion)
Mariah on 6 April 2010, 01:29 said:
I liked the book at first as well, in fact, I read all four of them in a month… (embarassing). Haha. But I have to say, after the original feelings after reading the book wore off, I realized that it is probably one of the dumbest stories ever told. And the movies?! The acting is absolutely horrible. Bella and Edward look like they are about ready to burst into tears whenever they’re about to kiss. Kristen Stewart has the same dumbass look on her face throughout the entire time… Its just terrible.
Not to mention, I work at the local Hot Topic in my mall and I can safely say that I have the slight urge to kill whenever a bunch of tweens (and their moms) come into the store and fawn all over the stupid twilight merch.
insert barf here.Anyway, I enjoyed your letter to Stephanie Meyer, Kitty, and I felt I should put my two cents in. Haha.
Kat on 8 May 2012, 14:50 said:
To resuse the eel some more, if a person goes to ten different sushi restaurants and says “Those nine eels tasted good, but that eel tasted bad,” then the criticism is relatively valid. Yes, people might not know what they’re talking about. But if I read ten books and thought nine of them were good, but that last one sucked, then I, as a reader, has something of a valid opinion.
To argue science when one heard about some formula somewhere that sovled something is invalid because they don’t even know what the formula is. To criticise Twilight because you heard of it sometime from somebody who said something about it would not be valid. Now, if you read some books, and you read Twilight, and then you criticize it, saying “It sucks because of these reasons:”, then it is valid.Bottom line: Meyer’s Twilight was meant to be read. We read it. And we think the experience of reading it really sucked.
Jealousy has nothing to do with the above point. Jealousy is only another reason why we hate it.
Tim on 9 May 2012, 05:25 said:
Ebert’s law is a double edged sword. I feel at least some background in a field is necessary to make valid criticism. For example, I’m sick of people who have no scientific background making claims as to what is scientific and what isn’t. At the very least you should study a field before your opinion is worth anything…
The problem there is flipping between “background” and “knowledge.” You don’t need any background in science to understand science.
What Ebert is talking about is basically the standard ad hominem fallacy, declaring an argument invalid not because it is in any way incorrect but because of some attribute of the speaker. The counterpoint would be, if we got a bestselling author to read out pages from this website, would the arguments they contain be more valid than they were before? If so, why? They’re exactly the same.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Twilight is a piece of literary garbage. But that doesn’t mean that because you and I both know that twilight sucks… it doesn’t mean we are suddenly people who can decide what is best and what isn’t. When I read advice like ‘Don’t put politics in your writing’ online I immediately can think of countless counter-examples that void that advice absolutely.
Couching your advice in disclaimers and double-talk is intellectual cowardice. “I thinks” and “in my opinions” are not useful to anyone, explanation is. Explaining a piece of advice means it is no longer subjective due to the magic word “because,” which implies a logical argument (which can be valid or invalid) and premises (which can be true or false).
Let me give you an example from a different creative field; level design in Doom 2. A little background; a Doom map is made from shapes called Sectors, and the lines that define each Sector are called Linedefs.
Now, a good piece of advice is that if a linedef is marked as a teleporter you shouldn’t put anything in the sector. Good, but not great, because it doesn’t tell you the important thing; why you should not do this. With this information you can evaluate it and decide whether it’s actually going to affect you or not.
In this case you don’t do it because, since the teleport is triggered by passing the linedef, you never actually enter the sector and so won’t be able to pick up the item. But now you understand this, you might think of a situation where it would be useful; say, putting an item you don’t actually want the player to have on a teleporter as a trap.
On the other hand there are hard and fast rules; you should never mark a teleporter sector as a secret, since there’s absolutely no reason to make a secret the engine will never be able to count aside from being a dick to players who want to 100% your level.
Another example is the Lost Soul Limit. Lost Souls are a monster type which are actually the attack of another creature, the Pain Elemental. A piece of advice that is subjective is “If you want to use Pain Elementals, don’t have more than 20 Lost Souls in a level.” This isn’t a bad general rule, but it doesn’t tell you why.
Why is because to stop the game crashing, the game prevents Pain Elementals spawning Lost Souls (and therefore attacking at all) if there are 21 or more in the level already. Understanding this rule means you can use it; Hell Revealed’s MAP19, for example, has 36 Lost Souls in a hidden room with a crushing roof triggered by picking up up a powerup in a room with four de-fanged Pain Elementals. This came about because the mapmaker understood why hitting the Lost Soul Limit is a bad idea, rather than simply knowing it was one.
If you want an ironclad rule, understand the reason a rule exists before you consider breaking it. Otherwise you end up like the dozens of wasted talents on Deviantart who would be good artists if they ever bothered to study art fundamentals, but instead make the same errors time and time again without ever understanding why they’re errors. “It’s my style,” they say, as they draw their fiftieth broken hand because they don’t know how bones work rather than because they consciously chose to draw that way.
If we place rigid rules we always risk breaking them when the moment of true creativity strikes.
If you wait for that moment you’ll never create anything. 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
What sort of tips are these if they ruin the open mindedness any writer should have?
This is a rather asinine rhetorical question since it imagines knowledge is the antithesis of some mythical “true” creativity which just hits you like a lightning bolt. Doesn’t happen.
**************************
A lot of advice is presented as definitive when it really shouldn’t be. The classic example being “show don’t tell”. This is a maxim people use because the majority of novice writers tell too much. Eventually most people realize showing too much is just as much of an error, and balance is needed.
Well, as above. What you need to know is why showing and not telling is important, and how it affects various aspects of storytelling. Sometimes it’s a practically ironclad rule (for example, the reader / audience will very seldom react well to the author-omnipotent voice telling them what they think of something) and others it makes sense to tell. I think this is something TVTropes is particularly bad for confusing people with, since 90% of trope descriptions tell you what the trope is but not what it’s purpose is or how it’s used.
**************************
Kitty, magnificent as usual. My only quibble is that Twilight fans don’t have anything to prove to us. As somebody stated above, enjoyment of a book is largely a visceral experience. Meyer’s fans – delusional as they may be, in believing her a competent author – need not possess logical counter-arguments in the event that somebody criticizes.
That rather depends. If they’re saying they enjoyed it, they don’t have to defend that. If they’re saying their enjoyment of it means that at a nuts and bolts level it is well-written, then yes, they do need to justify themselves. Unless you believe yourself to be omnipotent, enjoying something on a visceral level is not the ultimate standard of quality.
swenson on 9 May 2012, 10:52 said:
What Tim said. That was a masterful piece of rebuttal, particularly with your entertaining Doom examples. :)