Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJabrosky
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     

    One would think that a given product owes its popularity to its quality, but the Twilight and Eragon franchises have refuted that belief. How in the name of Thoth do these books get so many fans if they’re not really that good?

  1.  

    People have no taste. Duh.

  2.  

    Thoth?

    Anyway, mostly because most people are not very intelligent. Most people cannot appreciate really great book that make you think because they don’t like to think. You don’t really have to think that much to read Twilight and Eragon.

    People confuse big, fancy words with good writing. I did this too. I used to really love Inheritance and think that they were well-written. Now I know better. I still find them entertaining, and I haven’t read/seen most of the things PaoPao ripped off, so I didn’t know about that until I looked on the internet. However, I don’t think even in those days I would have found Twilight appealing.

    Many bad books appeal to fantasies, specifically Twilight. Twilight says, “The hottest guy in school can fall for you even though you are average and boring. It says that the dangerous guy is a really a sweetheart for you to love. However, I don’t understand how twitards can confuse stalking and possesiveness with sweetness and caring, but that goes back to point number one: Most people are not very intelligent.

    Also, sales and popularity don’t always have to do with merit. A lot of the time, they are based on luck and chance. In order to be popular, people have to read it. In order to read it people have to see and notice it. So having an interesting cover can really help (which both of your examples have). It also has to do with timing. And that’s where the luck comes in.

    People want to be cool. Once a book develops a fan base, others read it for that reason alone. Then they decide it’s “OMG awesome!!!1” because all of their friends think that. People prefer to follow the crowd, especially teens. They don’t want to stand out, so they read what their friends read. So the following gets bigger and bigger. I can remember a couple of years ago, when only a few people I knew read Twilight. Now it’s this huge thing.

    That’s my take on it anyway.

    •  
      CommentAuthorVirgil
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     

    Its too late for me to read all that.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     

    I prefer to blame Cthulhu. I mean really, Smeyers has to have prayed to some ancient multidimensional monstrosity or another, and considering her view of “romance”, why not sell her soul to the Lovecraftian god of tentacle-rape?

  3.  

    @Taku – I dont think even Cthulhu would be that cruel

    as for the reason why these books are popular – one word: marketing

    •  
      CommentAuthorJeni
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     

    Because not everyone wants to be intellectually challenged with every book they read, it’s got nothing to do with the supposed intelligence of the reader. Inheritance and Twilight are great brain candy, they either have an absorbing plot, or the characters are easy enough to follow. Not everyone needs originality, they can get along fine without demanding high levels of literature.

    So they become popular. Good for the authors that put the effort of writing into them.

    However, don’t nobody be tellin’ me they’re the height of literature.

    ‘Cos they ain’t.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     

    People are interested in things, so they read books about those things. They can only read books that they know about, so those with the best marketing campaigns are chosen first. Then, once a book becomes popular, people assume that popularity = quality, or just want to be able to join in their friends’ conversations.

  4.  

    People don’t feel like thinking and actually paying attention to the plot/characters. They want to be able to understand everything, and so they pick up books that 3 year olds could comprehend.

  5.  

    How in the name of Thoth do these books get so many fans if they’re not really that good?

    I was wondering this until I read Furious D’s essay on Michael Bay’s success which crystallized for me the answer.

    People are getting something from them that they aren’t getting from anywhere else. (note: advertising campaigns can fudge this a little)

    I’m still trying to figure out what it is with Inheritance and Twilight but the fact remains that they’re popular because they’re giving people something they want that they can’t get elsewhere.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     

    Inheritance is wish fullfilment for mostly guys. When you were a kid, didn’t you ever think it would be totally awesome to have a dragon for a pet? To have cool adventures, been all powerful, have fair maidens and princesses swooning?

    Twilight is equivalent for girls. Edward is an ultimate Prince Charming. He rescues the maiden from a boring, normal life. He finds her super-special, he understands her. He is so, so in love with her that he can’t be away from her (this explains the blind eye turned to the stalking. It’s romantic stalking!)

    His bland personality? Well, he’s like almost all fairy tale Prince Charmings. No name, none needed. He provides an escape, he himself is unimportant. He’s the ultimate selfish fantasy for girls, in his creepy way.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSMARTALIENQT
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2009 edited
     

    I agree with WW. Having developed characters means that they don’t fit into the reader’s exact personalities. I remember being frustrated that there were no smart brunettes with glasses who liked books in the Tamora Pierce books. I had the bookworm from Tris, and the brunette from Sandry, but neither of them was like me to a tee.

    But that’s a good thing, because each character is their own person, not an avatar of the reader. I think almost every bad book – no, bad writing – can be boiled down to wish-fulfillment (the John Ringo books are an extreme example of this). The characters that are not the main character are flat and static, so that they can revolve around the MC and pay due homage to it.

    It’s the ultimate selfish fantasy personified: everyone loves me, except the ones who are jealous/scared of me, and no one, not even the ones I like, is worth the effort it takes to think beyond their appearance and what they think of me.

  6.  

    it’s got nothing to do with the supposed intelligence of the reader.

    I mostly mentioned intelligence because I just don’t understand how Edward is desireable other than being super-duper sexy. First he ignores her. Then he wants to be around her all the time. Then he keeps telling her to stay away, while at the same time begging her to come and do things with him. He stalks her and compares her to heroin. I just think that an intelligent person wouldn’t think he was so wonderful with all the creepy stuff he does. Maybe they just don’t pay close enough attention to notice.

  7.  

    I got into Twilight for a reason I can’t figure out. I guess it’s a combination of me always giving everything second and third chances, hoping it gets better later on, and being a compulsive reader. Will admit to slight squee, but it wasn’t as excessive as I like to pretend sometimes…

    I got into Eragon because it was long, I’m not one of those discerning epic-fantasy buffs, so I didn’t really care about any language quibbles, etc, the writing style wasn’t epically bad (no comment on the plot, tropes, devices used, etc), and I like long books that are part of a reasonably short series.

  8.  

    Twilight is one of those books where you read it once, and it’s good. Then you read it again, and you’re, like, “Okaaay…”. You start headdesking after the fourth time or so.

    Eragon got me interested in writing young, something I’ll always thank Paolini for. Unfortunately, he also got me hooked on thesauri. And while I can look at part of it out of context and say, “How could I have liked that?”, I’ll reread it and get warm fuzzies.

    So, I’m a recovering Eragon addict, but I fell out of love with Twilight as easily as I fell in love with it.

    Forgive me, I must make an analogy:

    Eragon is that ex you have to let go of, but you’ll still remember fondly even though you know he was a jerk.

    Twilight is the playground date you went out with for two days in middle school before forever renouncing all boys.

  9.  

    Hey, analogies are always awesome! Especially yours! gives warm fuzzies

  10.  

    I guess it’s a combination of me always giving everything second and third chances, hoping it gets better

    I do that too. That’s what I’m doing with the latest Maximum Ride books, and I’m giving several TV shows extra chances, and they just keep disappointing me.

    • CommentAuthorGolcondio
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2009
     

    I bought the first two Inheritance books at the airport, because around here it’s difficult to find bookshops which sell books in English, so I make sure I never pass on the opportunity… So in a sense I gave my contribution to its success…
    I don’t think I’m stupid (IQ and such crap aside…) and I know I love intellectually challenging reading; nonetheless, I found both books enjoyable enough (I’m not taking into consideration the frequent, annoying pauses I had to make to look up all those uselessly obscure synonyms on my dictionary… damn thesaurophiles…).
    I guess sometimes I just need some hundreds pages of pleasant nothingness to suspend my disbelief on :)

    •  
      CommentAuthorArtimaeus
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2009 edited
     

    Most people don’t read books for the quality writing; they read for the story. Romance is the best selling genre in fiction, not because of its complexity or originality, but because it has a devoted fanbase who want to read stories about vulnerable women “taught to love” by powerful men. Next time you have a chance, go to the bookstore and just look at Harlequin romance series (With titles like Taming the Texan Tycoon, The Ruthless Italian’s Inexperienced Wife, and Pirate Tycoon: Forbidden Baby). These books are awful, but they sell none the less. They give their fans what they want.

    But anyway, I also really liked Eragon back when I was young and undiscriminating. To be perfectly honest, however, I don’t think Paolini is nearly as popular anymore. The way I see it, his original fanbase has outgrown him, and his new books just aren’t attracting new people to the series. I suspect that this is partially because he left behind the Starwars formula (which, while unoriginal, kept his books exciting and well paced) but also because the publishers can no longer pitch the books as the product of a teenage wonderboy… who knows…

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2009
     

    Well, the IC is just… it’s terribly cliched, but it’s extremely easy to get into. It’s your standard fantasy book. “Here are some elves,” CP says. “Here is an evil king. Here is a sympathetic farmboy.” It’s light reading that doesn’t require a lot of thought, and if you overlook the purple prose and don’t analyze it, on the first reading it’s not bad. Once you get into it, its flaws show up much more prominently, but for the most part, they’re perfectly fine until you look at them more closely.

    Twilight is even easier to understand. There is a hot boy. He dedicates his very existence to an ordinary girl who is Just Like Me TM. What’s not to like? (other than the purple prose, the stalking, the damaged relationships, the ridiculous lack of plot, the lack of depth to certain characters…)

  11.  

    “the lack of depth to certain all characters”
    Fixed.

    I apologize if there is a character with depth. I haven’t even finished the first one yet.

    I like the “Just Like Me TM

  12.  

    I certainly hope Bella is not Just like Me.

    Now I’m scared, dammit!

  13.  

    Lol. Yeah, I don’t really relate to her at all. I’d like to say that I’m nicer than her and actually have a personality. Oh, and I wouldn’t date a creepy, abusive, stalker (vampire or no). But I guess I’ll have to get a second opinion on that; I may be biased. =)

  14.  

    .bq the lack of depth to certain characters

    I think that has quite a bit to do with it. On the one hand, having your lead be the kind of nonentity Eragon and Bella are famous for being, it makes the reader easier to project onto them, which I can see as being appealing to people who don’t read much otherwise.

    The second part of that is that when trying to really create a character that stands up on his/her own and casts a shadow, you can’t put everything about that character onto the page directly anymore than you can comprehensively describe a real person. You may be able to state some of their traits, but if you want the reader to get a true grasp of the character, they have to be able to connect the dots themselves. With hollow characters like Bellagon, it theoretically takes all the guesswork out because the author supplies you directly with the traits you are supposed to take away, and I’d say that’s all the effort many of those fans are willing to put into reading.

    The problems arise when authors like Paolini and Meyer not only take the shortcut of informing the reader about their character, but subsequently don’t follow through with their own description in the character’s behavior. For those of us that do try to connect the dots the way the author has laid them, it forms a pretty unpleasant picture that non-dot-connectors won’t see otherwise.

  15.  

    I love your explanation. It makes so much sense, and yet it’s still a little vague.

    I never really got why everyone’s always saying that people can project themselves onto a character—I mean, there’s always a choice when you do something, whether it be simply to do or not to do, or whether it’s slightly more complex in that they have multiple options, so whatever they do will be a result of what they decide to do, and whatever they decide to do will be based on their character, so how can a character be a ‘non-character’?

    I mean, it seems to me personally that she’s a mostly weak-willed, insecure, love-struck teenage girl who has potential for sarcasm, a flair for drama, sees the worst in people, makes judgements before she should, hates the sight of blood, has low blood pressure or something that makes her faint sometimes, gets a little smug, whines sometimes, has freaky dreams, reads English literature and does her homework obediently, hates to think too deeply about anything, and likes to cook.

    And her choices are consistent with that.

    Up until the present, I’ve just been spouting that they have no characterisation because everyone else said it, so I’d love someone to find a flaw in my logic, or for them to find a flaw in theirs.

    the traits you are supposed to take away

    Would you mind listing a few?

  16.  

    For those of us that do try to connect the dots the way the author has laid them, it forms a pretty unpleasant picture that non-dot-connectors won’t see otherwise.

    Quoting myself in response. I’m in a worse position to argue Twilight since I couldn’t finish it, as opposed to Eragon. That does sound like a pretty accurate description of Bella, but if you asked Meyer to describe her plainly, I don’t think you’d get the same description. She’d probably use words like “brave” and “selfless” and “kind” and “smart” instead of “passive-aggressive.” Some of that just has to do with her being a lousy writer, but it also has to do with Bella not being able to stand up on her own as a character in way it was intended.

    Basically, what interests does Bella really have besides literature(allegedly) and Edward? This is a real question. I’m not as informed as I could be, and maybe I’m just missing something.

  17.  

    Trutru.

    •  
      CommentAuthorArtimaeus
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2009 edited
     

    I mean, it seems to me personally that she’s a mostly weak-willed, insecure, love-struck teenage girl who has potential for sarcasm, a flair for drama, sees the worst in people, makes judgements before she should, hates the sight of blood, has low blood pressure or something that makes her faint sometimes, gets a little smug, whines sometimes, has freaky dreams, reads English literature and does her homework obediently, hates to think too deeply about anything, and likes to cook. And her choices are consistent with that.

    Hmm… my reading was completely different. The way i see it, Bella acts shy and insecure, but then immediately sympathizes with a clan of undead sex gods. She’s worried about fitting in, and then is unhappy when she does. She says she’s shy and a bad liar, but she manages to convince her dad that she hates him. She claims to be mature and selfless, and then whines about everything. She’s unsure and inexperienced with boys, but then manages to instantly seduce Jacob. And, again, for an insecure girl with low self-esteem, she is really freaking smug. It seems like, for most of the book, she’s swinging between a supuriority complex and an inferiority complex.

    It seems that she has a lot of character traits that could easily hinder her, and yet, when they become inconvienet, she’s able to overcome them without any struggle. That’s how I read it, anyways.

  18.  

    Wow, Artimaeus, after reading that, I have just made the full transition from reasonably-anti-am-i-okay-not-sure-yet to anti. Thanks.

    And I seriously want to write Bella the way she is, but with a couple of warm traits in there too. She would be the best character ever.

    • CommentAuthorIsabel
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2009 edited
     
    "It seems like, for most of the book, she’s swinging between a supuriority complex and an inferiority complex." -Artimaeus. Forgive me. I don't have block quotes down.

    That's because she's hotter than the normal people in town she looks down on, but way uglier than the vampires. It's because beauty is the most important trait someone can have. It's the only thing that respect should be based on. *rolls eyes*
    •  
      CommentAuthorArtimaeus
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2009 edited
     

    Wow, Artimaeus, after reading that, I have just made the full transition from reasonably-anti-am-i-okay-not-sure-yet to anti. Thanks.

    grins Glad I could help.

    EDIT:
    “And I seriously want to write Bella the way she is, but with a couple of warm traits in there too. She would be the best character ever.”

    I agree wholeheartedly. That’s one of the reasons I’m writing Nightfall. Chapter 3 is still online, if you want to take a look at it.

  19.  

    Yeah, I have been meaning to start on it these past couple of days. You’re on IW, right? If you post it for your submission, I’ll probably get to it a lot faster.

    I’m just trying to cut down on time spent on the internet at the moment, but i seriously don’t want to lose you.

    • CommentAuthorUn-Dante'd
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2009
     

    In my opinion, bad books are like the movie XXX (Triple X, don’t get a dirty mind). They completely suck when you go in with your head geared to focusing on the story, and not just reading/seeing what happens. XXX appeals to the action fan in everyone, but it fails at acting and plot.
    Write a book about an angsty teenager who meets the perfect vampire boyfriend, and generally, girls from Nebraska to Alaska to Ottawa think that it’s the best book ever made. I believe it’s because it touches the right buttons.

  20.  

    It doesn’t just touch them; it smacks them with a sledgehammer for good measure.

    • CommentAuthorUn-Dante'd
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2009
     

    And I forgot to mention it does that indiscriminately to ALL of the buttons available. People tend to ignore the bad ones, though.

  21.  

    I believe it’s because it touches the right buttons.

    I have to believe it’s possible to touch those buttons and still make a good book though, even if it must be highly improbable.

    • CommentAuthorUn-Dante'd
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2009
     

    Like I said in a later post, it pushes all of the buttons. Or most.

    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2010
     
    Sometimes I think bad books are popular because only stupid people buy them. There's this author I've heard of called Philip "Big Dog" Jones, and I've read sporkings of his books, "Worlds of the Crystal Moon: World of Grayham". It is absolute crap. The 'hero' is Gary Stu Extraordinare, the heroine is incredibly dumb and is only there to have the hero's babies, the other guy is a scumbag who likes torturing animals, the plot makes no sense, and nearly all the humor is related to either sex or the bathroom. (Yes, this is a man who feels the need to mention every time two characters pee, and gives the heroine a staff that is basically a sex toy. I am NOT making this up.) I wonder why people like that stuff, until I figure that they weren't much brighter than the author. Or maybe they turned off their brains.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrink
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2010
     

    Magic!

    It’s more optimistic than “people have crap taste and will take whatever is shoved at them.”

  22.  

    “people have crap taste and will take whatever is shoved at them.”

    But they do and they will…. Or magic works too.

  23.  
    Yeah, I think it's a bad taste factor. Also, the covers are pretty awesome. People do judge a book by its cover.