Timewaster's Guide Archive

little_wilson, when I say editing, I do mean adverbs and all that.  But I also mean story development as well--the stuff you're referring to.  The editors chose not to help her develop it well. 

But, having said that, millions of readers beg to differ. What bothers me about Twilight the most is the way that so many women have fallen in love with something that's so easily criticized.  If it weren't so popular, I wouldn't be nearly as bugged. I don't pick up random romance novels in grocery stores and critique their bad plotting, poor character development, and abundant adverbs. 

I think there's more going on in Twilight than I have given it credit for; there has to be, because it resonates with so many people.  Part of me resents that, I guess, but that's a too-easy dismissal of the phenomenon. 

Bookstore guy, I'm sure you know more about publishing and best sellers than I do.  But the best-seller list I follow has never been dominated by Stephen King the way it's currently dominated by Stephenie Meyer, at least not in my memory. I'm just saying.

Reaves, that's one of the hardest parts about being suddenly rich and famous.  Few people acknowledge that those things have their own set of very real problems, and since not many people are in the same boat, it's hard to find help to get through it.  Turn your nose up at her problems if you want to, I guess.  But if it were me, I would want people to cut me some slack.

Miyabi, yeah, it's a little childish.  But who among us isn't childish sometimes?  She just has the misfortune to have her childishness discussed and debated by thousands of people.  The rest of us have the luxury of private pettiness.

I just read The Host.  And it is way, way better than Twilight.  The writing in Twilight ... ah, the kindest thing I could say about it is that it really needed a good editor. 

I don't blame Stephenie herself as much as I blame her publisher and, by extension, her editor.  They saw the potential in her writing, they pushed the book out the door, and they didn't take the time to help her polish it and make it good.  Her publisher is making bank.  But she's stuck with a book that is not as well-written as the concept deserves.

The Host, on the other hand, has obvious signs that it's been well-edited.  It's better structured.  The romantic tension is better.  Someone has taken a red pen to many (not as many as needed. But still many.) of the adverbs.  There's better-developed conflict and growth.

So, yeah, I guess the author is ultimately the one responsible for the book. But. As an editor (I edit essays, not novels, but some principles are the same),  I think she got a bad rap.  She needs someone who will help her writing shine, not someone who tries to push the books out the door so quickly that they don't receive the attention they need.

And I think it was stinky of Stephen King to attack her.  When was the last time he spent weeks at a time on bestseller lists?  Professional jealousy, hmm?

I loved the Sazed and Kelsier tension; Breeze... meh, I don't know, it was a nice way to lighten Book 3, I think, and that was definitely needed, but the romance itself didn't really grab me.  I didn't have enough invested in them.  And that's okay; they are supporting characters. 

But Sazed, yes, that was nicely done.  Really heart-wrending.

Ryanjm points out the minimal role of sex/sexuality in the Mistborn series here: http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=6410.0. 

Whether or not you like Mistborn that way, and whether or not you think characters are more realistic when their attractions are dwelt on more, I think you could make a case for the Vin/Elend romance as less successful than Raoden/Sarene or Susebron/Siri.

Maybe it's just me.  But Raoden/Sarene--ah! the tension was great, that perfect romantic suspense of knowing two people are meant for each other, have to get together, but have impossible obstacles in front of them.  Seriously great romance.  And the Susebron/Siri romance was equally if not more compelling for me, particularly because I didn't expect it from the start.  (Not Vasher/Vivenna though, at least not in the version I read.  When they ended up together, I felt a let down and a huh?  I needed more buildup to believe and be happy for them.)

But Vin/Elend?  I don't know, something about it doesn't work as well for me as the other ones. [disclaimer: I loved the series, it kept me up late reading, I'm not dissing the books, just analyzing a bit.] Did anyone else feel that way? I'm trying to figure out why.  For me, it's not the absence of sex; in fact, I think too many sexual references destroy the kind of romantic tension I'm referring to.  Maybe it's the way their relationship is kind of strung between two novels; you think they end up together after the first one, but Vin's not really committed, but the "should I marry Elend or not" is not really the focus of Book 2, or at least not as much as I would have liked.

What do you think?  Which romance do you find most successful, and why?

Ryanjm, I noticed the absence of sex and sexuality too... and I really, really appreciated it.   

Would more innuendo/sexual references have added another layer of depth to the Elend/Vin relationship?  Or to others?  Possibly.  But it didn't come up, I guess; it wasn't needed for the story, and like RedMars said, I'd rather not feel like a voyeur.

I see Kelsier as a Christ figure, for sure.

I think it's possible for a character to have some resonant symbolism without mirroring the person/idea symbolized in every aspect.  So Kelsier has some Christian resonance; that adds depth to the readers who pick up on in and enjoy it.

In the same way, I would call Sazed a Joseph Smith figure--there are many many ways he does not mirror Joseph Smith at all.  But the basic arc has a parallel, and I suspect it will resonate for some LDS readers.

"Now, he wanted to know... no, he had to know.. if the religions of the world had answers for him. He would find the truth, or he would eliminate each and every faith." --Hero of Ages, page 43

 

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
  10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?--Joseph Smith History 1:9-10