Back to the twilight BS. I'm not a fan, yes I've seen the 1st movie, and my friends dragged me to the store for the DVD release. I was the only person there who wasn't gaga over Edward Cullen and I nearly had my head ripped off while I was there. Once the announcement was gasped out of my friend. "OMG Like you haven't like read twilight." Stoically I said no, and was bum rushed and had dropped in my lap these four tombs of poorly written 11th grader vampire love triangle bull crap with bonding werewolves.
Personally I draw the line at sparkly vampires, I don't believe that vampires should be in the sun period. Let alone sparkle like a diamond, but I pushed on. Finding out that Bella get knocked up was completely unheard off, then the whole suppressing the emotions bull crap that the movie does that the book even does. Just does it for me. I trashed all four books and didn't even bother to finish the series. So now as we edge closer to the release of "new moon" I'm mentally preparing to be dragged to the theater for another round of screaming kids and there version of an emospaztical vampire with emotional issues over fighting the basic need for blood. C'mon!
Personally, I'm a twilight fan hater period, I don't like books, and I don't like the movies.
Don't make the mistake I did and read them out of sheer curiosity, it will make you feel stupid.
~H
Insanity is as insanity does.Loan IGN: Juliana Partner/sire/childe
I gave up within the last 100 pages of Twilight and decided it wasn't worth STILL trying to maintain my interest. Most of those books I can finish in two hours, I labored for ten days to try and read it. I gave up. I didn't care.
Twilight's been successful because it's marketed mainly for 11-16 year old girls. We can agree on that, yes?
Well most kids that age don't even know what good writing is. When was the last time you saw a 13-year-old reading Lord of the Rings? Frankenstein? ANY classic at all?
The only thing I'll give Twilight is that it's making some people read. The literacy rate in the USA is so low it makes me cringe.
You would probably hate the stories I'm working on then. Most of my characters don't come out completely complicated right in the first chapter. That's not to say they're completed, but as the reader, especially in the ones that I plan on writing more than one "book" we'll say. I look at it like this, if you just met me, you may not know what, if any mental/emotional scars i may or may not have. You aren't going to immediately know my history. So let's say I have a character you feel is shallow, has no depth, or even seems complicated in the first chapter, that's because you just met him/her. I'm not going to start off a story with "John was a serial killer because his father abused him when he was a kid, and then made him watch while he tortured and killed his mother." because that'll take the fun out discovering that John's just not some murdering A-hole but indeed a tortured person.
I'm not defending anyone or condemning anyone, but simply saying that you're going to call characters uncomplicated, take the time to get to know them in the story. Yeah I'll look at the basic plot line on the back and decide if i want to read it, but i don't expect to "know" the characters in chapter 1 of book 1.
edit: add more stuff
You assume that I wouldn't like your story from the start. Let me reiterate. I didn't make it past the first chapter because I couldn't stand how she wrote. Like I said, the synopsis of Twilight sounds appealing. But her writing style just...I couldn't get into it.
I don't expect to know the characters of the story right off the bat. I said I like complicated characters. Yes, but you're assuming that I expect them to be from the start. No. I know that's not the case. If I had that mindset, I surely wouldn't read. I couldn't finish because I didn't like her writing. Even though her characters are pretty static. '
ETA: And just because I didn't read the book past chapter one doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion as well. I wasn't going to make myself read something that I saw as a joke. I know a lot about the book because my best friend was in love with it and wouldnt shut up about it. Along with all my other friends who got into it. I think it was poorly written. I think she lacked the hook to keep my attention.
Last Edit: Nov 19, 2009 13:34:27 GMT -8 by Damiana Jones
IGN: LaTigre || DAMIANA LA'TIGRE JONES O'CIONAOITH || Childe of Damia Morgan OOC: Dee ||Dee-arth Vader||
Well most kids that age don't even know what good writing is. When was the last time you saw a 13-year-old reading Lord of the Rings? Frankenstein? ANY classic at all? .
My 11 year old sister read the Lord of the Rings trilogy because I told her my bookshelf was off limits until she read it. So she did. She's 13 now and is reading it for the 4th time, I think. She's also read a bunch of Shakespeare, Frankenstein, and a few other classics that I've pointed her toward. I'm damn proud of my sister, not that I'd ever tell her that.
Someone mentioned that at 19, you're at the dawn of your literary experience. I beg to differ. I've read hundreds, if not thousands of books. I'm a published poet, albeit a lousy one. I've written at least two essays that were good enough to be published, one on Shakespeare. I'll be twenty in a month and a half.
Age means absolutely nothing.
| IGN: Vex | OOC: Jace | Banner by Marissa Want a banner? Ask someone else!
Age means everything. It means experience, patience, tolerance and acceptance. It means taking what you read and putting it in a context that isn't rushed by hormonal impulses and errant statements like "I hate" and "I unequivocably".
You may not be in the throes of what you've read, but you are definitely in the throes of your emotional responses to them.
19 is not an adult and in making these sweeping statements about everything and everything, 19 years old means everything just in the unequivocal statement that their blanket assessment covers so much of what isn't entirely known of something.
Maybe it's because I work in law and you never state anything unequivocably. But I just find that age, does mean alot. The 19 year olds of the world may not think so. It doesn't make it any less true though.
My 11 year old sister read the Lord of the Rings trilogy because I told her my bookshelf was off limits until she read it. So she did. She's 13 now and is reading it for the 4th time, I think. She's also read a bunch of Shakespeare, Frankenstein, and a few other classics that I've pointed her toward. I'm damn proud of my sister, not that I'd ever tell her that.
Someone mentioned that at 19, you're at the dawn of your literary experience. I beg to differ. I've read hundreds, if not thousands of books. I'm a published poet, albeit a lousy one. I've written at least two essays that were good enough to be published, one on Shakespeare. I'll be twenty in a month and a half.
Age means absolutely nothing.
Your examples, Jace, are not what would be considered "normal." I was of course generalizing in regard to national averages and all that; most of the people on this forum I do expect to be above average as far as writing and reading is concerned. It's an RP forum and almost all of us do write fairly extensively, but again that's not something most of the USA's population does. Kudos to you and your sister but most people in the 18-20 age range are in community college for something they don't understand and are working at McDonald's so they don't know any words with more than two or three syllables. The "popular" kids I went to high school with, the ones who were average in classes, they're doing just that. They're cashiers and supermarket baggers, and if they're in college (usually community college) they don't have a major. The smarter ones are majoring in things like biomedical engineering.
I do agree with you that age means nothing as far as intelligence goes. But for those that do break the traditional mold, they're not numerous enough to tip the scales for national averages. Puawai also makes a good point about age - the younger are limited in experience and more prone to be swept away by hormones and emotions. Things really vary from person to person.
Age has significance in terms of understanding of the world, and acquisition of a so called "theory of mind". It has, however, little to do with intellectual competence. Jean Piaget, one of the most prominent observers of children's psychology, named four grand stages of development within his theory of Cognitive Development. The last stage begins when the child is 11, and continues into adulthood. On the other hand, Piaget himself wrote his first scientific paper when he was 8 years old and notes of his were published in a scientific paper when he was 11. He sort of defied some of his own research and theories on infantile understanding So indeed, if anything age has to do with emotional intelligence, not factual intelligence or creativity. I'm done rambling now >.>
Age has significance in terms of understanding of the world, and acquisition of a so called "theory of mind". It has, however, little to do with intellectual competence. Jean Piaget, one of the most prominent observers of children's psychology, named four grand stages of development within his theory of Cognitive Development. The last stage begins when the child is 11, and continues into adulthood. On the other hand, Piaget himself wrote his first scientific paper when he was 8 years old and notes of his were published in a scientific paper when he was 11. He sort of defied some of his own research and theories on infantile understanding So indeed, if anything age has to do with emotional intelligence, not factual intelligence or creativity. I'm done rambling now >.>
You say some of the coolest stuff. But I would go further to say that age is also about experience in general. Knowing when to be quiet, to listen, to shout and when to stand up and be heard for what you have belief in.
It's all so damned urgent in the teens of the world, it makes me a little tired. But not because I don't like it, no no... I think enthusiasm is great. I like people who challenge ideas and reach for uncertainties just because I think that is how new concepts and ideas are bourne.
It's just sometimes, the emotional outbursts get a little.. wearing and there was a blanket statement here that covered so much based on the sum worldly experience of 19 years and I'm thinking, wow, 19 years.
Nah, give it a little time. Let your wine stay in the barrel a little longer and you'll see. Life isn't so heartily black and white. And the grey world that most adults live in, isn't really drab and uninteresting because of lack of unequivocal statements but richer because of the endless ways we can all be wrong about something.
Well most kids that age don't even know what good writing is. When was the last time you saw a 13-year-old reading Lord of the Rings? Frankenstein? ANY classic at all?
Let's see... by 6th grade (age 10-11) I was reading classics. I trudged my way through Frankenstein, some parts interesting... others not so much. Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, etc. You know it's bad when you're in a class and you're the only one besides the teacher to actually understand what a book/play/story means.
-----
I like to give a book a chance, but when it is boring me, I won't keep reading it. I'm sorry if that seems a jackass way to do it, but I can find something far more interesting to read.