Examiner.com has an interesting article written by Peter McEllhenney, sharing his opinion on Twilight:
The short answer to this question is no.
That’s not because Meyer’s book is popular, or financially successful, or because the main purpose of Twilight is to entertain the reader. Many popular, successful books “ such as Dumas Three Musketeers or Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories “ have achieved the status of classics because they are superbly crafted entertainments.
Twilight isn’t literature because Meyer’s skill as a writer is not strong enough to lift her book into the classic category.
Read more here.
I will say this..Stephenie Meyer isn’t the best writer ever, but she is an amazing story teller. She has the ability to make readers laugh, cry, feel the pain of Bella and Edward. Her ability is truly beautiful whether you consider it Literature or not.
And as I always say, opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one and some times they stink.
What do you think? Is SM’s Twilight literature? Why or why not?
I agree with Dawn and Claire’s assessments. The writer really does miss the complexity of Edward and his appeal to the female reader. It’s his the tortured nature of his existence and how he finds peace with Bella after all these years. It’s the way that the ultimate bad boy cannot live without a fragile little human. It proves that money, looks, immortality mean nothing if you don’t have someone with whom to share it.
I agree with Dawn and Claire’s assessments. The writer really does miss the complexity of Edward and his appeal to the female reader. It’s his the tortured nature of his existence and how he finds peace with Bella after all these years. It’s the way that the ultimate bad boy cannot live without a fragile little human. It proves that money, looks, immortality mean nothing if you don’t have someone with whom to share it.
First, Dawns description of a-holes is terrific.
Second, while I am not the appropriate judge of what is and is not literature, Dawn is correct. Meyer’s writing is beautiful and emotional. Fitzgerald was criticized during his time for writing cheesy short stories for magazines and because his novels contained too many adjectives. How many times did he describe Daisy as beautiful? Yet, he is undoubtedly a literary American hero. Shakespeare was not classic during his time – his plays were performed for the poor masses and considered crude by some.
I am not trying to compare Meyer to Shakepeare and Fitzgerald but I think we often forget history when we critique our own popular culture.
I do strongly disagree with the writer of this article on his description of Edward. I think he misses the complexity of and appeal of Edward’s character. He needs to give Meyer’s female audience a bit more credit. We would not be quite so taken with a fictional character if he were just a pretty face.
First, Dawns description of a-holes is terrific.
Second, while I am not the appropriate judge of what is and is not literature, Dawn is correct. Meyer’s writing is beautiful and emotional. Fitzgerald was criticized during his time for writing cheesy short stories for magazines and because his novels contained too many adjectives. How many times did he describe Daisy as beautiful? Yet, he is undoubtedly a literary American hero. Shakespeare was not classic during his time – his plays were performed for the poor masses and considered crude by some.
I am not trying to compare Meyer to Shakepeare and Fitzgerald but I think we often forget history when we critique our own popular culture.
I do strongly disagree with the writer of this article on his description of Edward. I think he misses the complexity of and appeal of Edward’s character. He needs to give Meyer’s female audience a bit more credit. We would not be quite so taken with a fictional character if he were just a pretty face.
First, Dawns description of a-holes is terrific.
Second, while I am not the appropriate judge of what is and is not literature, Dawn is correct. Meyer’s writing is beautiful and emotional. Fitzgerald was criticized during his time for writing cheesy short stories for magazines and because his novels contained too many adjectives. How many times did he describe Daisy as beautiful? Yet, he is undoubtedly a literary American hero. Shakespeare was not classic during his time – his plays were performed for the poor masses and considered crude by some.
I am not trying to compare Meyer to Shakepeare and Fitzgerald but I think we often forget history when we critique our own popular culture.
I do strongly disagree with the writer of this article on his description of Edward. I think he misses the complexity of and appeal of Edward’s character. He needs to give Meyer’s female audience a bit more credit. We would not be quite so taken with a fictional character if he were just a pretty face.