|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:26 pm
So, I'm sure a few of us by now have heard what Stephen King has to say about Stephanie Meyer: that "she can't write worth a darn..."
This has caused a bit of a stir within the fanbase, to be sure, with people screaming out that she calls herself a "storyteller" and not a writer, and so his opinion doesn't matter.
As a side note: I'm sorry, but this strikes me as completely ridiculous and highly romanticized. You write for a career. Therefore, you are a writer. Anyone who writes for the sake of writing is a writer. But, moving along.
It made me think that if a writing peer such as Stephen King believes she cannot write, what does the rest of the literary community think? Has she won any awards from prestigious people or groups? And the answer I found, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I'll rewrite this, is no. Stephanie Meyer has not been awarded anything but the status of New York Times Bestseller, and that came from a simple fact that her books sell.
And so, here is what I ask you:
Do you think that just because a book is popular that it is good and therefore deserving of some kind of acknowledgment, or that quantity does not necessarily mean quality?
Have you ever read a book that you thought was deserving of a specific award? Or perhaps it was up for one and didn't win?
And have you ever read a book that has won an award, only to wonder why it was chosen?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:15 pm
I don't think quantity means quality at all. Sticking with the example, I think the only thing Stephanie Meyer has done is sugar-coat, drug-lace and pervert what (used to be until Twilight) a respectable literary canon. She sold because vampires sell. Unfortunately it's all a gimmick, and she knew how to ride on some popular key words to get her story to millions of people. I really think the "story-teller" thing came up when people criticized her for being cocky about her success when writers like Stephen King have been around years and years longer, with many more successes under their belts. Or maybe she thinks she's sooo good she's something else entirely, who knows.
I have read plenty of books that I feel deserve awards. Most of them actually do have some sort of award, but the ones that don't I guess maybe weren't read by the right person or people to get nominated. Same goes for books with awards that I felt were rubbish. It's all who reads it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:33 am
I know there have been several books in recent year that won the Newbery Award for children's literature that I've read and gone WTF? I'm not sure about the literary merit of Criss-Cross, and while Cripen: The Cross of Lead was an okay story, I'm sure there were better books that year.
I've seen plenty of things make the New York Times bestseller list that a year later landed 15 copies in my library's donation pile because folks didn't think they were worth keeping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:22 pm
"New York Times bestseller" being plastered on the front has no influence on me. A book being popular means next to nothing because the popular ones are all tailored to society's interests, ergo lacking things like originality that make a book enjoyable.
When I was younger, the Newberry winners always attracted my attention. Once I picked up a couple that I didn't think were all that great, my love for the silver dissapated.
But an author's opinion still has some sway on me, depending on who we're talking about. For instance, Charles Baudelaire became of great interest to me simply because of his translations of Poe's work. Great minds befriend great minds alike.
I don't think about awards a lot, but I've no doubt come across novels that deserve more publicity than what they got.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:42 pm
I don't really care what awards the books I read have won. Most of them haven't won anything and I still like them. I don't care if a book is popublar or not because some books that have been praised I will never read again and some books that aren't popular I love. For me, the actual contents of the book are more important that what other people say about it.
I have read Stephanie Meyer's books, and I can say that the only characters I like are the background-ish characters that you don't hear much about. I really don't like Bella (she seems kinda zombie-ish to me) and the plot is always really simple and obvious. I can see why her books are entertainging to younger readers though, because it seems younger books are more obvious/less complex than books for older readers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:54 am
I still laugh when I think of that article where King claims that she can't write. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
