Fans of Interracial Romance discussion

I seem to rarely experience 5* reads.

This got me thinking because a lot of my Ami/Goodreads friends never seem to have any ratings below 5 or 4 stars. There's the occasional 3 star rating but that's the exception rather than the rule. And these folks aren't pulling off a hoax like the famous (or perhaps infamous) Harriet Klausner. :P

So I'm curious, what motivates how you rate a book?

For me a book will only receive 5 star status if certain criteria are met. They have to be so exceptionally well done I'm completely blown away. If the story AND characters (has to be both, not one or the other) stay with me long after I've read the novel. They're usually on my keeper shelf for life, meaning I'll probably never lend them out and they'll move around with me -- wherever I'm relocating to in the world -- like my kids (that is to say, I'll never leave them behind no matter what). They're usually the first to come to mind when I dedicate a few moments of thought to my all time favourites.

The criteria are:

STORY - I don't really care what or where, just as long as it moves me in some form or fashion. However, there is some compromise. Some of my best ever reads didn't always have the best stories, but they remain on my keeper shelf. For eg, Sandra Brown's Play Dirty & Charade.

CHARACTERS - they make a novel, don't they. Without well-developed, 3-dimensional characters a book can easily go south fast. I have to care, deeply and fundamentally. I have to connect with one or both of the leads. Even if I don't agree with the actions of the characters put me their shoes and make me understand. Make me feel. If an author is able to do that, I'm sold. This is one criterion on which there is no compromise.

WRITING - if an author's writing is bad, it completely kicks me out of the story. If an author has been around for a while I expect a certain quality of writing. I want to see an author growing from book to book. Late last year I read some of Linda Howard's earlier novels and the writing, imho, was unbelievably poor. But as I read more and more of her books, those dating from the 80s up to now, there were visible signs of growth and I, as a reader, appreciated that.

Without mentioning names, there are some authors who have published books upon books and their writing is still so bad I sometimes have to wonder how the heck did these people get published in the first place. I will compromise greatly on writing if the story and or the characters are so good I no longer care, but in my experience, if the writing's bad, the characters (sometimes the story too) are also bad.

One criterion (with the exception of Characters) may be weaker than another, but they ALL have to be present in a major way in order to gain a 5* rating from me.

It's like I was saying to New_User about movies. The full package has to be there.

4 stars - They're memorable. Something stood out to me (usually a character) though ultimately they don't end up being my best reads EVER. These are probably on my keeper shelf as well, but I'd be willing to lend them out to trusted friends and family. If I had to move, I'd leave them behind and have them shipped to me later; and I'll probably reread them every 3 years rather than every year like I would my 5* keepers.

3 stars - one criterion was particularly well done. Or all criteria were moderately well done. These are books that will linger in my thoughts, but will start to fade the more books I read after it. I will consider giving away these books when I'm in the mood to de-clutter.

2 stars - these are books I pretty much forget immediately after reading them. They're weak on one or all the criteria. I will gladly lend these out or give them away if my friends/family express an interest. I wouldn't carry these with me if I'm moving out of the country.

1 star - poor on all evaluating criteria. They can be wall bangers, but not always. There are some books that I just don't like. Based on the characters, after having read several books from the same author, I may be inclined to assume me and the author don't look at world in the same way (eg Nora Roberts, Stephanie Laurens, Catherine Anderson etc). I'm likely to return these to the bookstore the same day or give them away without thought.

Another interesting thing is that not every book by my favourite authors will score high (5,4 or even 3 stars) with me. Rather what makes them my favourite is the potential they hold to move me to 5 star levels with their work.

There are also some authors I don't like, but one or two of their books somehow found their way very high up on my keeper shelf. For example, ALL ABOUT PASSION by Laurens. I usually dislike this author's heroines and her rather dull, bordering on absurd mystery plots, but in this book everything ended up being done exactly to my liking, thereby making it a 5* read for me.

A person may see where I have given a book a 4 stars, but they need to read my review first to see if the book has gotten 4 stars or the 4 stars were chosen, because I have given the book 3.5 stars and 3.5 stars is closer to 4 stars than 3 stars.

For Suzanne Brockmann books, I give stars base on the characters I like. Everyone on here should know by now, I love me some Sam Starrett.

I am not hard on a writer's writing. I am a writer and my stories can be horrible. A person can read my work and thinks it sucks. They might think my writing is bad. Oh well!. I love to write.

Getting back to other writer's writing. If I can understand what they are saying, then that all that matters to me.

I'll give a book a low rating, if I didn't like the book and it's not going to remain with me.

I think ratings are hard to determine because you are really basing this on someone's opinion. What I might think is a great read-5 star, meaning it kept me interested and I sit at work thinking, I can't wait to go to lunch because I want to read to 1 star, which is I won't or barely finished it. I know one book in particular I thought was horrible, gave it a 1 star, someone else thought it was great and gave it a 5 star. The best thing to do is find some friends with books in common with you and then see how they rate them. If they are close to your own, then track them.

Arch wrote: "I am not hard on a writer's writing. I am a writer and my stories can be horrible. A person can read my work and thinks it sucks. They might think my writing is bad. Oh well!. I love to write."

Arch, I'm not a particularly great writer myself. However, the point I was trying to make is that I have to see some growth. If an author is just starting out then of course you can't always expect literary excellence. The author will certainly impress me if they get all right from the get go, but if they don't no matter. Just as long as the next book is better. I just want to see that an author respects his/her craft and readers enough to work at it and make it better. Not only to be carried away by the sexiness of the $$$. I'm not a particularly huge Nora Roberts fan, but I love her wriiting style. It is completely different (and much much better imo) than her style was back when she started out in the late 70s. The same for Linda Howard, as I mentioned, and Sandra Brown and many others.

saninbham wrote: "I think ratings are hard to determine because you are really basing this on someone's opinion. What I might think is a great read-5 star, meaning it kept me interested and I sit at work thinking, I..."

I think that's what compelled me to post this thread. How we rate books is so individual and personal, it's interesting and sometimes thought provoking (for me) to contemplate the motivations of a particular rating. Sometimes I ask myself what exactly did this person see in this book that I didn't? My curiosity is not born of conceitedness, but a genuine desire to understand the philosophy of others. Many such discussions on Amazon have led me to see a book in a different light even though I started out not liking it at all.

I'm not really expecting anyone to rate books like I do or vice versa. There are a few people I've identified as having similar taste as I, and I follow them, but even so we don't always see eye to eye on every book.

Davina wrote: "AArch, I'm not a particularly great writer myself. However, the point I was trying to make is that I have to see some growth. If an author is just starting out then of course you can't always expect literary excellence. The author will certainly impress me if they get all right from the get go, but if they don't no matter. Just as long as the next book is better. I just want to see that an author respects his/her craft and readers enough to work at it and make it better. Not only to be carried away by the sexiness of the $$$. I'm not a particularly huge Nora Roberts fan, but I love her wriiting style. It is completely different (and much much better imo) than her style was back when she started out in the late 70s. The same for Linda Howard, as I mentioned, and Sandra Brown and many others."

Davina, I haven't read a lot of author's older work. I might not read a book that took place in the 70's.

I do have to say though that, in my opinion a lot of good books were written in the 90's.

Some books today are to watery. No real story.

I agree, Arch. While I'm often not a fan of the angst and rape scenes that tend to occur in 70s, 80s and early '90s books, I must admit they were certainly more plot heavy and thereby more interesting. When you look at what's being produced nowadays it's truly shameful. Life sure is funny like that.

My rating of books comes from a very visceral place.

Did i feel good when I closed the book? Did I sigh and smile? Was I moved? Did I immediately go back an re-read it or at least my favorite parts? Was I particularly taken with the writer's turn of phrase of 'voice'? Did the writer surprise me? Did the writer show me rather than tell me? Did what I read feel real or authentic? Did what I read feel new or fresh?

If most of these things happened then it was probably a four or five-star book for me.

Things that can take some shine off include: did the author sacrifice character for plot? Was the plot implausible? Were there noticeable writer's tics? Did the book have a too heavy or oppressive feel? Did the writer tell me instead of showed me? Were the characters/plot/names/situations interchangeable with 1000 other books?

Any combination of these things can make a possible five star book into a 'I liked it but it was nothing special' or even a 'it was just ok.'

Buzz kills include: Characters who are rock dumb. Writing that takes me out of the story. Preachiness. Info dumps. When i feel the writer has an agenda rather than just telling a story.

I like to get my reviews and thoughts on paper as soon as I finish because that feeling right after I am done is usually the best indicator of how I felt about a book. Sometimes, I can't quantify the number of stars until I have written out how I feel about what I just read. Sometimes, I close the book thinking one thing (4 stars!) and then as I am writing my feelings and thoughts about it, my rating changes (hmmm...welll... actually more a 3-star, after all) because I am settling into my opinion more.

I've noticed that some of my friends rarely if ever give five stars. I will give a book five stars if I really enjoyed it or it blew me away, or I absolutely loved something about it. I don't know if I am an easy grader or not, or that I have things I really love, and if the author meets those desires in me as a reader, then he/she gets the gold star. Also books that move me tremendously get the gold star. I won't give my favorite author a five star, just because. Even Anne Stuart, who is my all time beloved fave author, has some books that are three stars, and one two star books. I'd never give her one star, because she doesn't write one star books, in my opinion.

A four star book was very good, but it had a flaw that took it out of perfect category. That flaw may not be poor writing. I could be the execution, or something that stuck in my craw, or the character didn't seem as real and his/her motivations didn't ring true to me.

Three star book was pretty good, but it had some issues that really affected my reading experience. I felt that the story wasn't emotionally affecting me. When I read, I want to be engaged. I want my senses and my intellect touched. So a book must do that to make at least four stars with me. I will keep most 3 star books if they are books I'd read again, or by a favorite author, or in a series. If I can't say I want to reread it, it's going to another home. I gave After the Night, by Linda Howard, three stars because I thought Gray was a complete jerk. I don't think he deserved Faith's love, and he never redeemed himself to me in the end. However, Shades of Midnight by this author, is not well-liked by some of her fans, because of the icky subject matter. I thought it was a very good book, and she did a good job with the ugly aspects, so I gave it a four star rating.

Two star books. I will give a book I did not like, but was well written two stars. If it was just okay, or I really did not like the characters, but it wasn't a bad book, then it gets two stars. I gave The Book of Ruth, by Jane Hamilton, two stars because I felt the ending was a complete dirty trick. It made me want to take a bath, and it made no sense to me. The rest of the book was pretty good, but I felt so misused, that it cannot get more than two stars from me.

I rarely give one stars. I will give it I absolutely hated a book, or if I hated a character and I didn't ever feel that I came to understand a character. If the book was a complete mismatch, or I felt cheated by the author, I'd give it one stars. If a book was pretentious and offered nothing to me as a reader, I will give it one star on principle. There are books I read in school that I found to be a painful, excruciating experience, which I detested, such as The Awakening by Kate Chopin, and The Stranger by Albert Camus, that I gave one stars. I can't say they were bad books, but reading them was like swallowing bile, and I completely disagreed with the message or the story. If a book was so boring, I couldn't finish it, it's a one star book for me.

I have come to the realization that some books are not to my tastes, and I would rate them poorly, as a result. The one time I read a book that was too erotic for me, I gave it a one star. I don't enjoy reading that kind of stuff, so it's hard to give it a good rating, even if the writing is good. So, out of fairness, I don't read those kinds of books. The same goes for books with subject matter I find very disturbing. I won't enjoy the book, so I can't rate it well. So, that's my way of being fair to the authors and the books. I just avoid them.

I am different in how I rate books from many of my friends, from what I've seen. That's okay. Like Saninbham said, it's very personal how we rate books. It's about how they affect us and what they inspire in us individually. I have some friends on here that have very similar tastes, which is reflected in our ratings for books. But even still, we have rated books differently. Stormfire, which was a very tough, disturbing book, but intensely involving and well written, got four stars, because of it being well-written and involving.

Good question, Davina.

I suppose, in my case, the books I post tend to be only the ones that I generally liked anyway...ergo the 3/4/5 ratings.

Even though I have gone ahead and rated a few as 2 or less, I tend to ignore most that I don't like because of that whole saying of "if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all".

I can see where you're coming from, Eugenia. I am not one to say a person is a bad writer, in general. I might say the writing was awkward, or it didn't appeal to me. I've heard very good writers (in my opinion) called bad writers, and it bothers me.

Very well thought out and interesting responses. Thanks everyone.

With regards to good or bad writing, my personal opinion is that it is distinguishable and you don't have to be an expert to recognise quality, irrespective of one's style of writing (technical, flowery, whatever). Unlike say sculpting or painting, writing is one of the simpler art forms whereby you don't require the trained eye of a connoisseur to decipher the worth of what has been produced.

I have a few authors in mind who write like 12 year olds. Artistic snobs will argue that one should never show their creations until they've honed their craft to perfection. I believe it's fine to start out on wobbly legs just as long as we're able to go upright on our feet by the time we reach adulthood. Whether it is the fault of greedy publishers who pressure authors with unreasonable deadlines or greedy authors who are enticed by an ever increasing pocketbook, I don't really know, but what I do know is that there are many authors who don't seem to make an effort the more popular they get.

I know I said I probably won't read Twilight because of Meyer's reportedly poor writing, and I probably won't considering several factors: 1) I'm not particularly a YA fan, 2) I have many, many other books that has been on my TBR far longer than Twilight that I'd rather read, 3) While I do read and enjoy paranormals, my preference lies more deeply with other genres. However, I'd be more motivated to read Twilight -- since it was Meyer's first professional publication -- than the sub-par works of authors who have been around for ages. I want value for my money at the end of the day, and books are just like every other product or service vying for my hard-earned cash. Why shouldn't they be held to a similar level of standard, is my rationale.

Every writer writes different. I have never read Meyer's book and I do have Twilight. I just can't read a book to a movie. I have other books that have a movie to go along with it. I have Waiting To Exhale. I have seen the movie more than once, but I will not read the book.

I don't think that Stephen King should have said that Meyer writes horrible. She may not write like him, but that doesn't mean she writes horrible and if she does, so what?

I'm the first to say that my writing is horrible and I am sure Stephen King and other big authors would say that my stories are horrible. I don't care.

A lot of movies were based off Stephen King books. But, I can be wrong, but I don't think any of his movies have made the money that Twilight or even New Moon made.

I doubt that his movies made the money that Lord of The Rings triology made.

Writing is not easy and every writer doesn't have the talent of writing. Writing is some people's talent and some people just have a hobby of writing.

I can sing, but singing is not my gift. Singing is Whitney Houston's gift.

Sorry for the long reply. I just don't feel that writers should be throwing stones at other writers.

I appreciate your post, Arch. I was disappointed with King's comments towards Stephenie Meyer. It seemed unprofessional to me to bad mouth another author.

I have written reviews, where I have given a book two stars and maybe even one stars. I will write what I didn't like about the story, but I will never say bad things about the author.

Every book that I read, I tend to write a review on Goodreads, all books haven't reached my book blog. Only certain books will reach my book blog.

I will be writing about Jock on my blog soon. I like Jock. The character stands out to me.

By any chance, did Mr. King states what's horrible about Mrs. Meyer's story? If so, please direct me to what he has said. Maybe, it was shared in here and I have missed it.

My sister told me about the comment, so I don't know what was exactly said.

Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "My sister told me about the comment, so I don't know what was exactly said."

Well, I feel that Stephen King was wrong for saying that about Mrs. Meyer.

I haven't read her books, so I can't give an opinion about it. But, I have seen Twilight. It wasn't really to my liking, but after watching it again, it might grow on me.

I know how some movies can dishonor a book. Rosehill is an example. It's nothing like For The Roses.

I read the quote it wasn't complimentary but I didn't take it to be mean. He was asked a question comparing JK Rowling and Meyer. He says they are both speaking to young people, but " the difference is that Rowling is a terrific writer and Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." That was all he said before he goes on to talk about writerly influences and why Twilight seems to appeal to young women and feels "safe" for them to read. In the context of what he said, It all sounded very Lit 101 discussiony.

I actually found it kinda refreshing for him to admit it. He's very candid and freewheeling with his column in EW and he's very much a pop culturalist. As a writer who has probably had much, much worse said about him, he probably feels that Meyer can handle his opinion.

Her fans on the other hand.....

Tina wrote: "I read the quote it wasn't complimentary but I didn't take it to be mean. He was asked a question comparing JK Rowling and Meyer. He says they are both speaking to young people, but " the differe..."

I'm not a fan of Meyer or Stephen, but I find his remark rude and I feel that he was wrong for saying it.

Meyer's book is probably targeted to young people, but adults like the movie Twilight, New Moon and I am sure they will like the third movie. I could be wrong, but I am sure that adults have bought the books to read as well.

A lot of adults read YA books. I do.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Stephen writes YA books. He writes horror books, but I'm sure he's writing for adult audience.

He should leave YA writers alone.

King is known for his horror novels, but his bibliography is huge and he's written a wide variety of books including mainstream fiction, fantasy and mystery. And it could be argued that he could also be considered as somewhat of a YA novelist himself as quite a few of his books, including his very first book, Carrie, have children and teenagers as protagonists.

It was probably the reason his opinion on these two writers were solicited in the first place.

Tina wrote: "King is known for his horror novels, but his bibliography is huge and he's written a wide variety of books including mainstream fiction, fantasy and mystery. And it could be argued that he could a..."

I still feel that King shouldn't have said what the did. But, the words are already in stone.

Mrs. Meyer shouldn't pay him any mind.

Davina wrote: "I seem to rarely experience 5* reads.

This got me thinking because a lot of my Ami/Goodreads friends never seem to have any ratings below 5 or 4 stars. There's the occasional 3 star rating but ..."

Edgy plots, characters who leap right off the page and into my heart, stories that grab me and don't let me go--those are some of my criteria for a five-star rating. I don't give those out often (as my reviews on amazon and here will attest to).

BTW, what Stephen King said about Meyer is sadly true, at least in my opinion. Breaking Dawn was the worst way to end a series that overall wasn't too bad, though I still view Edward as overly controlling and Bella a bit vapid. Rowling on the other hand, seemed to respect the intelligence and maturity of her young fans and understand that they didn't always have to have a happy ending. Personally, I don't think Meyer was prepared for prime time and that she was under a lot of stress to get BD out in time for the first film's release.

I feel that a writer should write their story the way that they want to write it.

Some writers end a book with a cliffhanger. Some kill main characters and some may do something else that would be looked upon as a shocker. No matter what that's their story.

I don't even know who Rowlings is or what she wrote. But, Stephen shouldn't have compared her work with Meyers. So what if they write differently and tell a story differently.

Many people write the same genre, should all the books be the same?

Suzanne Brockmann writes about Navy Seals and Marliss Melton writes about Navy Seals. Should a person compare their books and see who writes the best?

I have never read Marliss books, but one day, I will, because I have always wanted to check her books out.

I wonder how Stephen would feel if an author said that his books are horrible.

It was bad form for Stephen King to publically say that Ms Meyer was a bad a writer, but frankly, I have to agree. She is a mediocre writer with a winning story. It was very lucky for her.

Nisha wrote: "It was bad form for Stephen King to publically say that Ms Meyer was a bad a writer, but frankly, I have to agree. She is a mediocre writer with a winning story. It was very lucky for her."

Nisha, I take it from your reply that you have read Mrs. Meyer's work. I haven't. I hope you don't mind me asking you this - but, I want to know why you agree that Mrs. Meyer is a bad writer?

Oh yea, how I rate books.

5 stars - If I thought the story was compelling, the characters memorable, and the book recommendable. If I get dreams about the characters, then its definitely a 5.
4 stars - If I enjoyed the story and liked the characters, as well as if I didn't regret spending those hours reading.
3 Stars - Moderately pleasing. I don't have good or bad things to say. Characters are not memorable
2 Stars - Somehow i managed to read it, but throughly regretted wasting my time.
1 Star - Terrible and wouldn't even let my enemies read. Mostly just a waste of time. Usually I don't even manage to finish these books.

Arch wrote: "I feel that a writer should write their story the way that they want to write it.

Some writers end a book with a cliffhanger. Some kill main characters and some may do something else that would..."

If it makes you feel any better, most literary mucky-mucks believe that King is a hack. I've read quite a few scathing criticisms from reviewers who've drilled King's books a new one (to put it mildly).

I don't think King is saying that Meyer doesn't have to right to write a book any way she chooses, because she does. That doesn't negate the fact that her work may not be on par with J.K. Rowling--and frankly I believe it isn't. For me the big difference is in the characterization--Harry Potter versus Bella Swann. Harry grew as a character, experienced all the attendant joys and pains of becoming an adult. Bella seemed, well, kind of infantile and self-absorbed. To be fair I enjoyed her in the first book, Twilight, because she wasn't this perfect heroine, though she was smart. She was harder to take in the subsequent books because she just seemed to whine a lot. I know a first love can be traumatic, but teenage girls tend to be remarkably resilient. I also like Rowling's detailed world building and how even her peripheral characters had personalities.

See, here's an example of how I rate books and why I don't award five-star reviews often.

Arch wrote: "Nisha wrote: "It was bad form for Stephen King to publically say that Ms Meyer was a bad a writer, but frankly, I have to agree. She is a mediocre writer with a winning story. It was very lucky for..."

I have only read Twilight and not her other books (where supposedly she has progressed as a writer). It may be my prejudice against her 'Bella' character or that I accidentally read a very well-written fanfic a couple years before I read Twilight, but Ms. Meyer describes her world very primitively. It is shallow and her characters follow the typical chick lit pattern (except Bella is slightly emo and obsessive). I don't know if her writing merely reflects Bella's voice (a character I am obviously not fond of) or if it is naturally as simple and underdeveloped. I am fond of vampire stories (which is how I ended up reading a fanfic) and I felt her interpretation of Vampires was much too romantic, since they essentially did not have a weakness. Her character, Edward was written with little depth (which I will factor in as Bella's perception) and his stalker tendencies just creeped me out.

Vixenne wrote: "If it makes you feelany better, most literary mucky-mucks believe that King is a hack. I've read quite a few scathing criticisms from reviewers who've drilled King's books a new one (to put it mildly).

I'm not trying to feel better about someone saying something negative about King.

I don't think King is saying that Meyer doesn't have to right to write a book any way she chooses, because she does. That doesn't negate the fact that her work may not be on par with J.K. Rowling--and frankly I believe it isn't. For me the big difference is in the characterization--Harry Potter versus Bella Swann. Harry grew as a character, experienced all the attendant joys and pains of becoming an adult. Bella seemed, well, kind of infantile and self-absorbed. To be fair I enjoyed her in the first book, Twilight, because she wasn't this perfect heroine, though she was smart. She was harder to take in the subsequent books because she just seemed to whine a lot. I know a first love can be traumatic, but teenage girls tend to be remarkably resilient. I also like Rowling's detailed world building and how even her peripheral characters had personalities.

Okay, Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books.

Meyer wrote Bella the way that she felt that Bella should be. That doesn't mean that she's a bad writer.

As people know, I write interracial stories. I will take Courage for example. My story may not be like the next interracial story writer, but that doesn't mean that I am a bad writer. Yes, I'm my own worst critic and I'm fast to say that my writing is horrible. It doesn't matter what I write.

I don't feel that writing styles should be compared or even characters from different books should be compared.

I haven't seen New Moon, so I don't know how Bella is in that movie or even how she's in the third book. She's a teenager and she maybe whinny and that can get on someone's nerves, but adults can be whinny too. Some of the adult heroines in some books are whinny.

I just believe that people shouldn't be hard on writers.

Bad is subjective which is why some people feel the series isn't well written and some feel it's the best thing since Hemingway. Reading is an emotional experience and if it turns a reader off, it will be bad to them. If it doesn't have the storytelling conventions and the story falls flat, it will be bad to them. I didn't think too much of the Twilight books myself for reasons that have already been mentioned.

As for ratings, it's another emotional experience for me. If a book really hits me in the sweet spot, I'll rate it highly and it immediately gets added to my keeper shelf for later reading. If it's bad to me, I will rate it low. I notice that "It's ok" equals 2 stars although some things are okay to me I feel they rate a little higher than 2 like the Sookie books which are fun but nothing anything too memorable. Most of the stuff I really enjoy are 4 stars which are enjoyable but not spectacular to me.

Arch, we were just chatting about this subject in my novel writing class today. I mentioned to my students that, as far as the market goes, when your writing leaves your computer and goes out into the world it becomes open to scrutiny because everyone will have opinions on it. If you are selling your work, it becomes a product. Although it may be your baby or your piece of art, it will be seen as a product that people have opinions on because they have dished out hard earned money for it. I learned this pretty quickly when I started showing my work and although it still stings when I get a bad review or low rating, I know that people have varying opinions and what resonates with one person may not for another.

Rae Wrote:"Arch, we were just chatting about this subject in my novel writing class today. I mentioned to my students that, as far as the market goes, when your writing leaves your computer and goes out into the world it becomes open to scrutiny because everyone will have opinions on it. If you are selling your work, it becomes a product. Although it may be your baby or your piece of art, it will be seen as a product that people have opinions on because they have dished out hard earned money for it. I learned this pretty quickly when I started showing my work and although it still stings when I get a bad review or low rating, I know that people have varying opinions and what resonates with one person may not for another."

Rae, a person has a right to rate a book anyway they chooses to. Everyone's taste is different. I may give "John Doe Ran Down The Street" 5 stars and someone else may give the book 1 star.

I'm fine with reviews, but I am not fine with people coming down on writers and that's what Stephen has done to Meyer. He shouldn't have compared her to Rowlings.

That's why I am a firm believer in that a writer should never write for anyone else but themselves.

I know that I don't write like "Jane Doe" and I don't want to write like "Jane Doe".

In my opinion, it's immature to compare writers.

Speaking as a writer, it comes with the territory. You have to understand that not everything is going to resonate with every reader. We're all different.

Twilight was a decent book, though I certainly don't plan on reading it ever again (in fact I'm giving away my entire series in hardcover because they are not keepers). It was definitely geared towards the YA market though it grew in crossover appeal. But I felt that Bella just wasn't engaging enough, and saying that "adults can be whiny" doesn't fly. I don't like whiny characters in ANY genre, especially heroines. And I've read a lot of YA novels in which the main characters were not whiny.

You write IR's, but that doesn't automatically mean a free pass from me just because I love and want to support this genre. I gave author Tracy Ames' first novel a one-star rating because it was just BAD. Bear in mind that I purchased it because of all the five-star ratings it received and had high hopes for it. The novel simply didn't deliver what it promised, among other issues. The bottom line is if what you write doesn't work for me, you'll know about it AND I will tell you WHY. I can only hope that you as an author are professional enough to value negative (well-written and thought out) criticism as well as positive comments (and I think we all know about the Deborah McGillivray situation some years back). And just to be clear, I would not be criticizing YOU personally, but the book. There's a huge difference.

Thoughtful and honest criticism can help a writer grow in their art.

Everyone have an opinion and they should stand on their opinion. A review will always be an opinion in my eyes.

I see a critism as an opinion as well.

As a writer, I would still write the way that I want to write.

For me its simple, really.

The story or Plot and how the story flows, how the author writes the story
and characters and the climax (if any)
If i don't feel like cursing or dumping the book in my lowest cabinet ....that means it a GOOD book thus good rating LOL

Arch wrote: "Rae Wrote:"Arch, we were just chatting about this subject in my novel writing class today. I mentioned to my students that, as far as the market goes, when your writing leaves your computer and goe..."

Speaking from one writer to another, I think King was valid to speak about it because he's a fellow writer and he knows the conventions of what it took to really learn and hone his craft. One interesting thing that may be at the crux of the whole thing is King took time to learn the craft while Meyer had a dream and wrote it down and was helped by hype. Bragging that she didn't need to learn the craft just adds to the fire.

Lol Deviki, I like your system!

Rae wrote: "Speaking from one writer to another, I think King was valid to speak about it because he's a fellow writer and he knows the conventions of what it took to really learn and hone his craft. One interesting thing that may be at the crux of the whole thing is King took time to learn the craft while Meyer had a dream and wrote it down and was helped by hype. Bragging that she didn't need to learn the craft just adds to the fire."

Rae,

What craft did King, learned and hone?

You said that Meyer had a dream and wrote it. What's wrong with that?

When did Meyer bragged about not needing to learn the craft?

Please don't get weary of my questions. I have a reason why I am asking questions.

I'm known for asking questions.

1) The Craft of writing/storytelling.

2) Nothing if she was writing for herself, but publishing is whole other bloodsport and ball game.

3) In an interview I read sometime ago.

Arch wrote: "Everyone have an opinion and they should stand on their opinion. A review will always be an opinion in my eyes.

I see a critism as an opinion as well.

As a writer, I would still write the w..."

LOL, I would expect nothing less. However, writing is an art form and one would hope that any writer would strive to further hone their craft. To be honest, King isn't high on my list of favorite writers either--I'm a Clive Barker and Caitlin Kiernan woman myself.

I've read first-time authors who've completely knocked my socks off and I've also read seasoned authors who bored the tears out of me.

My philosophy is this: Life is too short for bad books.

Rae wrote: "1) The Craft of writing/storytelling.

2) Nothing if she was writing for herself, but publishing is whole other bloodsport and ball game.

3) In an interview I read sometime ago."


I have said this more than once on this group. Everyone doesn't have the talent of writing. I've also said that because someone has the talent of writing, it doesn't mean that they can't perfect their writing skills.

Maybe Stephen doesn't have the gift of writing.

A lot of people can write, but everyone's talent isn't writing.

So many books in a bookstore were written by people, who doesn't have the gift of writing. Some of the people are best sellers.

I don't know how long the Twilight triology books been out before the movies. Most of the time, books are out years before a movie is even made.

Lord of The Rings are based off The Hobbit books. If I am not mistaken, after the movie came out that's when The Lord of The Rings books came out. At least that's when I have seen them in the stores and bought the one with Legolas on the cover. I don't have it anymore but I do have the book with Frodo on the cover.

Meyer might not have the gift of writing either, but that doesn't mean that Stephen should have gotten upset with her, because of the way she written her book.

I have stated more than once that I don't write like an author.

I don't tell my stories like an author would. That's doesn't mean that I shouldn't write a story.

I know that writing is my talent. I am not just saying it's my talent, because that's the way I feel. It's truly my talent.

I write poems and I don't write like Mayou Angelou or other poets. My writing style is very different.

Writing styles will be different. Storytelling will be different.

I will speak for myself. As long as a point was made in a story. I'm fine with that.

Vixenne wrote: "LOL, I would expect nothing less. However, writing is an art form and one would hope that any writer would strive to further hone their craft. To be honest, King isn't high on my list of favorite writers either--I'm a Clive Barker and Caitlin Kiernan woman myself.

In my opinion, a lot of people want writers to write the way they want to see a story be told.

I've read first-time authors who've completely knocked my socks off and I've also read seasoned authors who bored the tears out of me.

My philosophy is this: Life is too short for bad books.

Just because a person sees a book as being bad, doesn't mean the book is bad. That's the person's opinion. One person might give a book 1 star and says the book is bad to them and another person might give that same book 5 stars and say the book was good.

It all boils down to opinions.

Arch wrote: "Rae wrote: "1) The Craft of writing/storytelling.

2) Nothing if she was writing for herself, but publishing is whole other bloodsport and ball game.

3) In an interview I read sometime ago."
..."

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is about 50-60 years old and are staples of every bookstore's science-fiction/fantasy section. They are considered classics of the modern fantasy genre and trust me, Tolkien's template is pretty much the standard for a great deal of fantasy novels, especially when it comes to world-building. At any given time there are at least five different covers for all of the books. I have all three novels separately, and a collection with all three (signed by Sir Ian McKellen who is the nicest man...and sexy too BTW). The only reason you probably noticed them recently had to do with the release of the films.

There is some truth in what you said about what readers want, and I see that in the amazon boards a lot. Some readers do act that way. I've been posting on a thread that bemoans the rise of the so-called "PC hero". Others complain about too much sex or too much of the "wrong kind" of sex. It's pretty annoying because the simple answer to their woes is just not to READ the types of books they don't like. I have a lesbian/gay short story published and I certainly wouldn't want someone who isn't comfortable with that genre to read it then flame me. I don't waste my time with bad books. It's just that simple. The author may be the sweetest person in the world but that doesn't negate the fact that I didn't like their book(s).

Speaking for myself, I want an author to take me somewhere with characters I'd like to know. I want a book that makes me feel sad that it has ended, and if it's part of a series, for me to chomp at the bit until the next one is released. I'm pretty open to subject matter and characters who break the mold.

I know you take this personally as a writer, but you really shouldn't. Not every book, no matter how much time and effort an author puts into it, is going to resonate with every reader. The truth is there's some bad writing out there--not an opinion but FACT. What IS opinion is which books fall into that category.

Frankly, I've become a lot more cynical about glowing reviews. I've gotten burnt more times than I like--another reason I'm getting into e-books. I tend to read the one and two star reviews first, because those are often the most detailed.

Vixenne,

I want to start off by saying that I've bought the Lord of The Rings book with Legolas on the cover, six years ago. I no longer have that book, due to moving. I've bought the one with Frodo, last year.

As for every book resonating with readers. I know that every reader will not like certain books, but that doesn't mean the book is bad.

Everyone's taste is different.

A review is an opinion.

Arch wrote: "Vixenne,

I want to start off by saying that I've bought the Lord of The Rings book with Legolas on the cover, six years ago. I no longer have that book, due to moving. I've bought the one with ..."

A review might well indeed be based on opinion, but for me it carries more weight if the reviewer has actually READ the book and cites examples of why certain aspects didn't fly. I'm more inclined to give credence to someone who took the time to write a detailed review--for good or ill--rather than someone who writes "THIS BOOK WAS AWESOME AND YOU SUCK IF YOU DON'T READ IT".

I don't think that a person should be saying that a person sucks if they don't read a certain book. That just shows how immature the reviewer is.

When I write a review for a book, I don't write to make a person like a book or dislike a book. I'm writing my opinion.

When I read reviews, I take the review as a opinion. A review doesn't determine if I will read or not read a book.

I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by Vixenne and Rae.

The merits of any given piece of written work may be relative, but art, derived from painsakingly working at one's ability, is often times not. That is why we all may be able to write, but not everyone is able to write as an art form. Writing is just putting (simple) words together, writing as an art engages the reader's imagination and senses even for the most mundane of things. If there is no standard by which to judge a piece of qualitative work, what would be the point of making any effort to be good at anything? Not everything in life is relative. Look at it in a wider context, what would be the point of going to college, spending loads of money to specialise in one field ... if whatever grade you score is good because you say it is so? Doesn't make much sense. We pay people everyday for their specialised products and services.

If a 12 year old (who is not a certified genius) can write as well as you do, maybe even better than you do, then you're probably in the wrong profession. The situation is that in a capitalist, consumerist society, quality is often forsaken for quantity. Quantity in terms of $$$. It's a sad state of affairs.

Stephen King, for reasons already stated, is well within his professional and personal right to criticise Meyer's writing, imo. I'd dare say, more so than lay writers like myself. Moreover, Meyers herself has subsequently admitted to being relatively poor at the craft of writing. Though I haven't read the books and am probably not qualified to say this, it is apparent that her scoring the jackpot with The Twilight books was, for the lack of a more PC term, just a dumb stroke of luck.

Davina wrote:"If a 12 year old (who is not a certified genius) can write as well as you do, maybe even better than you do, then you're probably in the wrong profession. The situation is that in a capitalist, consumerist society, quality is often forsaken for quantity. Quantity in terms of $$$. It's a sad state of affairs.

I disagree with this statement, because, first of all, how many 12 years old have romance,mystery, suspense or even historical books out on the market? I would hope none does. So, therefore a 12 year old can't writing can't be compared to Meyer's book.

Another thing, age isn't talent blind. I know that Whitney Houston can sing, but that doesn't mean there isn't a 12 year in this world, who can't out blow Whitney. If such a child comes forward, does that mean that Whitney has to quit her day job?

I know that some people are on Stephen's side and they have a right to their opinion.

I think he's wrong.

Just because someone goes and learn the so call "art of writing" doesn't make writing their talent.

"Moreover, Meyers herself has subsequently admitted to being relatively poor at the craft of writing."

I am going to state this about myself, again. Writing is my talent, but I see my work as being horrible. It's not because I don't know how to write.

Meyer may see herself as a horrible writer as well. Yet, Stephen shouldn't have gotten jealous, because of her fame.

Arch wrote: "I disagree with this statement, because, first of all, how many 12 years old have romance,mystery, suspense or even historical books out on the market? I would hope none does. So, therefore a 12 year old can't writing can't be compared to Meyer's book."

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about writing within a specific genre. What I'm talking about is writing in general, the ability to be creative with words in a vivid way that engages and appeals.

Another thing, age isn't talent blind. I know that Whitney Houston can sing, but that doesn't mean there isn't a 12 year in this world, who can't out blow Whitney. If such a child comes forward, does that mean that Whitney has to quit her day job?

This is a poor example because you're comparing apples and oranges. Singing is so far removed from the art of writing. Everyone can pretty much hear whether someone can sing or not. Whitney Houston can sing so no, if a 12 year old comes along who can sing just as well or better, I'm sure there's more than enough room for both of them in the market.

Writing, however, is an entirely different ball game. It is evaluated on a higher cognitive and creative level than just the sense of sight. In fact, unlike hearing whether someone can sing or not, a person's ability to see will not be a determinant of whether a piece of written work can be evaluated as good or bad. Nevertheless, I believe I get the gist of what you're saying, but I can not see how it addressed the point I made previously.

Regarding Stephen King, he's fairly famous, and more legitimately so, in his own right. Many of his books have been filmatised and I reckon his work will still be around long long after the Twilight books and films have run their course. The statement of him being jealous has no merit whatsoever. The guy was commenting based on his expertise of the craft and his longevity in the business, both of which are perhaps the most valid of any reason to comment on another writer's work. Also let me just say that I've read a few of his books, but I'm not what you can call a fan, but professionally speaking I'm more inclined to listen to his opinions than those of lay writers.

One last thing, I know you know this, but I want to reiterate that I'm speaking in general terms. My comments are not directed specifically at anyone participating in this thread.

Davina Wrote:"You're missing the point. I'm not talking about writing within a specific genre. What I'm talking about is writing in general, the ability to be creative with words in a vivid way that engages and appeals.

As I have said, I own the book Twilight and haven't read it. I would like for anyone that thinks that Meyer is a bad writer, tell me why they feel that way.

I will always use myself as an example, because I am a writer. I know that I write creatively, but a lot of people might disagree.

Everyone doesn't see creative writing the same. I don't believe that a person has to take a creative writing class to know how to write creatively.

Some people don't believe that Meyer is a bad writer and some people do.

The question is who's right?

Regarding Stephen King, he's fairly famous, and more legitimately so, in his own right. Many of his books have been filmatised and I reckon his work will still be around long long after the Twilight books and films have run their course. The statement of him being jealous has no merit whatsoever. The guy was commenting based on his expertise of the craft and his longevity in the business, both of which are perhaps the most valid of any reason to comment on another writer's work. Also let me just say that I've read a few of his books, but I'm not what you can call a fan, but professionally speaking I'm more inclined to listen to his opinions than those of lay writers.

I would like for anyone to correct me if I am wrong, but a lot of readers aren't writers, but yet, they believe a lot of professional writers can't write. What's the difference between their opinion and Stephen's opinion?

I see everyone the same. In my opinion, Stephen is no different than a reader that's not a writer.

I could be wrong, but I am sure a lot of writers probably don't think that Stephen is a good writer. That's their opinion.

I don't believe King is at all jealous of Meyer. His longevity, sales figures, awards, and the calibre of actors & directors who've worked in the film adaptations of his work eclipse Meyer in every single way. His Gunslinger series alone evokes the same love and devotion amongst the sci-fi fan boys that Twilights does amongst the Meyer fans.

I think it is important to note that the context of his comments make all the difference, imo. He wasn't just trashing her. He was asked his opinion of Rowling and Meyer, specifically. After stating he didn't think she was a good writer he went on to talk about why he thinks her books appealed to the audience they did. But it wasn't any sort of 'oh they're young and don't know any better....' statement. To me, he went onto to provide a thoughtful and quite objective analysis why her books tended to resonate with young girls.

Of course this was also a written article by US Today. The entirety of his interview would not have been included. My sneaking suspicion is that the remarks about Meyer were the lead because they were perceived as being provocative given her fame and her rabid fanbase. And since there were no further remarks about Rowling, I am even more convinced that the scope of the published article is somewhat limited. King can go on forever about his love for Rowling.

And frankly, if he were to be at all jealous of anyone, it should have been Rowling, whose sales more closely approach his own. But he thinks she is absolutely brilliant.

I have said that Stephen was jealous over Meyer, because I feel he doesn't like the fact that her books were a success and successful movies were made based on her books.

How would Stephen feel if someone said that Stephen J. Cannell writes better than he does. Not only is Mr. Cannell is a writer, he also have hit shows under his belt.