Writing: It's Harder Than It Looks

While browsing the New York Times Web site, I came across an opinion column by Timothy Egan titled "Typing Without a Clue." The blurb read, "Publishers, let’s set some ground rules: Anyone who abuses the English language on such a regular basis should not be paid to put words in print." After my recent experience with the Twilight Saga, I was eager to hear someone else bash bad writers.

Unlike my Twilight experience, I was not disappointed.

Though Egan didn't mention "Twilight" author Stephenie Meyer as someone who shouldn't be allowed near a writing utensil, I truly enjoyed his column. He talked about a new book by Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber) and the fact that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is worth nearly $7 million should she ever put her thoughts on paper. He immediately followed with a typical convoluted Palin quote, which inspired the story blurb. Anything that pokes fun at the would-be vice president is right up my alley.

Egan asserted that good writers often work hard for little money and even less recognition, only to learn that someone who can barely string together a sentence is getting a book deal. Writing isn't easy, he said, quoting notable authors who struggled against an empty page. He suggested that if Wurzelbacher really wanted to become a writer, he should read good writing first. Egan hopes that a Barack Obama presidency will raise the standards of the American publishing industry.

As someone who has chosen editing as her career goal, I believe that the quality of American writing helps define our country and our culture. Be it good or bad, writing is the legacy we leave for future generations. I hope to be a positive force in the publishing industry by refusing to allow bad writing to be published. There are plenty of good writers out there who work hard and deserve a little piece of immortality. That's what I want to do as an editor: find good writers and reward them.

Fortunately, there is way for bad writers to have their voices heard that doesn't require publishing houses or unsuspecting readers to spend money on garbage. It's called blogging.

To read Egan's article, visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07egan.html?ref=opinion

"Twilight" Has No Bite

Sometime in the three years since the first installment was published, Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Saga gained a cult following to rival that of the Harry Potter series. Meyer has been heralded as the next JK Rowling, and all four Twilight novels were No. 1 New York Times Bestsellers. With all the hype surrounding the series, I gave in to curiosity and started reading "Twilight," expecting the same pleasant surprise as Harry Potter provided.

I was thoroughly disappointed.

I have several problems with Meyer's 500-page debut. First, she should have done a little research on vampires before writing a four-book series about them. I'm still not convinced they sparkle in the sun. One of her main characters, Edward Cullen, dismisses many well-known facts about vampires (i.e., they burn to dust in the sunlight) as "myth." I know it's fiction, but it's like she didn't want to put in the effort to do any research, so she just made things up.

Most of my criticism is aimed at Meyer's writing style. Her characters have no personality, and the storyline is flat. There is no suspense; all mysteries are too quickly revealed, and all problems are too easily solved.

Meyer has a huge problem with redundancy. It seemed as if every page contained a description of beautiful, perfect, angelic Edward with his bronze hair, topaz eyes and godlike body. I found a Facebook group titled "Stephenie Meyer Needs a Thesaurus" that lists the number of times Meyer used certain words in the series. "Chagrin" was used 15 times in the novels, "marble" 30 times and "perfect" 282 times. The final book alone saw "beautiful" used 61 times.

If I could give Meyer a piece of advice, it would be "Show, don't tell." All she does is tell. "Bella is intelligent. Carlisle is compassionate," Meyer tells her readers, but she offers no proof. The book reads like a play-by-play: "I went to the kitchen and ate a bowl of cereal. Then I got in my truck and drove to school." (These are not actual sentences from the novel; I'm just trying to give examples.)

If all the redundant and boring information was cut, "Twilight" would probably be less than 200 pages and a much better read. The editor in me was tempted to go through the whole novel with a red pen, cutting unnecessary adjectives and replacing weak verbs. But that would mean I'd have to read it again.

To give Meyer a fair chance, I'm reading the second book in the series, "New Moon." I haven't seen much improvement. I haven't decided yet if I want to waste my time on "Eclipse" or "Breaking Dawn."