Talk:Stephenie Meyer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Death Update

When are they going to update the page for her death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.170.107 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not true, it is a rumour spread by denizens of 4chan's /b/ board and nothing more. Webbg12365 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, /b/ may be rejoicing, but this's one death they -didn't- make up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.104.170 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean Webbg? I just saw it on BBC news and there's actually dozens of comments on videos like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_iBH9dEizU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.72.36 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That BBC article was an expertly-constructed fake! Just search "Stephanie Meyer death", click on the supposed BBC article, and look at the URL. It's not BBC. And if you truncate it back to its most basic form, you'll see the message "This website exists to post FAKE news reports of celebrity deaths. Take nothing on this server seriously." 129.64.215.88 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fan site?

This page reads like a fan site, and a pretty sophomoric and pedestrian one at that. i think that ti should be cleaned up and edited down, and some plodding biographical details removed.Actio (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Converted from Judaism

Wasn't Stephanie Morgan's family and the family of her husband Christian Meyer both Jewish who converted to Mormonism and that heritage connection is what drew Stephanie and Christian together in the first place?. I don't see any verifiable record of this and my knowledge of this is because I too am from Scottsdale and went to school with her siblings although none were in my circle of friends.GoyBoyToy (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Revelations - New Book or alternate title

I looked Stephanie Meyer up on Chapters and they say that she has a book coming out called "Revelations" on November 15, 2008. Is this the same as one of the books soon to be released at Amazon or a different book? There is no mention of "Revelations" by Stephanie Meyer at Amazon at all.

Son likes series. 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)24.77.37.31 (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you saw this, which it says is in French, so I'm assuming it's a translation of a book, but there really isn't any other info about the book. I doubt it's a new book, seeing as she's an American author, she would publish her books in English first. ~ Bella Swan^? 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's the same cover as Breaking Dawn. 203.206.45.198 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Revelation" is the official title for the French version of "Breaking Dawn." source: http://www.twilightlexiconforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=66313&sid=605d870436aa7aeb86cbddd526a72299

Vampires

Vampires Meyer's books have opened up a whole new type of vampires. These "modern" vampires are sometimes known as Twilight Vampires. Those who drink animal blood instead of human blood, have golden eyes, while the regular ones have red eyes. They also move with such a grace it looks like they're dancing, though some of the "regular" vampires are considered "catlike" in how they move. Both have eyes that turn darker when they're "thirsty" (or angry); have pale, granite or marble-like skin, are almost painfully beautiful, have super strength and have inhuman speed; and some, like Edward, are also known to have special abilities (mind-reading, controlling people's feelings, seeing the future and so on).

Twilight vampires defy most popular beliefs about vampires. They show up in pictures, have small fangs, and can go out in the sun, but their skin shimmers like thousands of crushed diamonds so they have to stay away from humans on sunny days to avoid controversy. They also cannot turn into bats, as vampires in various other stories do. As for the wooden stakes, Meyer says, "You try shoving wood through granite."

And as for the issue between vampires and the cliche garlic? While it does not protect humans from them, no "human" food appeals to vampires, mud to a human being is like human food to a vampire(however, they can eat human food). Vampires also have purplish bruise-like shadows beneath their eyes. They have incredible senses of smell, hearing, and sight. They are extremely fast and are astonishingly strong. Nothing can kill them, but another vampire or the Quileute werewolves. To kill a vampire, one must rip them to shreds and burn the pieces. i wuz here :)

The special powers that the vampires have are traits that are intensified from their human life. A vampire is created by being bitten but not drained entirely of blood. The venom from a vampire has the ability to change a human into a vampire. It is a long, painful process that lasts for about three days. A new vampire will have bright red eyes for around a year. Some vampires have a great attraction to the scent of a particular human's blood. The scent of the blood is extremely appealing to the vampire. In the book New Moon this appeal is used with the word "singer", as the blood of that particular persons blood "sings" to the vampire in question.

Vampires are frozen in a state of time, therefore, they cannot sleep or grow hair or grow old but remain exactly as they were at the time of their change to a vampire. If they eat human food, they'll have to (basically) throw it up later, as otherwise it causes an uncomfortable feeling in the stomach and remains in the stomach forever. Most vampires are nomads, and travel in small groups of one or two. More than that is an extreme oddity. Vampires such as the Cullens are very rare, for many vampires do not choose their type of diet (animal instead of human). Also, some vampires are trackers, which are vampires who are greatly attracted to a human and track them until they can strike. i like cheese

Removed from page. Very encyclopaedic, unreferenced, and is irrelevant to an author page. Disinclination 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, I agree...that cheese part is somewhat vandalism....and I almost feel bad that they spent so much time on it...but I do agree with you. Not appropriate for this page. Bella 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, who the HELL wrote, "I like cheese"???? IDIOT!!!

What does cheese have to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.8.131 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Put it on the twilight series page, it is a better location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.14.87 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like cheese.121.213.253.68 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Temple, Arizona

I suspect this is actually Tempe, Arizona, but I do not know anything of the subject. I could find no cities named Temple in AZ, despite the obvious Mormon connections. I encourage someone with more knowledge to make the if necessary changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autkm (talk • contribs) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

theme

I am in 7th grade and doing a report on Stephenie Meyer, and I REALLY need to know her theme or affect on society!! It is really important that I get it ASAP!!!! thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.125.121 (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

omg me too she is my favorite author and if anyone has any rthing i can use I'd appreciate it! thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.8.131 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Im doin a report 2 and i need help ASAP on stephanie meyers!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.122.60 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on talk pages now? How very strange.--Seed-kun (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

This should not be deleted. Just because people love Meyer's books, doesn't mean that the critics did uniformly.167.153.5.196 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, but the Times article in particular was actually very positive. When the quote about fan fiction is written on its own, it is taken out of context and comes off negatively in a way that I don't think was meant by the author of the article. They were merely commenting on Meyer's light writing style. Andrea (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why I said reception to her books was MIXED -- this means good and bad. If an article compares an author's writing to fanfiction and the author *agrees* with, it is something that should be left in. 167.153.5.196 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing the honours Twilight has received and quoting some more negative reviews is already showing mixed reception. Adding more (either positive or negative) examples would be fine, but the Time comment is not what I would call "critical reception". It is not a critique of how "good" or "bad" the books are, but a random comment on Meyer's writing style. The point of that statement was to say that her writing is not dense; it was not a critical judgement of the book(s). Andrea (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to add it back because you're just going to delete it, but seriously, comparing a published work to fanfiction is pretty much the opposite of a compliment. 70.107.0.34 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a compliment, but it is still taking the comment out of context. Andrea (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING critical on her page. Just of kiss-ass reviews. There have been several very critical reviews against Twilight and there are numerous fans sites. I think they should be noted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.181.19 (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read her work so I'm going to make a pretense of neutrality here: the current arrangement of a half-arsed quote from Stephen King as the entire lit-crit section is unacceptable. Reviews from respectable sources should be added. Please don't claim reviews were "good," "bad" (unless they really, really were). "Mixed" should almost never be used as it's weasel wording (every piece of literature ever written got "mixed reviews"). Instead, say So-and-so's work has been praised for its whatever (quotes and sources). Then, if you disagree with that, add "but her work has been criticized as advocating tax evasion and pedophilia" (quotes and sources). And so on. Hitnruni95 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are we kissing Meyer's ass so much?--62.209.19.224 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This article makes it sound like SMeyer is an excellent author who's written excellent books and gotten tons of awards for it, without mentioning that not every single critic out there loves her work. Even J.K. Rowling's page makes some mention of negative criticism. So I agree- why are we kissing Meyer's ass so much? 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was waiting for some negative comments, or just some viable criticism since there have been many others who do not like her writing style, her themes or just her characters. Stephen King has also been critical of her writing, which I think should be taken of note. I think that this should be edited, since not everyone has a fanatical and rosy following like she does. They even did a whole section on MSN as to how the Harry Potter series actually trumps over Twilight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulfulapple (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The reception section needs to be edited to include the unhappy readers. I see almost nothing in there mentioning disapproving people. The section's purpose is to tell the reader the various opinions, and it's not following that purpose to only include the happy critics. I do spot some words implying or hinting at disapproval, but I see nothing stating it outright, which is what should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.175.170 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Orson Scott Card, a Mormon, a valid critic of her work? His opinion may be valid, or he might have motives in supporting her. Doesn't the question suggest that perhaps another positive review should take his place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.11.25 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King's comments should be removed or at least given perspective and context. That he's a jealous writer who suffers from having received similar criticism but from actual literary critics who have the proper pedigree to critique. King is not such a critic. Oh, and I hate Twilight. TeenageCynic (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fan following

http://seattlepi.com/books/275668_twilight29.html "The book's selfless, tormented hero, Edward, certainly accounts for a large part of the collective swoon. Meyer, in fact, refers to her Seattle and Forks events as 'I Love Edward' parties."

This makes it sound less like Forks has hosted a festival or party entitled "I Love Edward," but rather that Meyer colloquially refers to her appearances there that way. Thus the line in the "fan following" section either needs a reference or should be rewritten or deleted. 167.153.5.196 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is unclear, I changed it to mention that Forks celebrates Stephenie Meyer Day. That's a more clear indication of how they honor her. Andrea (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

A Gaia Online thread isn't exactly the most reputable source, and the mention of it feels like a very odd, very random, semi-anti-Twilight jab. If no one has any other source to verify this, I think it should be deleted. --Seed-kun (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a reputable source- I took it out. Andrea (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I respect every author. However, hearing that, especially with the erotic novel published before Meyer's own... And, we don't know how she went through the process of writing it. She may have, she may have not. Show me valid proof, and i'll stop using my proof. Distorted Fairytales (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that what you're using as 'proof' is not truly proof, it is merely someone's unreliable and possibly uneducated opinion, and by Wikipedia's standards, that's not proof. ~ Bella Swan^? 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really. Can you show me any better proof that Twilight was NOT plagiarized? All I ask is for proof.Distorted Fairytales (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If we go about it that way, then should we consider every book plagiarised until we compare them to all the books in the world and make sure no phrases match? It makes no sense. We consider all books "innocent until proven guilty" concerning plagiarism. So, if you think Twilight has plagiarised material in it, find the proof from both, and show it, because I have no idea what book it was plagiarised from, or how. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Read Wuthering Heights, then Breaking Dawn. That was a point brought up to me. If Bella had died (Which, in a sense, she did) it would have been like Wuthering Heights, because they would have both been single fathers. I had more points, but trying to remember them at 5 am in the morning is a horrid idea. I'll edit this when my friends and I remember the points.

EDIT: I JUST THOUGHT OF ONE MORE. SHE CLEARLY POINTED THIS OUT. Firstly, I forgot to sign. My bad. Nonetheless, she clearly stated that she pulled characters from different series, and morphed them to make an Edward Cullen. Who the hell thinks they can get away with that? 12:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distorted Fairytales (talk • contribs)

Ideas cannot be plagerized, only words. If you can find a specific quote from Wuthering Heights or any other book, and show an almost identical, or identical quote from one of the Twilight novels that corresponds with the quote from the other book, then you can state that there was plagiarism in the article. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I would like to point out that the whole point of copyright laws is so that ideas are not stolen/copied. Just thought you might want to know that.

From a retired English teacher - You are mistaken in saying that copyright laws protect ideas. They protect the creation of new works, which may or may not be based on old ideas. If copyright laws protected ideas, then Shakespeare would not have been able to write "Romeo and Juliet," which he based on an old Italian poem of two Italian lovers who die as a result of their families' dislike of each other, and "West Side Story" could not have been written based on "Romeo and Juliet." It is the work of art that is copyrighted, not the idea or concept behind it. If we were not allowed to combine old ideas in new ways to publish new works, we would have very little in the way of new works to enjoy. Many of the stories of today are based on themes and relationships that were already presented in The Bible.

Fail?

Some vandalist, in the last 15 or so edits, has changed some parts of the information to the words "failure" or "fail". I just want to make people aware, as it has been ignored, and I can cannot change the information back because I haven't the right knowledge about the author to change these things myself. Thanks, n i m b u s a n i a 06:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done with Midnight Sun

I usually troll this page, but please forgive me. That's sorta hard, but I have something to point out, which killed me a little. I lied about not having general respect for her. ANYWAYS, she will not be continuing Midnight Sun, due to her friends letting it be leaked. Something along those lines, i'm assuming. I'm not planning on changing it, due to the people going to edit it back, and the untruthfulness shown by me, but I can get the link... [[1]] (Her official site) I don't know it gets taken off her bibliography, and I really don't want to edit it. No one may believe me. ~ Distorted Fairytales (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the link the other day, and part of her bio was already changed in accordance to this, I just changed the rest of it. So, problem solved. ~ Bella Swan^? 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just afraid to change such things, because i'm afraid to be slapped with a fish. No, not really. I think i've just given up, especially after that.

Only thing I have to say is you shouldn't do that. Anyways, thanks. ~ Distorted Fairytales (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On her website is the copy that got leaked.I think it is better than all of the other twilight books. Froggi95 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Froggi95

vandilism

i think that this statment: but this project is now on hold because it was stupidly released illegally by fans, so she is not wanting to write it. is vandilism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.203.72 (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this page was vandilised by a Twilight fan. Stephenie Meyer has not sold 25million copies of her books. Infact, shortly before the release of Breaking Dawn, she had only sold 8.5million copies of her four previous books (twilight, eclipse, new moon, and the host) and the book sales, though 1.4mil on its first day of breaking dawn, are still about 10million shy from 25 million quoted last I heard, which had it at 11.5million estimated sold. Also, they clump 7 citations to that statement in attempt to make it real, when really none of the citations back it up, or even have anything to do with the book sales itself.

Perhaps you should read the sources provided. Andrea (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I just read all of her books and i went to go to her wikipedia page when to m horrer i saw tht she had no picture. and when i tried to uplod one it waid i was not able to. so i am aking if any of you can uplod a picture of her would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdjrc (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please change Stephenie's photo? It's not very flattering...Google an image please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeria P (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is we need a picture with a free license. Which typically means either GFDL, CC-BY-SA (or less restrictive) or public domain. CIreland (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization/Crit. Rec.

I just completely reorganized the article, but I wanted to explain why I took out any "Critical reception" heading. I did this because technically this article barely has any at all, except a tad on Twilight. I don't think this is the place for including critical reception on each book, but maybe for general reviews about the whole series (as we are attempting in the Twilight (series) article) or generally on her writing style. So, while I took it out for now, I think some overall "Critical reception" should definitely be added in the future. Andrea (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With an E

Is there any explanation available - or possible - for the non-standard way she spells her first name? Is it a typo, or were her parents not English speakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probabyly from her dad Stephen, where she gets he name. Since her dad's name is S-T-E-P-H-E-N, her's is Stephenie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.38.31 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Stephenie said that on her personal site. Clem (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Midnight Sun Release

According to a June 2008 update on stephaniemeyers.com she is releasing Midnight Sun and decided to have it published after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlynnebelle (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Her announcement that she was putting Midnight Sun on hold came in August 2008, after the June posting that you are referring to. Andrea (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Film Adaptation for New Moon:

Summit Entertainment has slated the release date for New Moon, the film adaptation of the second novel, for November 20. 2009 in the USA. Chris Weitz, the director of the Golden Compass, has been taken onboard to direct after conflicts with Catherine Hardwicke (director of Twilight) led her to back out of the project.

Source: http://pro.imdb.com/news/ni0629352/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.230.135 (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

There must be a section on criticism about her, because I'm sure there's plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.11.53 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i have a friend who really dislikes stephenie meyer. he thinks she is an amature writer.

We're not a chat room (see WP:TALK) RJaguar3 | u | t 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a criticism section with the most recent quote from Stephen King. He's a highly notable authority on writing and his criticism should carry weight, especially to balance out the article. Now I'm sure she's been criticized by several bloggers, but King isn't your everyday blogger so it should merit inclusion. Atlantabravz (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King is a notable *writer* as a monster best-seller for decades, but hardly a notable authority on writing. He's been criticized quite a bit himself (by actual, respected reviewers), as he is the first to admit, albeit somewhat defensively. Frankly I find his eagerness to pass judgement, whether good or bad, on every other fantasy/horror writer out there kind of annoying, since his best writing days are definitely behind him. And I found his out-of-nowhere, let-me-insert-myself-into-yet-another-pop-culture-phenomenon, random slam at Meyers kind of mean-spirited. She's certainly not the best writer out there but after his downhill slide starting in the mid-'80s (I literally threw "The Regulators" across the room and haven't read another book of his since)--neither is he.24.215.160.12 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There must be more, the Twilight books were frickin AWFUL. Surely someone notable has noticed that Bella is incredibly anti-feminist? I feel like it is notable that her female lead spends her time cooking for her father, throws aside her college plans to marry her high school boyfriend, and has no hobbies, friends or other interests outside Edward. I'm sure other people have noticed this to, but surely someone has commented on this in a manner usable within Wikipedia?....

Example something like this, http://articles.mibba.com/Entertainment/1387/Anti-Feminism-Affects-Vampires-Too

Except more notable then an online blog. --Pstanton (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And this A piece written by a program assistant at the National Women's Law Center:

http://www.womenstake.org/2008/08/twilight-time-f.html --Pstanton (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just get somebody to alert Germaine Greer to the books. Then you'll get your quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.153.208 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look through the following link; http://twilightsucks.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=twilight&action=display&thread=220&page=1 and do as you deem fit with what you find.

- Taliesin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.172.175 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Meyer`s Succes

———————16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)TwilightFansite621jab (talk)</ref>Stephanie Meyer has had many succes moments in her whole life well first she wrote and illustrated Twilight , New Moon , Eclipse , and Breaking Dawn for her vampire - romance books , but on the other - hand she wrote The Host which is A Pro Alien source written and illustrasted by Stephanie Meyer with the help of her publisher and producer !!

Infobox

Sorry, but can someone fix her infobox, it appears to have been vandalized. --Pstanton (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to; what's wrong with it? Andrea (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Section- "The Twilight Series"

I've added the "Unbalanced" tag (which, yes, I know, is an article tag, but there is no similar section-specific tag) as the section which specifically deals with the Twilight series entirely neglects mentioning of any criticism of Twilight.

the closest we come to criticism of Twilight is:

However, critical reception has been mixed. Booklist wrote, "There are some flaws here — a plot that could have been tightened, an overreliance on adjectives and adverbs to bolster dialogue — but this dark romance seeps into the soul."[11] Kirkus wrote: "[Twilight] is far from perfect: Edward's portrayal as monstrous tragic hero is overly Byronic, and Bella's appeal is based on magic rather than character. Nonetheless, the portrayal of dangerous lovers hits the spot; fans of dark romance will find it hard to resist."[12]

Instead of mentioning actual criticism, we get reviews which vacillate. I KNOW there is legitimate criticism, I know I myself thought Twilight was incredibly sexist, and promoted abusive relationships. These views aren't uncommon but they aren't voiced within the article at all.

In regard to the critical reception of Meyer's work, this article tends to feel a little white-washed. --Pstanton (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Full critical reception for each book (and the series as a whole) is included in those respective articles. Very little is provided in the section you tagged because it is merely meant to be an overview of the history of the series. The only reason any crit. rec. is included there at all is so it wouldn't seem unbalanced, since naming its awards and saying it sold well was important for explaining why the series was continued, but falsely made it look like everything about it was positive. The actual Critical Reception section was only begun recently, and is definitely not sufficient. However, I don't think this article should simply restate all of the reception that is already included on the respective book pages. If any is included here at all (many author pages don't have such sections), it should be specifically about her writing style. That is, general comments about her as a writer, such as those from Stephen King, and not specifics on the individual books or series. The problem here is that some comments from King are not nearly enough, but I've had trouble finding such criticism and don't want to just repeat what is already included in more appropriate places. Andrea (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As a random bystander with some small knowledge of this, I suggest you take a look at the following link; http://twilightsucks.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=twilight&action=display&thread=220&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.172.175 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

I was trying to find an image that could legally be used in the article that was more of a professional photo, and I was wondering if the picture of Stephenie that is in the back of her book would work. Technically the photo was published with the book, so if the photographer is cited, could it legally be used in the article? VioletShadow (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, a image such as that would not be allowed. In articles about living people, the only images that may be used are "free" images, which don't include those that are promotional/copyrighted. You can read this for more information on the use of copyrighted material in articles. Andrea (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Idea of the book Twilight By: Stephenie Meyer

The Main Idea in her first book, Twilight. Is that Bella begins to fall in love with Edward Cullen. Soon before you know it he falls for her, harder than what she did for him. So where I am getting at is that when bella saw Edward for the first time she fell in love instantly but has no idea that he is not only an extremely hott guy!!! But he has the side to him in which is blood thirsty for Bella's Blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.91.85 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we all realised the point of the book, like it or not. Farslayer (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an award winning book/movie and it will be known and legenalized for years to come! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.188.58 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC) It'll be forgotten in a few years, tops. It's not "classic" material. Hell, it's barely material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.247.110 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A little bit of cleanup?

OK, I've been doing a little bit clean-up of this article. I think everything seems to be completely jumbled up here. For the criticism - I'm going to add it to the MAIN Twilight article including that "Kirkus" review etc... Blytonite (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Prop 8 donation

Meyer gave a lot of money to Yes on Prop 8, assuming nobody would find out, apparently. We did. Why isn't it mentioned in the article? Its relevant, especially considering the large gay following the books have. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? Andrea (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just ran her name through a Proposition 8 donors database, and it came up with nothing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and picture

Why is Meyer in both the Novels and Children Wikiprojects? Last I checked, she wasn't a book. I think she should be removed, being in Brigham Young and Biography is more then adequate, unless there is a wikiproject specifically for authors. --Pstanton (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What's with the layout?

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I've never seen this layout before. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.243.132 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, can anyone make out where she is in her infobox picture? It confuses me to no end. --Pstanton (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay-like?

I think this article could use an essay-like or similar tag. Lines such as:

"Despite having very little writing experience, in a matter of three months she had transformed that vivid dream into a completed novel."

While not directly un-neutral do seem slightly biased. Thoughts? Gobmech (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of her novels

I agree. I was waiting for some negative comments, or just some viable criticism since there have been many others who do not like her writing style, her themes or just her characters. Stephen King has also been critical of her writing, which I think should be taken of note. I think that this should be edited, since not everyone has a fanatical and rosy following like she does. They even did a whole section on MSN as to how the Harry Potter series actually trumps over Twilight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulfulapple (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, it contains neither positive nor negative criticism about Meyer's writing. The "rosy-ness" that you speak of is actually information about the popularity of both Meyer and her novels (ex. through book sales); nothing is written about how "good" or "bad" critics think the books are. Critical reception for the novels is included in each of the individual book articles, as well as on the Twilight (series) page (including Stephen King's comments). If you would like to use J. K. Rowling's article as an example, it also contains no "critical reception" section and only talks about the Potter books in terms of things like book sales and the awards that they have received. Andrea (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Including quotes calling her a literary luminary (what a horrifying joke that is) isn't "positive" criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.30.83 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look up the definition of "luminary" (ex. here or here), the comment means that Meyer has achieved success in the literary field. I agree that the wording is a bit flowery, but again it is in reference to her popularity; I don't think it can be denied that she has been successful. The quote does not say that her writing is particularly illuminating. Andrea (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrea, you ROCK! I agree with every word you've said. Couldn't have said them better, seriously. Mo HH92 ^Talk 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is an insult to the gravity of Wikipedia. It has been whitewashed to the point of illegibility. There is absolutely no criticism of a similar medium found on the actual twilight books, often found with other authors. Indeed, even the Twilight Fans looking for themes on the author's work have been hard pressed to find any substance. I intend to attempt to add some actual DEPTH to this article, which is essentially a gushing tribute to her never ending success. This is just rediculous. And quite frankly insulting to me as a wikipedian. It almost makes me want to give up with wikipedia entirely. Almost.

I call on anyone who is actually interested in making this article more than a complete fluff peice to change it before I do. Manticore55 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read my above post(s) in response to your opinion that there should be criticism of the Twilight books on this page. Critical reception of each of the books is included on each of the books' pages, and criticism on the series as a whole is on the Twilight (series) page. This is perfectly acceptable, as that is where the comments are more fitting (you will see that many other authors' pages follow the same format). A line has to be drawn before this article simply regurgitates everything that is written on the series page as well (themes, for example, are also more appropriate in articles specifically written about the books). This article focuses on the author as a person, and so comments only on her background and popularity when discussing the books. There is not meant to be either negative OR positive criticism on the books in this article. If you think something in the article would qualify as positive criticism on the series, please discuss it here and it will be removed if this is so. Andrea (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really think the article is a complete fluff, then why do you read it and waste your time commenting about it on the talk page? This article follows the format of almost every other article about authors. It looks at Steph Meyer as a PERSON, her achievements and background. The criticism and commentry of her books are the articles of the BOOKS. Jeez, I guess Twilight wouldn't recieve half as much as attention, if its haters decided to leave it alone.Mo HH92 ^Talk 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At least JK Rowling knows how to construct a story with believable characters who don't come off as one-sided and shallow.

Link to the Arabic Wikipedia page

Will a "confirmed" user please add the link to stephenie meyer's arabic wikipedia article ? ar:ستيفاني ماير thank you in advance. Rouis.k (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased page is biased.

Pff. I couldn't even find the word 'criticism' anywhere in the article. 202.8.247.125 (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC) No Twilight book ever reached number one on the Best Seller list (only on the Children's Book List) and that needs to be corrected, it is stated that New Moon reached number one by the foot note number 21. The Only book she had reach number one is The Host —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.197.34 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

no professional criticism included

There is not a single sentence criticizing her fantasy books, while I know that the professional literary review scene in Germany slating her world view as a fundamental one, which obviously comes from her religious beliefs (mormon church). As long as there is no negative criticism about her works, this article does not fulfill basic Wikipedia requirements for a good article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.159.111 (talk • contribs)

See the "Criticism of her novels" above. Andrea (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice fan page

You'd think there was no one out there who had anything less than "ooh, isn't she wonderful" to say about her work. Hard to take this article seriously. 72.229.55.176 (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur. This article is emberassing. Manticore55 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A further analysis of this article found that it lacks any details about the author's themes, her other works after Twilight, namely "The Host" and a wide range of things found on other authors of this financial stature. This article can, and must, be changed. Manticore55 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A review of the other sections does indicate that the other works are mentioned but it is extremely light in comparisson to the main twilight work. The 'fluffy' feel of the article definitely remains. I will begin searching for any scholastic studies of the themes represented in the author's work. Manticore55 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, the fact of the matter is, that whether you like Meyer's writing or dislike it, she is a polarizing literary figure. There are many people who believe she is a remarkable writer, and there are just as many who don't. Failure to include any of the popular discontent with her WRITING SKILL (which has nothing to do with the books) is a rediculously unbalanced viewpoint which isn't in the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. There might be better stuff than King out there, but removing King just because "its on the twilight article" is disingenous. Show me where in a wikipedia policy it states "Just because it says it in this article it can't say it somewhere else." Conversely I can show you rather easily how pushing one point of view isn't a good thing. Manticore55 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, after reading the quote again, it is rather obvious that the quote is ABOUT the author, not the twilight books. If you want to remove something, remove it from the Twilight article. Manticore55 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added to the criticism section. I will also see what else I can find. Manticore55 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed a number of your additions, as they were either insufficiently sourced, came from non-notable sources (ex. blogs), involved original research or your own opinions (ex. her relationship with fans is "tumultuous" because the halted writing Midnight Sun), or were commenting specifically on the Twilight films and not the books. Some also do not constitute criticism (ex. her being influenced by her faith; I instead included such information in the Inspirations section) or were stretching to count as criticism (Meyer being influenced by classic novels by Jane Austen would never imply they would be as great, nor even that they would be very similar at all).

I'm still not convinced that criticism such as this should be included here at all. If things continue this way, it will become extremely and unnecessarily repetitive with the Twilight (series) reception. But, as you noted above, Stephen King's comment was specifically about Meyer's writing ability more than it was about the books, and so it might be more suitable here. However, that is the only comment so far that would qualify through this argument, and having an entire criticism section consist only of one comment is unacceptable. I actually argued in favour of keeping King's comment here in the past, and it was removed for this very reason. Now the section is actually biased and leans toward negative comments while including no positive criticism. Andrea (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that I included criticism of her work in "The Host", also while Blogs are not the BEST of sources, the fact is that the blogs I chose were linked with publications. You also removed the links that had actual published, scholarly sources. While the "Philosophy and" books are pop culture they are written by serious scholars. If you want to remove King's comment from somewhere, remove it from the Twilight articles. I'm not interested in those, I'm interested in this article. Finally, if each section needs to be 'balanced' then the entire article is screwed up because every single section beside the basic biography is all positive and not at all negative. Now normally this wouldn't be a requirement, but when a figure is as polarizing as Ms. Meyer is, then failure to mention anything at all both to the skill of her writing and the harsh criticism of her books is indeed a violation of NPOV. The fact that any criticism section AT ALL keeps being removed without replacing it with something else shows that this is about pushing a POV rather than simply trying to improve the article. Prove me otherwise. Manticore55 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to explain a few of my removals in more detail: the blog that I removed was included in the section about her writing being influenced by her being Mormom, which did not qualify as criticism. And I removed the "Philosophy and" sections because they were stretching to qualify as criticism. Meyer's books don't live up to the classics? Uh, what does? Simply because she said she was inspired by those stories does not imply they will even be very alike. Noting her inspirations is one thing, but comparing them is another. Your addition made it seem as though Meyer meant for her books to be similar to classics like Pride and Prejudice, and she simply failed. Also, this article was not biased before in that it says nothing positive about her writing. You obviously read the article and think it is "fluff" and praise because it discusses her popularity as an author, but never is anything said along the lines of, "Meyer's writing is so wonderful. Her cadences flow like a...blahblahblah". You are confusing anything positive about her life with actual critical reception. As I said above, the only criticism that we've found so far that I think would be acceptable in this article is Stephen King's, since it is directly about her writing ability, but one quote is insufficient to qualify as an entire "Criticism" or "Critical reception" section. Andrea (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough trolling. I have removed the criticism section because Stephen King's comments are already included in the Twilight series page. Why mention it again and create a whole section on just ONE short sentence about "can't write worth a darn". I agree with Andrea and I think you really need to calm down.Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By accusing me of trolling, you are questioning my intent and in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you remove my criticism section again, that will be a three time reversion and also a violation of wikipedia policy. If we need to take this to arbitration, I'm perfectly willing to. This article needs to be rounded out, and failure to include legitimate literary criticisim is pushing a specififc POV instead of working for the highest encyclopedic standard. Manticore55 (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to remove my additions, replace them with something more substantive, don't simply remove them. Manticore55 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Careful; many would not appriciate your behavior on the this talk page. As it happens, I have better things to do than be offended by you, but you have failed to provide a valid reason as to why this article should includie a whole criticism section just because of King's comments and a few snippets of opinions completely unreliable sources which are mere OPINIONS and counted as origional research.

Once again, I repeat. If you look at the pages of most authors, including JK Rowling you'll see that they don't include the criticisms about the HP books. The main criticism of HP are found in the main Harry Potter section and the same goes for Stephenie Meyer. This article is to provide information on her, her achievements and background commentries.

If you still have a problem with that, Andrea and I will be able to deal with the problem but it is pointless of you adding criticism section again and again with no real basis.

Stephen King's section is included in the main Twilight series page and it will be there since he was commenting on the Twilight books. All other criticisms go to THAT page and this article is only here to provide info about the author and her achievements. End of story.Mo HH92 ^Talk 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel the need to threaten rather than attempt to resolve this dispute with civility. I feel that you, by utterly disregarding my opinion the matter, are in fact, the one in violation of WP's civility guidelines. Your refusal to have any criticism whatsoever, including the dismissal of extremely notable sources is a violation of NPOV. I have requested a third opinion. I will not revert war with you to restore the section you removed. Manticore55 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Manticore55, the template that you added is completely invalid because then nearly ALMOST every author article would require it including JK Rowling and numerous others because even they don't contain any "criticism" section. Let, Wikipedia deal with it. You seem to taking this article extremely seriously. ALL criticism goes to the main Twilight series page. Is it so hard to understand? This article only deals with the author's life, achievements and background info and NOTHING else. The main Twilight series page has a seperate "criticism" section and you can add anything you want there as long as it is valid and notable. Mo HH92 ^Talk 16:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review of Rowling by compassion, I will remove the template. HOWEVER, the substance and TONE of the Rowling article holds significantly more depth. Yes, I realize that Rowling has been around longer and thus more has been written about her, but honestly when I read the Rowling article I feel is about an author. The charge made by the 'unsigned' commentator remains accurate. There is a LOT more work to do here, and I'll see what I can do to fix that. Case in point, Rowling's article mentions her relationship with the media, Meyer's does not. Rowling's article includes details about her background along with the considerable honors that have been bestowed to her by commercial and literary success; this article has a few details about her background but the vast majority of actual content just shows how 'successful' she is. If anything, the article may need to be trimmed down unless more substance can be found in the other areas. Manticore55 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was on my way to remove the template myself, but the fact that you took it upon yourself to do so really speaks volumes to me. I am wrong on the specifics of this point, but my broader argument about the nature of the article and the climate around it is entirely validated by your actions. Expect me to be back later. I'm disengaging for a week but I will be looking to make substantive changes later on if things haven't changed. Manticore55 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Manticore55, both the JK Rowling and Stephenie Meyer articles are almost the same. They both contain info about the authors' achievements and literary merits, except for the fact that JK's page is much longer because she has been in the literary world for much longer and most people know a lot about her personal life and her relationship with the media. On the other hand, SM is an extremely private person and nowadays rarely grants interviews or public appearences and she protects her private life.

I doubt if this article needs trimming since there is nothing wrong with it. An removal of content will be defended vigourously.Mo HH92 ^Talk 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be. But honestly Mo HH92, the fact that your user page indicates that Twilight is your favorite novel doesn't exactly make you a 'dispassioned observer.' Numerous other commentators have expressed concern about the article. I am simply stating my opinion that I do not agree with your opinion, and that I am disengaging for a week so that the existing community can take a second look. If you are unwilling to do that, then so mote it be. I will be back in a week. Whether or not I change anything largely depends on the tone of the article. Suffice to say that I do not agree about the fundamental tone of the article. Privacy does not mean a lack of depth in the article itself. Rowling is a private person too. Manticore55 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Analyse what you read. No where does it say in my userpage that Twilight is my favorite novel. All I've said that Stephenie Meyer is ONE of my favorite authors, that's all along with loads of others I've mentioned. I didn't even say anything about Twilight. There's nothing wrong with the tone of this article. In fact, the article SHOULD mention the author's literary merits and achievements. Could you tell me what you mean by the "tone" of this article? Nothing ever mentioned in this article is a personal opinion all the quotes in the "reception" section are completely notable and in fact written by literary scholars and critics and the honors that the author has recieved are extremely distuinguished. There's nothing wrong with tone of this article just because you think that it lacks a section where there is no mention of Stephen King's comments.Mo HH92 ^Talk 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was prepared to do a sentance by sentance comparision to the Rowling Article, as well as that of several other pages including Laura Hamilton, Daniel Steel and Stephen King for widely popular authors, dividing the sentences up into "positive" "neutral" and "negative" to show the contrasting tone, but since some of this has already started to occur, I'd like to watch for a while and see if it occurs naturally and potentially help from time to time. It is not that I am 'demanding' a negative section it is that when you compare the 'positive' vs 'neutral' and 'negative' statements to the other authors, the verifiably positive are rediculously disproportionate in this article. The tone can be fixed by adding more substance about the author herself that isn't designed to show how awesome she is. Sales figures and the like show notability, but there has to be more to the author than that such as "she likes the color blue. She has a dog that she likes to insert in her novels etc etc." Of course there is some actual substance to this article, but the insights that others have had are reasonably reflected in the fact that the vast majority of the content has a 'positive' rather than a 'neutral' spin. I will attempt to change that where possible, but ultimately I think that the best solution is simply more substance. And a lot more of it. Manticore55 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy

This section, more than any other section of the article seems to be complete fluff, and lacks the substance necessary to meet the notability test. The only reason I didn't outright delete it was because of the notability of the source. Any other opinions? Manticore55 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If the source is notable, then the section has the potential to be notable. It's not simply "fluff" because it could use some expansion. Andrea (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone who is notable does something, does not make it notable for the central page of the individual. Manticore55 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly isn't fluff. Meyer's philanthropy has been recognized and I can find a dozen or so noteable sources about it. She *has* done some philanthropic work and it needs to be noted to provide an in depth view of her life and background. Of course, I'll try to work on expanding the article.Mo HH92 ^Talk 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you consider sources that are positive 'notable' yet sources that have much wider publication status and scholarly merit 'non notable.' I am not going to dispute this section since, quite frankly, the attitude regarding literary criticism is much more alarming. Manticore55 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't. The main Twilight series page has a whole section of "criticism" and anyone is welcome to add snippets of criticism as long as it is notable and not counted as origional research. ALL literary criticism should go to the series' page while the author's page focuses on the author HERSELF.Mo HH92 ^Talk 16:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor editing changes to the "Criticisms" section

I am removing the following sentence from this section It should be noted, however, that most authors are heavily influenced by their surroundings The reason for this is I think the statement is either very obvious (and thus doesn't need to be included) or not verifiable. If anyone disagrees, we can talk about it on here.

I am also inserting a comma, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

>>"or not verifiable" How can you verify assertions like that? Shyboy16 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "very obvious". Who isn't influenced by their surroundings? But the manner in which the point had been made (in the article) seems a little too original, and I'd agree that the point was rightfully removed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Shyboy16,

Do we have a statistical analysis of authors where they were polled and concluded that "most" were influenced by their surroundings? This is what I meant by "non verifiable" -- the sense that a statement like that should have a citation.

However, it looks like the sentence has been removed, so it's good enough for me. Jjc16 (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd add that the "it should be noted" phrase would also have to be verified (even if it were only implied). Such a phrase indicates that an opinion is about to follow, and the fact that such an opinion exists (outside of editors' own minds) can't just be taken for granted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Meyer and the classics.

The criticism that had been made of Meyer that she failed to live up to the tradition of certain classics, is actually misleading. The source, Twilight and Philosophy, which can be read here, (with pages intentionally missing) criticizes her works on the merits. It is not faulted simply because it does not equal or continue any literary tradition. There is an excellent supply of criticism there. I probably won't follow it up myself, though. Saros136 (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that my initial assessment of what the article was saying was off. I'll look into it but I agree it is an excellent source of detail. Manticore55 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The X-and-Philosophy series is brilliant, but I'd emphasize that the title is "Twilight and Philosophy"--not "Stephenie Meyer and Philosophy". I think it would be a mistake to add much criticism of the books to this article, as this is not the article about the books (whereas it is a WP:BLP, and so should be written with maximal discretion). The Stephen King criticism seems appropriate because it is directed towards Meyer herself; he states what he thinks about her general writing ability. But critiques that are directed primarily towards Twilight probably belong in the Twilight article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But King was judging her on Twilight, which in his judgment is very poorly written. Saros136 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he had to base his judgment on something. Although he does go on to talk about Twilight, his main point seems to be that one author (Rowling) is better than another (Meyer). The statement would seem to be just as much (and just as little) about Twilight as it is about Harry Potter. But I suppose his comments on "the appeal of the series" (emphasis mine) might best be summarized much more tightly here, and otherwise reserved for the Twilight page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar comparisons have been made to her non twilight works as well. Manticore55 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't checked that. Saros136 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Do You Like "Happy Endings".

I am writing a story that ends well or bad the more votes the better it will be.So I'll be waiting for comments for my newest book so add on to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.226.136 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Meyer has, through her novels, degraded the vampire literary genre to shallow chick-lit with no bite.

Sorry all you fans, but it's the truth. Vampires are scary, they're monsters who prey on humans for sustenance! PS, because they (in most mythos) consume blood, they are by definition carnivores, and therefore cannot be classfied in any way, shape, or form as "vegan" or "vegetarian," simply because some of the pack can't stand killing or feeding on humans. That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. I read Stephen King's comment that Meyer "can't write worth a damn."[2] I have to agree, when I see the first section of her book talks about a girl who falls instantly in love with a creep after seeing him for the first time, or very close to it. This only perpetuates the long standing stereotypes about women--i.e., they are easily swayed and use emotion rather than logic to guide their decisions. Many people I know who have picked her books up and read them agree with me about the idea that her stories lack substance and her characters are very one-dimensional. Yet people keep jumping on the Twilight bandwagon like a cartload of lemmings. It's pathetic--read what YOU like to read, and don't buy tripe just because all of your high school pals do. What's even worse, grown people are doing the same thing.

And, before one of you fans gets offended and tries to delete this article--give it a rest. Any author, artist, director, producer, etc has to endure criticism of his/her work--it's par for the course. If the fans can't deal with it, then that only confirms my suspicions and comments about people who are into the whole "Twilight thing." ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erzherzogin (talk • contribs)

In other words, *waving fists* MY imaginary monsters are more legitimate than YOURS are!

WHO. CARES. 24.215.160.12 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This was her own take on the vampire legend, people like it so leave it alone. your personal opinions dont matter. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion and mine is as follow. I think the Twilight books were very well writted and love the story behind them. Its all about using your imagination, So what if the twilight vamps aren't carnivores. Keeps the story interesting and being 32 years of age I love and so does my 10 year daughter and my 20 year old sister. These books are great no matter what age you are and people read them because they want to not because there friends are reading them..

!!!complaints about the twilight saga!!!

first i would like to complain about this about having one book with renesmee in it i think stephine shoud atleast write another two with her growing up and letting her have a chance to be in more then one book why should bella and edward and the others get four whole books and not renesmee it would make the world happier because your a great writer and you need to show it some more so please write atleast another two books for your fans??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.158.187 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Please limit discussion to improvement of Wikipeida's article.Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Guide

The Twilight Guide has been pushed back again, it clearly wasn't published in December 2009. This should be updated, as the article still says so. Anyone know the new release date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.119.205 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is a release date right now. I'm going to remove it until we know more, or until it seems likely that the book will even be released. Andrea (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

wtf is up with this horrible sentence...

On 30 March 2010 announced his next following novel The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, it is planned for an release 2012 over Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. can somebody edit this shitty sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.230.181 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Next time can you please sign your post and try not swear, a simple "please edit this sentence" would have been fine. Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

facts, not opinions

Resolved

so here's my problem with the page.

"She grew up in Phoenix, Arizona, with a large family"

"large" is a subjective term. wikipedia articles shouldn't use such partial language. And it's really some person's opinion, not a fact. They can qualify it by saying " a large (by american standards) family", but then they would need to cite the "(by american standards)" part.... will someone just change it please, it is quite infantile! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.230.217 (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. Andrea (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just say how many people were in her family? Or does anyone know?

And realitively few people would be confused by the use of the word "large" in that context.

She had two sisters and three brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.17.85 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Her birthday is actually September 13. Right? I think I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.55.25 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Real-life 'inspirations'

Has anyone thought of asking SM about these? For instance I think it highly likely she had read about 'The Gorbals Vampire'. This incident concerned hundreds of schoolchildren in a deprived area of Glasgow Scotland in 1954 who gathered three evenings running in a cemetery to deal with a child-killing 'vampire with iron teeth'. No child had been reported missing and no adults took the vampire's existence seriously, but it did prompt legislation against American horror comics being sold to minors being enacted (still on the statute books) in the British Parliament. Why do I think she'd heard about it? One of the Members of Parliament who supported the new law (actually MP for the Gorbals at the time) was called Alice Cullen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.201.130 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please update

Fourth installment in film series greenlighted, Meyer to co-produce with Wyck Godfrey and Karen Rosenfelt.

ISBN

The ISBN numbers for the books should be added. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral perspective on article

Am I the only one who feels that the article has been written and edited by a Twilight fan? At least, that's the 'feel' you get, when you read it. Bella Swan's damsel in distress persona is only due to her humanity. In that case, do all the other (strong) fictional female characters have a inhuman/non-human quality to them?? Other (strong) fictional female characters such as Velma Dinkley, Arwen, Hermione Granger, etc, do not have to depend on any special (non-human/inhuman) powers or even depend on a man to live their lives. That's because all these (strong) female characters have been blessed with tons and tons of brainpower to lead and live their own lives, which Bella sadly lacks. I mean, she became a strong character AFTER she gained her vampiric powers. She was nothing but a wallflower/wailflower before that. 59.184.175.59 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Won multiple literary awards"

The first paragraph of the article mentions that Stephenie Meyer has "won multiple literary awards" but I don't think she has won any. For now I put a "citation needed" tag after the statement, but unless someone can name a couple literary awards she's been given, I think it should be removed. I'm almost certain that Meyer doesn't have any literary awards, because if she did her books would have a "winner of the ____ award" sticker on the cover. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the changed phrase "various awards." Maybe I shouldn't have if one considers being rated as an influential person -- but in the first paragraph it still seems to indicate that she has won literary awards. Kdammers (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your decision, Kdammers. When User:The_Man_in_Question changed "won multiple literary awards" to "won various awards" it still seemed to imply literary awards. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stephenie Meyer

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stephenie Meyer's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bd2":

• From The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Confirmed for Two Films". comingsoon.net. 2010-06-11. Retrieved 2010-06-11.
• From The Twilight Saga (film series): http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=66978

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Andrea (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.196.231.55, 12 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Breaking Dawn (The Twilight Saga) by Stephenie Meyer 117.196.231.55 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If your request was to have that external link placed on the article page, it is not an appropriate link for inclusion. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like spam -- See WikiProject Spam report (all the domains are of the same look and feel). MER-C 07:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

The article states she lives in Cave Creek, Arizona. This is wrong, she lives about a half hour south, and a little west of Cave Creek (At least, that's how long it usually took me to drive from my house, to Glendale) in Glendale, which is really just a part of Phoenix. Cave Creek is just north of Phoenix. It should be changed to Glendale, or at least just Phoenix, Arizona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehawlz (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide a source for that information. Right now we have a reference in the article that says she lives in Cave Creek. Andrea (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New picture?

I find this picture to be quite unattractive and unflattering. There are lot's of better ones then this.

http://twilightguide.com/tg/wp-content/themes/Aspire/graphics/cat/stephenie-meyer/Stephenie-Meyer_l.jpg

or

http://images.nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20080904_steph_250x375.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolz03 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No - this is an encyclopaedia, not a modelling portfolio. Her attractiveness is irrelevant. The photo attached is a relatively up-to-date and free to use example and so should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.91.27 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a better photo, and you need to fix the Stephanie Meer thing.CamrynRocks! :) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamrynRocks! (talk • contribs)

Novella? Hellow?

I wonder how a simple novella could escape the knowledge of Wikipedia.... I mean it was standard knowledge.

In 2010 Stephenie Meyer published a novella to go along with hit series Twilight: The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner

Nowhere on the page did I see even a reference to the page. Maybe there is a link connecting the two topics, but it would have to be on the Novella's page.

Did anyone not know this either?

I cheated the entire industry and read my copy I now have in a box somewhere in Deirbergs :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.200.136 (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The novella is mentioned in this article twice, in the "Other works" and "Publications" sections. There is a link to the novella's page in the latter. Andrea (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

damn/darn

This gets changed a lot, is there a reasonable way we can try and maintain the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamCaputo (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Philanthropy"?

It seems a bit much to have an entire section called "Philanthropy" when all it refers to is Meyer helping out a friend, and somehow being involved in the auctioning of a skateboard. In an article that refers to her annual earnings in the tens of millions of USD, this section is incongruous and would best be deleted. Otherwise those sufficiently motivated had best start collecting stories about how Meyer helped old ladies cross the road, or donated money to her local high school football team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.26 (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

young "adult"?

• this history is pre-teen.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.48.140.229 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Everywhere I'm seeing young adult in the article, it's in a direct quotation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

The criticism section of this article is unacceptably small and most of the article is strongly in her favour - yet more of the quotes are about actual sales rather than literary value. I don't know what it's like in America, but in the UK at the moment I can easily name about three times as many people who loathe her and her books than people who actually enjoy them. And hardly a mention of her Mormonism and the Mormon gender stereotypes present in the books. Oh, and the fact that the Twilight films have got consistently bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Nobody in the literary world takes her, or her books seriously, and nobody who reads her books takes literacy seriously. This page can not be taken seriously. 86.163.7.171 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, of the two quotes in the criticisms section, one of them is in fact a glowing praise of the work. It seems that nearly every article relating to Stephanie Meyer's work has recently been edited to a completely biased pro-Meyers point of view and then locked so that they cannot be brought in to conformity with Wikipedia's required NPOV. Anyone who is not obsessed with Meyer's writings could tell you that the picture painted in the related articles of this series being universally loved is a joke.TDiNardo (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. four paragraphs of glowing praise compared to two paragraphs of criticism that is ownplayed considerably already. --Yankovic270 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bidding war?

In the Twilight section under Series is says that "Of the 15 letters she wrote, five went unanswered, nine brought rejections, and the last was a positive response from Jodi Reamer of Writers House. Eight publishers competed for the rights to publish Twilight in a 2003 auction." As I read it she sent 15 letters and received 15 replies (even if some of them were a rejection through silence), so how can the next sentence claim that what sounds like a bidding war between eight different publishers happened? The math doesn't add up either. She says she had a dream in June 2003 and transformed that dream into a book in three months. That brings us to September 2003 where her sister read the book and Meyer decided to send letters to publishers. Even if all that happened in quick succession that still leaves only three months of 2003 for her to receive her replies, find another seven publishing houses to compete with the one that had already said yes and auction off the book.

I think it all sounds improbable and the source for both claims is number 20 but I get a "404 page not found" so I can't verify the information myself. Does anyone have more information about this? 94.144.63.86 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

While I recall the story from when the novel premiered, I'm having trouble verifying the claim right now. That Publisher's Weekly link you mentioned has been completely removed from the 'net, not even available on archive.org anymore. Another Publisher's Weekly article mentions the auction for the rights, but its source is Meyer's own promotional webpage. An article on seattlepi.com makes it sound like the agent simply asked Little, Brown for more money rather than shopping the manuscript around. These are the two sources of information for the auction/bidding war claim, even over on the Wikipedia Twilight article, which is a problem since one link is 404 and the other doesn't actually mention the auction/bidding war at all. Clearly, there's a source issue here. I don't edit major articles (I don't like stepping on the virtual toes of the people who keep an eye on the bigger entries) but I hope whoever maintains these articles finds some new sources. Clockster (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia as self-promotion

Yet again!

Wikipedia continues to be the free, self-promotion outlet of choice for many contemporary 'public figures', as exemplifed by this article. Its apparent inability to clean up its act in this area taints its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.14 (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Claim too imprecise

The claim that, "In August 2009, USA Today revealed that Meyer broke J.K. Rowling's record on their bestseller list", does not specify which record is claimed to have been broken. J. K. Rowling has set various records in publishing.

Suggest removing the claim until the record that the contributor had in mind is made explicit and can be verified.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.14 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2012‎ (UTC)

"née"

Could someone remove how "née" is linked? I believe that is overlinking. 108.93.72.117 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done —me_and 14:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)