sidebra with apples & red ribbons: You all know we love Twilight. But we also love to mock. So, please don't take this too seriously. It has to be done.So, we were thinking that some of you might be wondering where Dusty Moats got her name. Or maybe we were just thinking that we had to share her name's brilliance with you. Either way.
Basically, a few weeks back we were all guffawing at this post from the "I will if you will" book club via NPR. The blog writers kicked off their book club with Twilight, and of course they hated it. But their hate is not the normal, "Vampires don't sparkle," and/or "What the hell is this sh*t?" style of hate. Friends, this is NPR, the hate is bound to be more cerebral.
Exhibit A:
Marc: Right. And as for the little mocking I did there of Meyer's previously-discussed tendency to pick the bluntest, least-interesting analogy, allow me to quote the following, from page 190: "I quickly rubbed my hand across my cheek, and sure enough, traitor tears were there, betraying me." That's like saying, "I took a bite, taking some of the food in my mouth." Who writes like that? Who edits and leaves that in?
Linda: TRAITOR TEARS! You know what traitors do? They betray you.
Marc: Right. That's why you call them traitor tears. YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT THAT THEREFORE MEANS THEY BETRAY YOU. Somebody's stupid here, and I think she thinks it's me. (Also: "traitor tears" is walking the line as it is.)
Linda: TRAAAAAAITOR TEARS.
You see, their problems were with the actual WRITING STYLE of the book. And sure, this has been discussed ad naseum, but we thought these bloggers came up with a special (hilarious) way to show us exactly WHY the writing is bad.
sidebra with Swiffer sword: Oh, this is so serious. I live to mock to Twilight. It comes as part of my love hate relationship with this damn saga. It chagrins me to think about it.Exhibit B:
Marc: Also, in an incident that damns both Meyer and her editor, there is a line about "dust moats" floating in the light. ...Moats. Of dust. Ah, here it is: "I ate breakfast cheerily, watching the dust moats stirring in the sunlight that streamed in the back window." I think she was going for "mote": "a small particle; speck."
Linda: Dust moats! Dusty moats! Moaty dust!
Marc: Keeping out the dust barbarians!
Linda: "If you want my daughter, the princess, you shall have to cross this MOAT OF DUST!"
I am chagrined. I know SMeyer had to have had an editor, right? A real, live person. Whose sole job was to read the manuscript and look for mistakes in spelling, grammar and continuity, right? It's not like they relied on Word and its sketchy editing to get them through the series, right? Because Word wouldn't have noticed that a mote is not the same as a moat or...
Oh sweet Baby Edward...I probably just answered the burning question. I am so chagrined. Like, chagrin is flooding all over my body in an embarrassing show of disappointment. So. Chagrined.
Like NPR, I like to back up my mocking with something cerebral. So, you know what I did? Purely in the interest of dedicated scholarly research for this article of course.
Wait, Dusty... do you mean to say that you're chagrined? *snicker* Okay, what did you do in scholarly research? I'm both scared and excited to see what you've found. Yes, Rain. Are you chagrined at my chagrin? Because it chagrins me to think you are chagrined at my chagrin. Or something. I am reminded of the quote from The Princess Bride " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."I love that movie. Tru wuv. *sighs* Buttercup and Westley.
Okay, so getting back to my dedicated scholarly research... Wait a minute. Rain, have you ever read The Princess Bride?
*hours later* You're trying to distract me. I've decided your scholarly research must be counting the number of times a version of the word "chagrin" is used in Twilight. Am I right?...it chagrins me to think you would that.Okay.
You are right. I'm not the only one who noticed the use of chagrin, right? And all the typos. Right? I DID do research. I got a bottle of wine, because you can't do research without being a little tipsy, you know? And I did what any great scholar does, I Googled.
Did you know TwiTeens are not as forgiving of all the grammar mistakes as TwiMoms? Whole forums exist of TwiTeens cursing SMeyer and her editor. Which gives me hopes of a brighter future. I mean, anytime you have teens fighting for better grammar, that is a good thing, right? And the thing is, these TwiTeens are SPECIFIC. They have the mistakes down to page, to the paragraph.
"Page 134, paragraph 5, sentence 2....SMeyer uses Chagrin again".
It makes me wonder why teens are so picky and other sets of fans are able to ignore them...got any insight into that one, Rain?
Btw, The Princess Bride is flawlessly edited. Just sayin'.
Fine. I'll read The Princess Bride. *rolls eyes*Okay, so what about you all? Did you find any dusty moats while you were reading the Twilight saga? (Or any other book, for that matter.) Were you chagrined at the amount of times Edward was described as chiseled? And, on the flip side - were there things that you liked about the writing? And I do mean the writing - because we all know we loved the story... and Edward. *grins*
Often when Rain reviews a book it inspires me to read it (which great, since that's the point and all.) I'm sure that sometimes you, the reader, feel the same way. And then I want to talk about the book, because I love both books AND talking. I'm sure this happens to you all too, but we've already talked it about it on the blog. I could dig through the old posts and comment on it, but that seems so futile. There's very little chance of actual discussion. So, what's a wordy girl to do?
Posts
