Well, since everyone else is weighing in on Stephen King’s attack on Stephenie Meyer, I thought I’d throw in my two cents worth. Alas though, while I can testify to King’s genius (notwithstanding the tasty tidbit of previous criticism pointed out against King by agent Nathan Bradsford in his blog), I have not read any of the Twilight books. At LW’s encouragement (nigh, urging), I began last night.
The first book reads well enough to me. It isn’t as big a deal with today’s gaming systems, but does anyone recall how when the second wave of video games (Nintendo/Sega) came out that they really fell into two categories? The games either excelled in playability (Nintendo) or design (Sega). By design, I mean that the game came loaded with pretty pictures, and while often not as fun to play, looking at all the pretty graphics offset the otherwise lackluster experience.
Gamers either gravitated toward one type or the other. Most people preferred games with high playability. Ah, personal preference – each type had its shortcomings. Looking back at it, however, what gets all the nostalgic praise? It’s not the games with the pretty pictures. The games with high playability rule the day.
See where I’m going with this? Literary critics may detest both Meyer and King, but the numbers don’t lie (excepting, Mr. Madoff’s firm). People like Twilight because it’s readable. If it were a video game, it’d have high playability. Literary works are like those old games that overloaded their playing system with too much graphics. Both make for something pretty to admire. Playing or reading, though? Forget it.
Sorry, Mr. King, but I think you’re fighting a losing battle on this one. Most people don’t buy a book to stare at the flowery prose and pretty words. They buy books they’ll enjoy, and it appears Ms. Meyer can weave quite an entertaining tale. Granted, I’m only at the beginning. More in the days to come …