Stephenie Meyer a better story-teller than writer? Stephen King's claims tested with 'New Moon'

April 28, 2:23 AMTwilight ExaminerAmanda Bell

Previous Next

23 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Twilight Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

In a recent article by Pop Culture News Examiner Andy Williamson, Stephen King's claims that Stephenie Meyer "can't write worth a darn" are (in attempt, at least) substantiated by a claim that "there is a big difference between writers and storytellers."

Says Williamson, "what Stephenie Meyer lacks in literary grace, she makes up for with interesting characters and a compelling plot." In essence, his claim is that while Meyer's work isn't classical in persuasion, she has a knack for plot development and character delivery that keep her readers in wait for the next thing to happen.

Well, I'm here to disagree (and I am sure that I am not the only one). Using the first two (and a half) paragraphs of New Moon as evidence, one can clearly surmise that Stephenie Meyer, indeed, meets and exceeds the elements of good writing.

I was ninety-nine point nine percent sure I was dreaming.

The reasons I was so certain were that, first, I was standing in a bright shaft of sunlight - the kind of blinding clear sun that never shone on my drizzly new home-town in Forks, Washington - and second, I was looking at my Grandma Marie. Gran had been dead for six years now, so that was solid evidence toward my dream theory.

Gran hadn't changed much; her face looked just the same as I remembered it. The skin was soft and withered, bent into a thousand tiny creases that clung gently to the bone underneath. Like a dried apricot, but with a puff f thick white hair standing out in a cloud around it.

SUNY's Geneseo Writing Guide (see here) identifies as the major elements of good writing that which:

• "reveals the author's clear sense of purpose and audience;"
• "is well organized;"
• "is lucid, simple, and direct;"
• "exhibits care and imagination in the arrangement of words, sentences and ideas;" and
• "follows appropriate conventions."

Let's start with the first and work our way down.

Stephenie Meyer's writing clearly "reveals the author's clear sense of purpose and audience." From the very first words, she understands that she is communicating to an audience that wants to get inside Bella's head. There's no hiding the ball on this one. Meyer is writing to an audience which wants to know about Bella's dreams, her fears, and her intuitions about her surroundings. So, step one? Check.

Well organized? You betcha. Meyer tells us what she's going to tell us, frames the issue, and brings it. This sample is case and point. We know from the start what we're about to learn - Bella has had a dream, and it is disorienting. The reasons are numbered and presented efficiently. Step two? Check.

Lucidity, simplicity, and directness are three qualities that noone, not even Williamson or King, could deny of Meyer's writing. Part of the exquisite draw of the story (yes, admittedly, the story is quite entrancing also, I'll give Williamson that much) is the fact that we see it unfold without unnecessary complication. In the visual art world, there is a movement called "minimalism," and it is widely respected and appreciated by a vast number of art afficianados. That said, I don't chalk Meyer's direct and unambiguous style to minimalism, per se, but one can clearly see that she is not taking the elbow route to the rear, if you know what I mean. Step three is a big check-a-roo.

Whether Meyer's writing exhibits care and imagination in word selection, sentence structuring, idea presentation is quite subjective, isn't it? Yet, thirty million readers might go to show that there is a vast majority of the reading populace who would answer in the affirmative. In the passage above, one might argue that there was indeed care and imagination in choosing the descriptive words about the grandmother. New Moon readers will know that the description of "Gran" is crucial because it is, after all, Bella herself that she is looking at. Further, the passage's reflection upon her home town is subtle - though this is an elemental part of the storyline itself. By referring to Forks via casual mention, there was clearly some decision to that effect (and the choice to reference the most relevant part of the town to the at-hand situation -- the lack of sunlight so eloquently outlined in New Moon's predecessor Twilight). As for sentence structuring, I refer you to step three. Meyer's choice of simple and direct delivery in her phraseology is nothing to knock, and it certainly doesn't lend itself to a criticism that there is no imagination or thought behind that presentation.

Finally, Stephenie Meyer clearly "follows appropriate conventions." Though, I might argue that this last requirement is the least important of all - as there are no "conventions" to an artform that should be strictly mandated of its creator aside from basic grammatical respect and deference. Still, Meyer's writing is fluid and proper English throughout all of her works, and that puts step five in her corner.

The five steps a given, I'd like to take a look at this claim - that Stephenie Meyer is more of a storyteller than a writer.

All five of the above steps are but an accumulated instruction manual for the hopeful storyteller. No matter how much delicate, reflective prose you can fit into a paragraph, if you don't have a story to tell, what's the point? The five elements of basic writing all reflect an attempt to assist the writer in delivering something that people will want to read. With an excellent story behind it, yes, these characteristics can be quite handy.

As such, it is no offense to Meyer's writing, per se, to surmise that her story-telling ability is good. In fact, quite the contrary - her ability to formulate a pathway for the reader to find his or her self imaginatively walking down without hesitation is the backbone of her work. Yet, there is no want for imagination, either. Meyer's writing is what shapes the story into the lovely and cherished animal that it is - the Twilight series and all of its wonders.

So, no disrespect to Mr. Williamson or to Mr. King (who, I agree, is a wonderful and timeless writer/story-teller himself), but in defense of Stephenie Meyer, I must say: she is both a gifted story-teller, and she is an excellent writer.

What do you think? Is Stephenie Meyer a good story-teller, writer, or both? Why do you think so? Comment below and let us know!

Join Twilight Examiner on Facebook and Twitter!