Perhaps apropos to my previous post, I just ran across a comment by hapax on the Slacktiverse, to a post about the book Twilight. In part:
I really don't think Meyer's writing is shallow at all. I would instead call it exceptionally "porous"; it is, as many people have pointed out, so lightly sketched that it is very easy for the reader to project their own fantasies, desires, and concerns (or, with some of her critics, their own anxieties and wounds).

Which is why I also can enjoy the TWILIGHT books, even re-reading them with a critical eye, much more than the HUNGER GAMES books. Whatever else Collins' writing may be, it is concrete -- detailed, grounded, comprehensive, in a way that makes it look like solid granite compared to the wispy latticework that is Meyer's style.

Unfortunately, that means when a crack appears -- illogical worldbuilding, an unappealing character, even a niggling inconsistency -- it is much more difficult to ignore or handwave away. It grates on me constantly, to the point that I couldn't even finish the trilogy.
(Unfortunately I can't link directly to the comment - the date/time looks like it ought to, but doesn't. :/ It's Mar 26, 2011 at 09:11 PM.)

That may be part of the Lackey appeal, at least to me. I whine and rail abut the flaws I see, but they don't stop me reading.

You can comment here or at the Dreamwidth crosspost. comment count unavailable comments at Dreamwidth.
Tags: mercedes lackey, writing
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded