Say what you will, but at the end of the day, Stephenie Meyer got the job done. She has nothing to prove to anyone.

The one and only way to argue with that statement of fact is to attack/belittle the readers who enjoyed The Twilight, which always amounts to a dumbass point to argue from.

As for those who seem so concerned with the messages other readers might get from The Twilight Saga, what you are championing is censorship, which is usually done for the purpose of social engineering. Writers have had to put up with that crap from “those who feel they know what is best for others” since the first words were committed to paper. I am pretty sure those posters do not, in fact, know what is best for others to read. Stephen King himself gets pretty bent out of shape about reviews of his work that denegrate his readership and attempt to explain why they shouldn’t be reading his work, despite the fact he does exactly the same thing when speaking about Stephenie Meyer’s fans, who, I might add, are not all teenage girls.

As for Stephenie Meyer, the storytelling approach she takes and the focus on her characters are groundbreaking in fiction. Stephen King’s work has moments of brilliance; small parts that evoke strong emotions. Stephenie Meyer’s work, by contrast, is a sustained brilliance that begins on page one and continues until the end. The Host was also an excellent example of character-driven storytelling.

I have read almost all of Stephen King’s books, but not one of them have I read more than once. I have read The Twilight Saga and The Host more than ten times each.

In my opinion, neither prose nor imagination exists in Meyers. 
Her stories and her prose is rubbish. 
So what I said just now doesn’t even apply to her

Are Meyer's books bad because the writing is bad?

I would have to say yes.  They are bad.  Are they entertaining?  I personally don't think so but obviously a lot of folks do.  The reason I say they are bad is because they feed into the new generation's laziness.  We are slowly becoming an illiterate society.  Nobody reads or writes anymore and only want something that is easy to digest.   Twilight provokes no thought.  It is as simple and flat a story as the writing used to convey it.  All it is teaching the younger generations is this is what writing is.  It's a shame.

The only thing Meyer's lack of writing ability did for that story was make me put it down. She is one of many so-called writers out there who could profit from the use of software like 'PageFour' or 'Scrivener' because they tell you how many times a specific word or phrase has been used in a chapter, or all throughout the book. Now, I heard she bought a thesaurus before writing the fourth book in her series, but my though on this is 'too little, too late.'

Now, if she just had this amazing story to tell, by all means tell it. However, at some point there should be an editor who told her, either to shape up her writing skills or to find a ghost writer who could do it better. The point of books is to tell amazing stories in a way that is enjoyable for the reader, and, most importantly, in a way that is understandable and skillful. That way our culture doesn't suffer for it. (In the way that it currently is suffering due to so many Meyer-esque ‘writers’ getting published with the same types of horrid stories and/or ‘writing abilities.’ If you don’t see how harmful these additions to our culture are to publishing, writing, and reading… then you have NOT been paying attention.)

Has anyone read any of King’s recent novels? Lisey’s Story was AWFUL, HORRIBLE and boring. As a HUGE King fan, I was disgusted by the downward spiral I witnessed with this crappy novel.

I do not care what people say, I know of at least 6 kids who hated reading and began Rowling and Meyer and now love to read. How cares as long as it eventually leads to the encouragment of reading!!!

Roommate: “I finished the last Twilight book while I was on vacation. I couldn’t put any of them down, but when I finished all I thought was, ‘those were the worst books I’ve ever read.”

Me: “Oh yeah? Well they’re so popular I feel like I should read them, I mean I read all the Harry Potters.”

Roommate: “These are not Harry Potter.”

I am all about getting young people to read and to read a lot, but shouldn’t we also encourage them to read works deemed valuable and important?

Stephen King is the most important writer of horror on the contemporary scene, not because he is the best writer in a literary sense, but because of his storytelling ability and his connection with the pulse of popular culture. He personally revived the vampire mythos and brought it back into the forefront of popular culture with Salem’s Lot, did the same thing with the haunted house–although this time it was a historic hotel–in The Shining, and with the post-apocalyptic tale with The Stand. He’s come a long way in his mastery of technique since the publication of Carrie, over thirty years ago. However, even with Carrie, he caught the reality of teenage angst and high school hell, like no other author of the time. King has every right to voice his opinion on a book written in a genre where he is the ‘key’ stakeholder.

King has reviewed books widely in the Washington Post Bookworld, and more recently hs written a regular column in Entertainment Weekly. If you read any one of those, you realize that he has “pulled his punches.” King cut Robert Ludlum to pieces, and rightly so, because despite his popularity, Ludlum is impossible to read with a straight face. In this case, the movies are completely superior to the books. Stephen King has been honest and forthright even in criticizing his own work: pointing to problems with Cujo and Pet Sematary. On the literary side of things, King has become a masterful short story writer, and certainly deserved his National Book Award.

King is quoted: “The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”

How can you argue with that fact? Pull out any segment of the Harry Potter books and compare them with Ms. Meyer’s work, or stand whole book and compare them. King is 100% correct. I would take this further and say that Meyer does not write as well as Anne Rice or Nancy A. Collins. Collins’ neglected work is a thousand times better than Meyer’s books. I don’t think she compares well with a slew of other “contemporary urban fantasy” authors such as Laurel Hamilton or Charlaine Harris, either.

I think the answer to your question on whether a work can be “not very good” but still be great is a resounding “No!”
I have studied genre novels from Shelly to Stoker to Matheson and the books that have stood the test of time–the real classics–are very good. You do have to be good to be great.

Since sex and death are the pinnacle of human fascination, romantic immorality seems like a good bet. Would Virginia Woolf’s ‘To The Lighthouse,’ be on the bestseller’s list today? Doubtful.

“This is not criticism, it’s just me pointing out a blind spot in the winnowing process and in the very act of reading the fiction of one’s own culture. Honoring me is a step in a different direction, a fruitful one, I think. I’m asking you, almost begging you, not to go back to the old way of doing things. There’s a great deal of good stuff out there and not all of it is being done by writers whose work is regularly reviewed in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. I believe the time comes when you must be inclusive rather than exclusive.”

- Kathryn

So, to that regard, me and a few friends have started the King Hype Machine – a take on Chuck Norris “facts” tailored towards horror and genre writers.

http://www.bradleyrobb.net/on/media/stephen-king-can-hear-your-fears/

Now, I’ve read the Twilight series, like, three times. Sure, I found some plot holes and found it verbose on occassion, but I ate them up. I’m a reader who is drawn in to the character, the story…I can overlook problems with craft fairly easily if I’m in love with the characters.

But, like I said–it’s different for everyone.