Contradictions in the Midkemia Saga

I love Raymond Feist's works and his writing style.  However, I have to admit his books have a LOT of errors on consistency and continuity.

His earliest books are great and very well-written.  However, as he achieved more and more fame, the quality of his writing fell considerably.  Fortunately, his storytelling remained energetic and exciting, for a time allowing me to forgive the sloppy craft and error-prone literature to focus on the great adventures we kept spinning.  Near the end, however, the errors and strange characterizations started to pile up and definitely affect the quality of the story.  Fortunately, for the last couple books, his quality improved immensely, allowing us to all leave Midekmia on a high note.

But also, apparently Mr. Feist never goes back to re-read his old books, according to his own interviews.  That is something I feel every writer should do.  In my opinion, every writer should be the biggest fan they can be of their own material.  The should know it inside and out and be able to answer any trivia question put to them.  Or at least as close as they can get.  If a writer does not do this, they risk running into issues like Mr. Feist has aplenty: contradictions.  Any Star Wars fan who has seen the prequels know exactly what this is.

Basically, it sends the impression that the creator themselves care so little about their own work that they can't even be troubled to look up facts about their own universe (like the infamous 'Jedi being the guardians of the Republic for over "a thousand generations" vs. "a thousand years"' from Star Wars). Sure, every writer will miss something and it's very difficult to keep a dozen plot threads in line through the hundreds of edits.  But, when you lose track of entire characters and major milestone events in your own stories, that will stand out to even casual readers.

So, just for fun, I've decided to compile a list of all the contradictions as well as what I feel are some problems with characterizations, especially of some of the female characters in Feist's later books.

Major Contradictions (using Chronological Order)

Riftwar Trilogy (Magician, Silverthorn, Darkness at Sethanon)

• No major contradictions.  This sets the tone for the whole epic, and he does a marvelous job of world building and maintaining consistency.

Interim (Krondor: The Betrayal, Krondor: The Return, Tear of the Gods, Prince of the Blood, King's Bucaneer)

• The title "Seignur" is introduced in Krondor, the Betrayal as some fancy, formal word for "Squire" and then never, ever used again.  This title was used in the video game, but since it is so out-of-place and never referenced in any other book, it would have been better to just leave it as Squire James and Squire Locklear (or at least "Baron" or something we've seen and heard in other books).
• The ages in The Betrayal are all over the place and inconsistent in its own story.
• Owyn describes himself as "twenty and two summers" (22 years old).  Earlier, he mentioned he found the Cavell Keep bolthole with his cousin Ugyne when he was "nine" and she was "eight," meaning she as at most just under two years younger (assuming they have vastly different birthdays).  When Ugyne meets James, he assesses her as "eighteen at the outside", but the above would indicate she is 20 or 21 years old, quite a bit different from 18.
• Gamina was stated in Silverthorn to be around 7 (give or take).  In Sethanon, she would be a year older, around 8.  The Betrayal is stated to happen ten years later (it states the current time as ten years past "The Great Uprising" of Murmandamus.  This would put Gamina at around 18, yet she is described as "young, not quite seventeen years of age" when she first reads Gorath's mind.  
• Even worse than this is when Pug, Owyn, and Gorath rescue Gamina on the desert world, she is described as "barely into her teens" when Owyn is clearly attracted to her (Owyn is 22, and "barely into her teens" would normally be considered 13 or 14; Owyn is a lolicon?).  13 or 14 is a far cry from "not quite seventeen" and definitely not her actual age, which is eighteen.  Given her speaking manner in this chapter ("Daddy!  He was lying, daddy!  Makala was lying all the time.  He tricked me; he gave me something to make me sleepy..."), she talks like a 9 or 10 year old, making it even more boggling. 
• Lucas (the innkeeper) mentions to James in Assassins that Talia is all he has left "with her brothers dead in the war", yet in Silverthorn we meet Lucas's sons (AFTER the war) when they leap over the bar to help Arutha and Jimmy catch their first nighthawk (where they plant the ambush in the Rainbow Parrot).  They catch the nighthawk who turns out to be a Black Slayer and almost kills Arutha in the palace.  But Lucas's sons are alive and well there.  Unless they died in "The Great Uprising" of Murmandamus, this makes no sense.  But if the latter were true, Lucas wouldn't have said "died in the war" (which everyone would take to mean the "Riftwar").  Also, the likelihood of two young veterans from Krondor being involved in, much less put into harm's way, during Murmandamus's attack (which came through Highcastle and attacked the Sethanon garrison) is minimal.

Serpentwar (Shadow of a Dark Queen, Rise of a Merchant Prince, Rage of a Demon King, Shards of a Broken Crown)

• William is described at having a passionate affair with a "Jezharra", yet in Tear of the Gods she is introduced as "Jazhara".
• William talks about a very strong broken-hearted romance with Jazhara, culminating in her untimely death.  Yet, in Tear of the Gods, while William is described as having a puppy-dog-like infatuation with Jazhara when he was a young teenager in Stardock, William's ACTUAL tragic romance is with Talia.  Also, Jazhara is both very much alive and very much at a friendly understanding with William (as in neither seem interesting in re-pursuing a romantic relationship) by the end of the book.  Jazhara is described as dying roughly around 2-4 years after Tear of the Gods, so it is possible something blossomed, albeit being very out-of-character for the two, and then she dies off-screen, but this seems unlikely.
• The Panthians are stated and even shown to have a hatred for humankind from birth, yet later we meet an entire subclan of Pantathians who harbor no ill will towards humans, and state that only the priesthood had antipathy to humans.  But, does this mean that the priesthood are a separate race with separate genes that inflict their newborns with hatred for human kind?  That seems unlikely.

Conclave of Shadows (Talon of the Silver Hawk, King of Foxes, Exile's Return)

• As Caleb and Talon travel to Krondor from Sorcerer's Isle, Caleb explains to Talon that there is peace in the west.  He mentions that the daughter of King Ryan is to be wed to the nephew of the EmpRESS of Kesh.  This is despite the fact that we know Diigai has become emperor after Lakeesha's death, based on the events in Prince of the Blood.  We further know from the events in Flight of the Nighthawks that Diigai is still the emperor then, many years after the events in this book.  Thus, Kesh cannot have an Empress, because the ruler is Diigai, a man.  It's possible that, as in some Imperial rulerships in real life, the wife of the ruling Emperor is called "Empress", but this doesn't really shake out well here, because talking about the "nephew of the Empress of Kesh" implies the Empress is the important anchor point in the relationship.  Wouldn't he normally say "the nephew of the emperOR of Kesh" if the emperor was the one in charge?  Instead, he identifies the empress, giving the solid impression that Kesh is ruled by a woman, which we know from the timeline is incorrect, as when Lakeesha's reign ended, Diigai, her son-in-law, took power, passing on to Sezioti, his grandson.
• Kaspar is described to have a son in Talon of the Silver Hawk, yet we later see he is childless in King of Foxes.  This may have been a simple misconception on Talon's part, as he indicates this was a simple guess based on the boy and Kaspar's likeness.  However, Talon is repeatedly shown to not only have a very well-trained eye, but to be a master at human nature.  As for this boy, he is never shown again, nor mentioned again.  He is never seen at the citadel, or as part of Kaspar's retinue.  He simply vanishes, despite Talon having marked him as Duke Kaspar's son, and thus as someone notable in appearance and manner.  In later editions of the book, this missing son apparently has been excised in editing.
• Talon is described as having very little affection for Svetlana, the Princess of Salmater, when he is forced to assassinate her on Duke Kaspar's orders.  He has misgivings, but he describes her as vicious and without scruples in her own way.  He is never described as being infatuated or in love with her.  Yet, in Exile's Return, he describes her assassination as haunting his dreams and as carrying a very profound regret.  Where did these strong feelings come from, for a man who never seemed to have that many regrets at the time of the action?
• At several points starting with Exile's Return, Pug and company imply that the _Riftwar_ (not the "Great Uprising" that followed it) was part of the plot of the Pantathians to free the Dragon Lords from their imprisonment, yet that makes no sense.  The Riftwar was due to politics on the Tsurani homeworld and nothing was mentioned of any Pantathian interference or plots to encourage the invasion until Exile's Return.  It also makes no sense how the Pantathians could have influenced Tsurani politics from across time and space, as there was no contact with the Tsurani until the Riftwar.  This just reeks of colossal retcon.  Later on, they  imply that Nalar influenced the Tsurani to invade in order to further his plans of chaos, but this retcon of a retcon still just doesn't fit.

Darkwar (Flight of the Nighthawks, Into a Dark Realm, Wrath of a Mad God)

• Eric von Darkmoor is described as being single, despite no evidence of a divorce or breakup from Kitty.  Eric and Kitty were married in Rage of a Demon King during the Festival of Banapis in a temple, blessed by the gods, and recognized by the state (by Duke James of Krondor).  In Wrath, it explicitly says (and contradicts the earlier story) that Eric "never wed" and never had children.
• In the original version of Realm, Erik is asked by Nakor why he never married to which he replies that his love for the kingdom has precluded him from taking a wife in clear contradiction to the actual events in Demon King.
• In the edited versions, this clear gaffe is changed to just omit the question and answer.  Thus we are left with a situation where Erik's wife (a girl he was shown to be madly in love with) has vanished from reality and is never mentioned again. No mention of her is ever made.  It's as if she disappeared, despite having been Erik's legal wife by the end of "Shards of a Broken Crown".  In Wrath, it now just refers to him as "never having been wed."
• Feist's personal explanations on his website further complicate the story as he describes Erik and Kitty as simply breaking up due to pressures of Erik's job needing his attention over his wife (and unfortunately splits up two well-loved characters off-screen with no explanation or closure), and never really deciding to "tie the knot", which clearly contradicts the reality of his story, in which Erik and Kitty actually DID get married, legally and religiously.
• Kaspar suddenly has a daughter in Flight of the Nighthawks, when he describes himself as having no siblings when comparing his own experiences to the two Keshian princes vying for the throne.  He also states that his daughter "Natalia" also was an only child.  This is quite a contradiction to the Conclave series, where Natalia is Kaspar's sister.  In Realm, she again assumes her rightful place as his sister.
• Throughout Realm, during Kaspar's journey to find Jorgen and his mother, Kaspar's sister is always (with one exception) referenced as "Talia" although her full name is "Natalia".  This could obviously be a nickname, but one would expect the nickname to only be used in speech, not in internal monologue or in third-person omniscient narration.  This is further exacerbated by the fact that Kaspar always thought of her as "Natalia" in Exile's Return, and it is very unnatural for someone to suddenly make a pet name for a sibling after 40 years of calling her by her normal name.
• Again with Kaspar in Wrath of a Mad God: During his sojurn with the sun elves on the Peaks of the Quor, he is described as never having had any but the most cursory contact with any elves (specifically stated to be limited to an envoy at Sorcerer's Isle and even then he only had a fleeting glance).  Yet, in Exile's Return, Kaspar himself visited Elvandar with Pug, and he met with both Aglaranna and Tomas!  He had the most direct contact with the elves as possible!  He met with their leaders, participated in a major battle when Varen attacked Elvandar, and aided in the recovery.  This is as shocking a contradiction as him losing a sister and gaining a daughter!  It's even more strange as he then proceeds to speak with fairly intimate knowledge on how Aglaranna fairly treats with other Elven nations (such as the sea elves in Novindus) who aren't under her direct reign.  He could have learned through Pug, but he speaks as if one who has actually met Aglaranna and has seen how she deals with her fellow elves firsthand (as he actually did in Exile's return, which would make sense except for the contradiction in the proceeding paragraph).
• This is made even more stark when he tells Jim Dasher to introduce him to Tomas, saying he only knows him by reputation.  Reputation?  The two of them fought side-by-side in Exile!  Kaspar has not only met Tomas before, but they talked, and were very friendly by the end of their time together.
• In Wrath, the Duke of Crydee is described as being "Lester", but a few chapters later, the Duke of Crydee is referred to as "Henry" and then "Harry".  Presumably "Harry" is a nickname for "Henry", but "Duke Lester" changing to "Lord Henry"?  This was in even the same book!

Demonwar (Rides a Dread Legion, At the Gates of Darkness)

• Laromendis is described as "barely being in the Circle of Light," although he was stated to be one of the most senior members earlier.  Gulomendis is sometimes stated to have also been in the circle, but other times said to not have been.

Chaoswar (A Kingdom Besieged, A Crown Imperiled, Magician's End)

• In Legion, Sandreena is attacked by the Black Caps, knocked unconscious and then beaten and thrown off a cliff.  There is never any indication or sign or thought that she was sexually assaulted.  Yet in Besieged, she states that the black caps attacked her, raped her, and left her for dead, which is a major contradiction.  This is a woman supersensitive to her anatomy and gender, and all the inequalities it entails in her universe.  If she had realized she had been raped in Legion, she would have brought it up and launched into a tirade-monologue about the evils of all men.  And if she didn't know she was raped then, how does she know now?  And to just casually throw rape around like it's some kind of minor insult or an afterthought, is in itself a pretty insulting and offensive way to write a novel.
• Talon's son is introduced as "Tyrone Hawkins", even though we were previously introduced to him in Realm as "Laughter in His Eyes", or "Laff" for short.  Now, with a name like that, it would be little wonder he would want to change it, but there is never any indication given that this took place.  There is also no indication at all that he underwent his tribe's traditional re-naming ceremony (like how Keililapauna became Talon of the Silver Hawk), nor is there any indication he was raised with Orosini principles at all.  His name is just suddenly different with no explanation given.  In fact, he tells Hal directly "My father gave me this name" which contradicts Orosini tradition for a name change, where the new name is given by the Gods (or by the person himself).
• Arkan is introduced as Gorath's son despite Gorath telling James that all of his sons were killed during the plot of Betrayal, and that he left no family (aside from Cullich, whom we meet later) behind.  It is also never mentioned during Betrayal, when Gorath met with Liallin, that the two are brother and sister-in-law, or that Liallin's sister, Clothild, was Gorath's wife. 
• The timelines apparently work like this (ignoring the contradiction that he told Locklear that he had no more family when he killed Haseth):
• Gorath fled the battle of Sethanon 10 years prior to his exile narrated in Betrayal.  At that time he had been married to Cullich the Witch according to the events in Betrayal.  They had separated at this moment according to Cullich in Betrayal.
• Shortly after that, Gorath took his clan to the icy north to escape retribution for taking Clothild away from her father.  This marriage was agreed on by the most powerful clan chief (the Snow Leopards) despite Gorath being widely regarded as a traitor for running from the battle of Sethanon too quickly (according to Cullich in Betrayal).
• He told Cullich in Betrayal that he lost TWO sons to Murmandamus's insanity during Sethanon, and "one was our [Gorath and Cullich's] son!"  The other son could have been from a yet unheard of, previous wife, so Arkan must have been born during the interim ten years between Sethanon and Betrayal. 
• Also during this time, Gorath bore three sons, Arkan and two others.
• Ten years after Sethanon, Gorath's tribe was massacred by Delekhan and Gorath fled to the Kingdom to warn them, as recorded in Betrayal.  During this tale, he again met with Liallin, who should have greeted Gorath as a brother, or the husband of her sister, but she made no mention of this relation when they met.  He also met Cullich once more, then was killed fighting Makala under the city of Sethanon.
• Twenty years later, according to Liallin in Imperiled, Clothild came south with her clan.
• Also according to Arkan in Imperiled (now apparently around ninety as he was less than ten years old when his father died), he had been leading his clan for thirty years, and has three sons of his own.
• In Imperiled, Jim Dasher describes himself as "never having been in love" before Fredericka, completely forgetting that he was head over heels mad in love with Feist's misogynistic symbol extraordinaire, Michelle, back in the Darkwar series.  Could be that Jim just didn't WANT to remember, but the way it was phrased doesn't seem like that ever happened, especially considering how important it was to Jim at the time.  One would think Jim would have at least remembered it with some measure of exasperation or humiliation.
• Laromendis, the Star Elf is portrayed as being a known member of the Circle of Light, as a suspected member of the Circle of Light, as one of the prominent members, or as an adjunct, all at different points in the story.  Which was he?  He was originally portrayed as one of the leaders, hence why he wasn't executed along with the rest of the Circle, but then he is portrayed as a minor member or as a peripheral member, and later in Imperiled, as only a SUSPECTED member.

Problematic Characterization

First, we need to look at the elephant in the room.  For a decent-sized chunk of the series in the middle, starting near King's Buccaneer and keeping steady through the Demonwar series, there is a major problem with Feist's characterization of women.  There is an overabundance of rape (both as part of the plot, and as worthless background), and love is characterized primarily as wrong and dangerous by many of the so-called "good" characters.  The love we are shown doesn't seem like actual love other than lust or convenience, but we are told in so many words that it is "love."

This might have something to do with Feist's personal troubles at the time, but it definitely makes an impression.  Even in a fairly grim, dark fantasy like the original Riftwar series, there was very little rape, and most female characters were very well-adjusted and characterized without either being defined solely by their sexual features/proclivities, or being control-freaks or victims.  But moving into the Serpentwar series, many of these well-adjusted, empowered female characters vanished, to replaced by either a) one-dimensional victims of (usually sexual) violence whose sole purpose was to provide someone else's characterization, b) one-dimensional cardboard cutouts of "WOMAN" solely characterized by her sexual organs or sexual desires, or c) controlling and domineering ice-queens, some who shun sexuality altogether, and have a very fierce streak of misandry.  

Needless to say, this caught the eye of many readers and definitely led to some very poor characterization and intolerable characters.  So, let's start analyzing some of the more egregious examples (starting with the two standout worst entries):

Miranda

Miranda first appears in Shadow of a Dark Queen as a sorceress working with Calis and the Kingdom to find "desperate men" to send on a mad mission to Novindus.  She then meets Pug, and they eventually marry.  In Talon of the Silver Hawk, we first meet their offspring, Caleb and Magnus.  We also get some view into their relationship, which continues into later books.

Miranda is very poorly characterized for someone we are supposed to sympathize with and root for.  Namely, she is domineering, petulant, has a very poor temper, overly proud, arrogant, haughty, imperial, stubborn, shortsighted, disrespectful, controlling, and unable to listen to opposing points of view.  She is described as ill-mannered by the narrative itself (in 3rd person omniscient).

From the very start, she is simply unlikable.  She has such a superior, haughty attitude from the onset and it only gets worse from there.  The romance with Pug is so forced it boggles me how two polar opposite characters could ever get together.  Pug is cautious, kind, humble, and even-tempered.  How he can even stand to be near Miranda is a mystery.  Furthermore, Pug is shown to treat Miranda with more affection and closeness than his first wife, Katala.

Miranda's poor character first gets everyone into trouble in Rage of a Demon King where she petulantly demands that Pug attack the Demon Queen far earlier than anticipated.  This results in his near-death, incapacitation, and the further deaths of tens of thousands as Pug's early gaffe led to the invaders gaining the upper hand for far longer than they should have, leading to increased casualties on both sides.  Pug is described as running rashly into this ill-thought out, ill-advised measure out of some desire to prove his love to Miranda.  So, from the start, her petulance, impatience, and shortsightedness has led to the deaths of thousands.

Her poor character traits are first called out by Nakor, who tells her to watch her temper (which has gotten her and her companions into trouble before).  She immediately shouts angrily that she does NOT lose her temper.  Honestly, is she an 8 year old child?  Nakor correctly points out that she's proving his exact point, and he asks how she could have become so powerful without learning basic control over her emotions that 90% of all adults develop.  Then she launches on a cry-me-a-river, I'm-so-special crybaby rant about how Nakor "doesn't really know her".  Seriously, she acts like a 13 or 14-year old  "misunderstood" tween crying to her parents who asked her to come back home at a reasonable hour.  And she's supposed to be heroic and likable?  And for a super-powerful wizard, she really can't afford to not have full control over her emotions (and become a likable character at any rate).

Miranda's flaws and faults continue to build up as the books go on.  She is shown to be a cold and disagreeable mother, and she fights and battle Pug on almost every point during his administration of the Conclave of Shadows (which should be pointed out that he is 100% the full leader; he clearly stated that the Conclave is NOT a democracy, nor is there shared control).  Their relationship isn't shown as a partnership of equals with her encouraging and trusting him, and vice versa.  Instead she secretively goes over his head and behind his back to do things he very clearly should be informed about, sometimes publicly countermanding his orders despite him having full responsibility of the Conclave's activities.  These lead to grandstanding fights, which Caleb and Magnus can recall vividly many years later (despite this being a VERY damaging thing to do in front of your children).  She even flaunts Tsurani traditions and cultures, and intentionally offends people she is trying to recruit as allies simply because she cannot control her impulse to be rude, offensive, and spiteful for more than a few moments, despite the necessity.

When it comes to respecting other traditions and cultures, she is the ultimate in racist, culturo-centric arrogance.  When it comes to the Tsurani attitudes on women, it can be understood how she can put herself at odds with them, but when it comes to other parts of decorum and tradition, she is sneering, belittling, or downright offensive.  She is constantly belittling or bemoaning the Tsurani heritage.  As a culture which clearly is based on Japanese traditions (mixed with some Aztec, apparently), this comes off as astoundingly racist.  To her, only her culture (and it's a culture of one, make no mistake) is worth respect and consideration.  Others are there to be belittled for their quaintness or differences.

As a nail in the coffin, she is also an idiot.  When tasked with finding Leso Varen, she herself tells everyone to look for someone acting strange who may have had a personality change.  Of course, she doesn't suspect the recently "ill", vastly changed in both personality and vitality, magic user she meets (who acts like a slimy car salesman when they meet) because she is too busy being snooty and prissy about how "backwards and conservative" Tsurani Great Ones are.  She then follows this highly suspicious character all alone and is ensnared in a trap when it's revealed he was Leso Varen all along.

Furthermore, she allows her ignorance and stupidity to combine with arrogance and stubbornness.  When commanded by a general (in the middle of a pitched combat situation, nonetheless) to pull the magicians out of harm's way, instead of immediately complying, she shot back "Why?" and even gave her own opinion on the matter.  This is not something an underling (and note she was never in the chain of command, so she had no authority to question or countermand orders) does in the middle of combat.  How many magicians lost their lives because of this idiot's stubbornness to just follow orders?  Instead General Allenburga has to patiently explain to her the tactics of the situation and the reasoning behind his command, during which many magicians undoubtedly perish, magicians who not only lost their lives, but were not around for following battles to help save the lives of others.  All due to Miranda's disgusting, idiotic personality refusing to simply follow orders in the heat of the moment and save the questions for later, because she is so domineering and arrogant, she cannot just accept someone else has the better command of a situation than she does.  Any wonder why it's a relief when she is unceremoniously killed off in the next series?

All in all, Miranda is a horrible person.  She is never shown to be pleasant or genuinely happy.  She is always grousing, complaining, whining, ordering, commanding, rampaging, being angry, unhappy, offensive, and domineering.  And I honestly believe this is all Feist can think of when he tries to think of a "strong woman," because he is unable to see any woman but an overly-masculine, disagreeable Ice Queen ogre as being "strong."

There is even a point where Miranda self-monologues that she "wasn't truly vain, she just pretended to be that way to nettle her husband and children."  This is Informed Attributes of the worst sort.  She is written as being constantly vain.

Miranda's ONLY saving grace is that she is fairly non-sexual throughout.  Despite obviously having sex with Pug enough to at least bear two children, it is never showcased or made a part of her character.  She is one of the very few women who are described or characterized without calling attention to her female anatomy.  Unfortunately, this bitter pill is all we will get as far as women being characterized by something other than their genitalia, as can be seen by the following exhibits.

Sandreena

Oh gods, where to start.  This nasty pill is foisted on us late in the game, in the last two series.  She is the worst character I've ever read, short of pretty much anyone in George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire.  Sandreena is yet another female character characterized mainly be her anatomy.  She is supposedly very hot and sexy (are there no dumpy, normal looking, middle-aged heroines in Feist's worlds?), and all the men want her, but of course, she was "damaged" by being prostituted and raped when she was a barely pubescent tween, so she has issues with her sexuality.  Ugh.  Again?  Oh, and she is either (depending which book you read thanks to another one of Feist's trademark contradictions) beaten and humiliated sexually, or beaten and raped and THEN humiliated sexually just after she is introduced.  Sigh.

That's not even close to the end of it.  She's bad enough from the outset: haughty, proud, full of Informed Attributes about oh-how-smart,oh-how-principled and honorable she is, on and on about how she can't ever trust a man again, etc.  <sigh>  But then we find out a few chapters in that Sandreena had a sour, ill-fated relationship (seriously, again with this character archetype?) with Amirantha, another new main character introduced in the same series as a rogue-ish, gray-morality, con-artist.  When the two meet, Sandreena permanently turns into the shittiest character this side of Westeros (as an aside, this is why I really don't like Game of Thrones, because EVERY character is written in a similar fashion, so I hate all of them and want them all to die horribly in a fire, and the best way to do that is to just throw the whole book on the compost heap; at least with Feist it's only a couple characters I feel that way about).  In pretty much every appearance after this meeting, Sandreena is a little b*tch (sorry for that term, but it really is the best imagery to describe how she is written) who can't control herself (despite supposedly being a religious warrior of strong faith and discipline; I guess all women just can't help but turn into hysterical little children when confronted with problems of the "heart," according to the author).

To start, she punches Amirantha in the face the moment she first sees him (without any build up or introduction, or even hesitation, which is tremendously cartoon-ish and not at all how a real person would act).  She then spends the next few chapters snarking at Amirantha from the sidelines while Amirantha, Pug, and the others are talking about world-threatening events.  It's mind numbing how Amirantha and Pug are logically talking about a major demon threat, trying to puzzle out the cause, and how demons behave, only to have this little b*tch interject snarky, sarcastic comments that do nothing but communicate how utterly an immature child she is.  To his credit, Amirantha just nods and continues on, as if to say "yes, little girl, you are an immature shit," but of course that doesn't stop Sandreena from acting like this heartbroken tween texting oh-so-serious insults on her private social media.

In fact, this behavior continues, and Feist even has Pug acknowledge how petty and banal Sandreena's behavior is.  And THIS is a character we are supposed to root for?  She even jeopardizes a very important mission by arguing and throwing a snarky tantrum right in the middle of it, next to an enemy camp, whining and complaining about Amirantha's strange demonic sexual perversions. All this when a surprise twist is revealed and everyone needs to be on their toes because the mission has suddenly gone sour.  THAT'S the time Sandreena, a supposedly battle-hardened, martially trained, supremely disciplined warrior, decides to act like a goddamn stereotypical teenage brat?  What the hell am I reading?

To his credit, Amirantha tells her to shut the f*** up and really lays down what a little b*tch she is acting like, but I can't honestly understand what Feist was trying to accomplish with this characterization.  Certainly not sympathetic.  It was kind of like that one part of Final Fantasy VIII when Quistis and Rinoa have a fight, and then in the MIDDLE OF THE MISSION Quistis, the mission leader, (with no option available to the player to avoid the upcoming stupidity) decides to go back and "make up" with Rinoa like she's an eight-year-old playing house (instead of a 17-year old in the middle of a vital, deadly mission).  This scene with Sandreena reminded me of that, except Quistis was still technically a minor, so she at least had that lame excuse.  Sandreena is supposedly a trained, skilled warrior in her mid-20s, honed by faith, tough training, and hard discipline to match the Army Rangers, but is instead acting like a love-scorned preteen?  Again, what the hell am I reading?  Is this really serious fantasy?

Even further, on two separate occasions in Gates, Sandreena confronts Amirantha and physically (and violently) assaults him with no warning, no provocation, no chance at defense.  She cold cocks an unarmed, unprepared old man, even going as far as stating if she didn't need him for his knowledge of demon lore, she'd kill him because of their past sour relationship, and all indications are that she is not exaggerating or joking.  Bear in mind this godd*mn b*tch wants to MURDER ANOTHER HUMAN BEING despite a) being of a supposedly pious order that respects life and b) supposedly belonging to an order which defends the weak (and Amirantha, while not weak per se, is never fighting back or raising a hand to defend himself from Sandreena's unprovoked, illegal assaults), all because she was snubbed in a relationship.  And later we find out that the highest crime, the one warranting downright MURDER is that Amirantha led her on a  bit.  She was led on in a relationship.  She was made no promises, no major lies.  She was just led on a bit to get her to drop her shorts.  That's it.  That's a crime worthy of murder for this loathsome idiot.  We never find out how, but probably he whispered sweet nothings to her and got her into bed, and it turns out he wasn't as serious about committing to a lifelong relationship with someone he just met as he was pretending to be.  My Gods.  If THAT'S a crime worthy of execution, you'd have to execute almost every man who picked up a girl in a bar.  JESUS F*CKING CHR*ST ON A POGO STICK, YOU GODD*MN B*TCH!  GET OVER IT.

Holy sh*t.  Is THIS what Feist views women as?  Completely dependent, imbecilic, hysterical, she-witches who only define themselves through the men in their life, especially the ones who scorned them?

The crazy thing is that this characterization makes NO sense.  There is no reason to write Sandreena this way.  Why even bring up relationships at all.  Why does she have to be this "broken bird"?  It never comes up and never makes an ounce of difference.  Her relationship with Amirantha really has no effect on anything other than to have this supposedly (and complete failure of a) comic side story.  There is no reason she has to be a b*tch to accomplish her characterization.  Feist simply put her in here like this, and judging from how almost every woman he writes is essentially this same cardboard cutout, it really shines through just how chauvinistically broken his view on the female gender is.

Other Female Side Characters (Rosalyn, Sylvia, Jazhara, Talia, Alysandra, Natalia, Svetlana,  Michelle)

Of these, only Talia and Jazhara seem anywhere near at least normally characterized women.  Jazhara is fairly strong and straightforward without being too domineering and arrogant.  Talia is a bit weak and soft, but she still has some level of self-respect.  The others vary in personal characteristics, but their narrative purpose all seem to have a distinctly misogynistic bent.  Note that no men in the series have this same urge to use their sexuality to deceive and dominate (no, men are reserved to be brutal, violent rapists; but only if they're "evil").  Apparently Feist believes that most women possess this goal, and only women can use their sexuality as a weapon.

Rosalyn is a non-entity in the story, except to be raped.  Her only character purpose is to serve as a bland "nice girl" that can get the plot in motion when she is brutally raped in front of the heroes' eyes.  She is not a character, she is a simple motivation.

Sylvia is a stereotypical succubus, using sex to dominate men and achieve power through her sexual chicanery.  She even achieves orgasm from her delusions of grandeur.  To top off the misogynist cake, she is an insultingly bland, one-dimensional villain with no reason to be female other than her main method of domination is her sexual anatomy (hence, she must be a woman according to the author).

Alysandra also is gendered as a female only to fulfill sexual purposes.  She is emotionless and without empathy, which could have been accomplished with either gender, but her only real purpose in the story is to teach Talon a lesson that love is dangerous and wrong, because all women apparently are nymphomaniac seductresses who view sex solely as a weapon to wield for power.  The levels of misogyny in how Feist characterizes nearly all his female characters as being driven by a dark need to use sex as a tool to dominate men really hits its peak here.

Natalia is innocuous enough, as a whole, but she is also characterized by Feist (through Talon) as a woman who uses sex to dominate and control.  She is described as being "more dangerous" than Duke Kaspar by Amafi, Talon's right hand man, simply because she can use her body to get what she wants.  Svetlana has a similar characterization.

Then we have the craptacular capstone of misogynistic fail in Feist's entire body of work: Michele.  She is a bit player whom we never even meet in person, but she represents Feist's huge issue with misogyny in a nice package.  Michele is introduced as a dazzlingly out-of-place lover for our new hero in Wrath named Jim Dasher (great-great-grandson of Jimmy the Hand).  For a few chapters, we follow Jim Dasher on his mission, where he is shown to be a highly-trained, highly-skilled, very experienced and streetwise special operative with a large degree of trust and responsibility from the crown.  Then, out of the blue, he is sorely mis-characterized as being helplessly in love with a woman we have never met nor whose relatives have ever appeared in any of the books.  But it gets oh-so-worse.  Michele is described by Jim as lovely and kind, and a woman he wants to spend the rest of his life with.  Bear in mind Jim is not a bushy-tailed young teen.  He is in his 20s, has seen the world, has slept with countless women of high and low estate, so he really knows the game.  He can read people, he knows the personality that scratches his itch, and he has made up his mind.  Of course, this being Feist, it is revealed later she is ALSO a slutty, sexual deviant who is cheating behind Jim's back with every man she can find, using sex as a weapon to dominate, and was deceiving Jim the entire time with a phony Stepford Smiler persona.  She serves literally no other purpose in the story, for after this reveal, she is never mentioned again, nor does this supposed romance drive any event or decision in the story.  In fact, by the next series, it's as if this woman and this relationship never existed (yet another contradiction).  That's correct, Feist introduced a character, named her, gave her a backstory, only to set her up to remind all of his readers that all women are disloyal, deceptive succubi who use their bodies as a means to control and gain power, none of whom can be trusted an inch lest they betray the innocent man they were pretending to be in love with.

Is there any wonder many readers were starting to wonder if Feist's personal issues with women were starting to dominate his work after this?

Comparison with previous female characters

Carline - Carline was one of Feist's best female characters.  Smart, witty, strong, but also affectionate and likable, especially after her character growth due to Pug's apparent and then Roland's real death.  Feist used her femininity to advantage, but didn't overdo it.  Several things she accomplished and roles she represented in the books weren't at all due to her being a female character.  She was strong without being domineering, kind and gentle without being a weak pushover, feminine without being overly sexual-ized.  She was also never a sexual object or trophy; she always felt like she had a real life and personality of her own that existed in parallel to the story we watched with Pug, Roland, and Laurie.  And finally, even though she acted the princess, she never held to any of the poor chauvinistic stereotypes of being overly emotional, hysterical, overly concerned with looks, overly sexualized, etc.  The funny thing was, Carline was the very first female character in the entire series, and she was by far the best characterized of them all.  Of course, when we see her again in Merchant Prince (post-Feist personal trauma with women), she is turned into this horny grandma archetype, looking to get in bed with a man a third of her age.

Katala - Katala's main problem is her LACK of characterization.  She is supposed to be Pug's first love and is given quite an introduction in Magician.  But after that, they are married, raise their child, and build Stardock and we rarely ever see of hear from her.  We do get a few strong bits during Pug's absence in Silverthorn and Sethanon, but after that, Katala slinks away to die quietly in solitude in Prince of the Blood. Pug just dispassionately says "Oh, yeah;  so sad.  See ya."  And he refuses to be with her at the end or even see her on her way.  Yikes!  What a love story for the ages!

Patrick

Moving on to a male example: Patrick is a prince at the time of the Serpentwar and is thrown into a ruling position far too early.  However, his characterization is baffling given what he must have learned and trained for as a royal prince and heir.  He is petulant, arrogant, and prone to tantrums as is befitting a young teenager forced into a high-stress position.  He is also a far cry from the visionary ruler his grandfather, Arutha, was.  This much is okay.  It's not realistic to think everyone can be such a master of control and intellect that Prince Arutha was.  Nor is it farfetched to believe that a young prince might have growing pains when thrust into a highly stressful situation.

However, Patrick is also a Prince of the Blood.  This means he was given certain training and teaching.  Throughout the first part of the series, his actions befit what we know of his character: impatient, and immature.  However, in the Shards of a Broken Crown, his immaturity becomes impudence and outright idiocy.  

Several times he says things that other characters deem thoughtless or offensive (even though those comments in no way would be taken as such by any real person; in fact they are only taken as such to advance the plot), but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

On two separate occasions, he blatantly antagonizes Pug, knowing full well how powerful the magician is, and acts much more like a spoiled brat who lost his treats than a prince, even an immature, rash one.  The first time he scolds Pug and then throws a tantrum like a 6 year old when the Sauer attack his troops, commanding Pug to commit genocide simply because he is piqued.  As the last straw, he gloats and throws Pug's conditions of ending the war with Kesh back into the Keshian's face like he was a 7 year old twit who just won a stupid game at the playground.  This sudden reversion of a prince who was usually just immature and unpracticed into a playground preteen twerp is shocking, and has dire consequences to the plot both times.  Each time it comes across more like the author needed the plot to move in one direction, so he forced a character to do and say things to push the plot the way he wanted without regard for the reality of whether the given character would talk and act in that fashion.

What happened to X character?

Laurie, Kasumi, Hochapepa, Tully, Meecham, Rupert Avery, Kitty, Sho Pi, Nathan, Luis, Dashel Jameson all disappear and are only vaguely given mention again (in the case of Kitty and Sho Pi, not even that much) mentioning how they died X years ago.  What actually happened to them?  They were VERY important characters not only in their respective books, but some in the world itself!  Laurie and Kasumi were dukes, Roo was the richest man in the world who was owed a large amount of money from the Kingdom, Sho Pi was the assistant head of the nascent Church of the "Good" Arch Indar (also never mentioned again), which is pretty important, and though the Jamesons were described as the two most important people in the Kingdom, we never see Dash again, despite him becoming the head of the Guild of Thieves in Shards of a Broken Crown.  We see his brother once in Foxes, and hear about the two brothers via expositional backstory delivered by Jim Dasher in Wrath, but that's it.

Talon, Kaspar, and Eric got a nice sendoff, Carline made an appearance (even if Laurie just died offscreen somewhere), and even that damned General in Novindus had his story fairly put to rest.  Why can't we get at least a wrap-up for some of our main characters?

The Detestable Professor Snape

I am currently re-reading the Harry Potter series.  It truly is a very engaging and immersive tale, and I definitely recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet read through it.  J.K. Rowling is clearly a first-time author, but she is still leaps and bounds ahead of a certain other best-selling young-adult author, who-shall-not-be-named-here-but-you-all-know-who-she-is. 

True, she does succumb to some of the same sloppy mistakes to which writers often fall prey, especially the overuse of -ly adverbs to describe the content of someone's dialogue rather than their manner of speaking.  Still, she weaves such an amazing story that draws us in so much that we excuse those gaffes because they are really secondary and not quite as distracting as it would be if the story weren't quite as engrossing and packed with dramatic tension (*ahemtwilightahem*).  

But, there are two major areas where I think she might have miscalculated how the reader would react to her characterizations of certain people.  

One of these is Severus Snape.  

From here on out, there shall be spoilers, so please do not continue if you have yet to read the full Harry Potter series, as I would be loathe to spoil the wonderful surprises inside!











Okay, shall we continue?

Severus Snape is one of the main characters in the series.  His arc is a vital part of the conclusion of the entire story, and unlike the Marauders, the Order of the Phoenix, and even Voldemort, he features prominently in every book.  

He is also a disgusting and vile man who most certainly should not be a teacher, and even more certainly should not be allowed in a position of authority over young children.

He is obviously intended to play the role of the Anti-Hero, a dark foil to Harry's heroic and often courageous deeds.  He is intended to be a bitter, spiteful man who still harbors enough good in him for the final sacrifice, to do right in the name of an unobtainable love.  The reader should think of him as an inherently good man, although one given to darker deeds and a less then pristine personality.

However, this is not what we get.

And to note, this is about book Snape, not movie Snape.  Movie Snape is light years different from his book counterpart, closer to the original intention, I believe.

Professor Severus Snape, as the title indicates, is a teacher, not of college-aged adults, but of children aged 11 to 18.  At 11 years old, these children are entering their first real magical education.  Like any group of 5th and 6th graders, the children come in with a variety of attitudes, parenting, educational backgrounds, etc.  Regardless of the child's race, gender, ethnicity, background, or scholarship, a teacher's duty is to:

• teach every child the subject material in a way that they can understand and retain,
• meet every child at their skill level and help them make the most of their potential, 
• guide each child to become better people and take their place in society by modeling respectful social interactions and correcting errant behavior where needed.

Snape does none of these things.  In fact, he directly and constantly contradicts each point.   Furthermore, there are three main skills and traits a teacher should possess, and of which they must possess at least one to be even marginally effective:

• Patience - Since most students do not possess the skills of an expert (hence why they are being 'taught'), they will usually not be able to accomplish mastery until the very end of their education.  Hence, patience with their foibles and fumbles is necessary.
• Pedagogical skill - In other words, the ability to transfer knowledge to your students in an effective and retentive way is one of the chief hallmarks of a good teacher.
• Fondness for children - Teachers of primary education (K-12 or 1-12 in most westernized countries) should be prepared and indeed enjoy working with younger learners, all but a small handful of whom are not fully-matured adults.  This also means knowing how to teach and act around children in a positive and encouraging manner.

So... 

Why is Snape a teacher at Hogwarts?  Or anywhere?  Teaching is most certainly not his calling, he seems to despise children, and even worse, he is an anti-teacher.  He is not only incompetent at his job, he is actively harming his students and disrupting their learning.  His students actually often fare better learning the material on their own, with no supervision at all than with Snape in charge!

"Professor" Snape fails to teach his students even the basic subject material (how many of his students actually succeed in learning the potion craft in his class, as opposed to either knowing it ahead of time or seeking instruction outside of class?), and he actively discourages and belittles children who would otherwise show great potential with a little guidance.  He bullies and humiliates children in front of their peers, he shows blatant favoritism, he encourages students to bully others emotionally and physically, and he openly encourages bullies to brutally assault other defenseless children.

Hogwarts is the premier magic boarding school in the United Kingdom and is overseen by both a Headmaster and a Board of Education who would be responsible for ensuring the excellence of the teaching staff.  There is no excuse for Snape's continued employment.  And yes, Dumbledore could have kept Snape close at hand in myriad different ways other than placing him in a job that he is not only unsuited for, but where he is actively destroying children's futures.  So, the double agent plot point discovered in Book 7 could have been resolved in a way which would have kept so many students out of Snape's harmful reach.

J.K. Rowling unfortunately went way overboard in vilifying Snape, too far to make him an Anti-Hero.  In order to work, an Anti-Hero's backstory must illicit sympathy from the reader and eventual understanding of his/her current actions.  Snape's characterization is too petty and vile for this to work effectively, and thus the epilogue comes off as forced and hammy when Harry names his own son after Snape.


In-Book Evidence

There are many scenes in the books which bring to light Rowling's flawed characterization of Snape, and then immediately raise questions of the logic, immersion, and reality of a world where a teacher like Snape can not only keep his job, but stay out of Azkaban for reckless endangerment and assault on young children.  Here are just a few of the times in the books which show that Snape should not only be allowed nowhere near kids, but is also just a failure of a human being in general:

Philosopher's (Sorcerer's) Stone

• Before we even meet Snape in person, we are told that he constantly shows favoritism (very much a major no-no for teachers) to students of his own house: Slytherin (a group which was unfortunately the victim of Rowling's other major flawed characterization, but I'll get to that in another article).  He would ignore rule-breaking from some students, and issue inordinate punishment for minor transgressions to others.  This shows that his unprofessional immaturity and spiteful behavior was established well before Harry arrived.  So, even without the living reminder of his "childhood trauma" around (in quotes because as we later find out, the "trauma" was largely self-imposed, and almost entirely a fabrication of his own delusions), Snape was still a failure of a teacher.
• In their first face-to-face meeting, in the very first Potions class, Snape's first words to Harry are accusatory, spiteful, and confrontational: "Ah yes, Harry Potter.  Our new - celebrity."  What kind of teacher (or human being) accosts a new student, an 11-year-old boy nonetheless, with this kind of hateful introduction?
• He then proceeds to bully and intimidate an 11-year-old boy in his first year in the magical world, while fully knowing that student has next to no experience with wizards or wizarding society.  He humiliates him in front of the class, a major no-no for anyone who has taken even an introduction course for a teaching license (which Rowling has, strangely enough).
• Snape continuously humiliates and torments 11-year-old Neville Longbottom, although Neville has no relation to Harry or Harry's father, nor any real relation to Snape in any way.  Thus Neville loses any confidence he might have had and proceeds to give up on potions although he might have otherwise shown some skill had he been taught by a real teacher and not a pitiful, narcissistic man-child.  In fact, whenever Snape is absent during Potions class, Neville shows a fair bit of aptitude for the craft, just by not having his teacher around!  Oops!  Maybe Snape shouldn't have been cast as a teacher!
• Snape torments and humiliates Hermione constantly, despite her being very studious and willing to learn new things (which is a teacher's main goal is it not?).  

Chamber of Secrets

• When Ron and Harry are caught driving the Ford Anglia to Hogwarts, Snape is in full support of Harry's expulsion, knowing full well (as we find out in Book 7) that Harry's only protection relies on him staying under Dumbledore's watchful eye.  But since when does Severus Snape care about a young boy's life, after all the lives he's already ruined?
• When the basilisk first starts to take its victims, Snape immediately (and quite publicly) accuses Harry Potter of being a murderer, despite having no evidence other than his own irrational hatred for a 12-year-old boy he doesn't even really know.
• During the Dueling Club, Snape instructs and encourages Draco Malfoy how to launch a poisonous snake during what should have been an instructional demonstration.  Basically, he used the guise of a lesson to release a highly venomous, lethal animal into a confined area packed with young children, aged 11 to 18.  It's almost like he was trying his hardest to kill Harry.  Because that's what easily could have happened had Harry not spoken Parseltongue. And if not Harry, that lethal snake would have surely attacked and likely killed another student.  What kind of teacher actively seeks to put a whole school-full of young children in deadly jeopardy, and then keeps his job?

Prisoner of Azkaban

• Snape uses the Invisibility Cloak to follow Lupin to the Shrieking Shack.  This, in and of itself, is relatively admirable, given he appears to be trying to save the lives of three of his students.  However, we soon learn that his real intention is to settle a 20-year-old schoolboy grudge against Sirius Black.  Snape enters the room well before the truth comes out, and he witnesses a vast amount of evidence pointing to Sirius's innocence.  He then is directed toward a simple and easily-performed test which could prove it (expose Scabbers as Peter Pettigrew), as well as possibly deny Voldemort his servant and inevitable return.  Once more, Snape chooses the path of insane sociopathy, refusing to listen to reason or any words that might shatter his fragile, arrogant delusions.  Thus, he almost sentences an innocent man to a fate worse than death, as well as hastening the return of one of the most evil mass-murderer monsters who had ever existed.
• After everything had passed, Snape petulantly exposes the secret of Remus Lupin's werewolf affliction, despite it having no bearing on anything.  He does this purely out of spite, not because he actually believes Lupin to be a danger.  What kind of toddler-esque tantrum can this supposed "adult" (I use that term loosely) throw that can be any more blatant than this?

Goblet of Fire

• When Goyle is hit with Harry's rebounded curse, Snape shows sympathy and directs him to the hospital wing.  When he sees that Hermione was hit with Draco's rebounded curse, he instead humiliates her in front of the entire hallway.  He does this, knowing that Hermione had just been assaulted by another student.  
• Harry appropriately receives detention for his attack on Malfoy and subsequent assault on Goyle.  Malfoy, however, gets away without punishment and is now emboldened by his success to become an even worse sociopathic bully than before.  Snape certainly is teaching something, at least!
• In Malfoy's stead, Ronald receives detention for absolutely no reason, thus showing all the students that there is no clear link between action and consequence, something all teachers learn is very important when it comes to teaching children "right from wrong."
• When Harry is in a panic after meeting a muddled Barty Crouch on the grounds, Snape instead uses this emergency, life-or-death situation to further intimidate and bully Harry, rather than respond immediately as any sane human being, especially an authority figure, would have done.  This delay could have easily made the difference in the murder of Barty Crouch by his son.  If Snape had immediately taken action, Barty Crouch Sr. might have been saved and been able to divulge the information about his son, which would have prevented Voldemort's subsequent rise to power.
• Snape accuses Harry of stealing from his office, again despite having no reason to believe Harry would do so other than his own irrational, twisted hatred.  He then proceeds to try and bully Harry by insinuating he would perform illegal physical and mental assault on Harry with a highly restricted dose of Veratiserum.  This is akin to brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot their kneecaps if they don't "talk."  In our normal world, this would be considered intimidation and extortion on the level of the mafia, not something we would tolerate junior high teachers doing to our 14-year-old children.

Order of the Phoenix

• Harry learns about Snape's childhood trauma through his trip into the penseive.  However, this does little to explain his current psychosis, and instead causes a lot of problems with his characterization:
• Ultimately, Snape was bullied as a child, okay.  So were many people.  So was I.  Do I take my childhood trauma out on my 5th grade students by emotionally scarring them?  No, of course not, because I'm not a monster.
• Snape was bullied as a child by children.  Now, in turn, a large percentage of his students are being bullied as children by an adult, and a teacher at that, one against who they are completely powerless to fight back.  Wow, that's true Snape justice for you.
• He was bullied by Harry's father, okay.  That sucks for sure.  But, how can anyone in modern, first-world society sympathize with a character who believes that a child should be held accountable for the crimes of his father, especially when that child was a 1-year-old infant when both of his parents were murdered.
• And sure, his hatred of Sirius Black is quite justified. But, isn't sentencing that man to die-- no wait, the Dementor's Kiss is stated to be even worse than death-- for a crime you know he didn't commit a tad contemptible and even villainous?  Snape was quite ready to do so in Book 3.
• And where does all the hatred of Lupin come from?  Lupin never bullied Snape.  His only relation to Snape's hard childhood was one of association.  Does that constitute a crime now, in Snape's twisted lawbook?
• And as it all turns out, Snape's line to Harry about how James only saved his life after performing a "practical joke that would have ended in [his] death and [James's] expulsion from Hogwarts" is a blatant, ugly lie.  In fact, it was Sirius who set up Snape to have a look at Lupin in werewolf form, and then only after Snape was snooping around, spying into other people's private lives, which is pretty detestable in and of itself.  In the end, James really did save Snape, after learning of Sirius's actions, and at no point did James really set up Snape to be in any danger.  So, Snape is a dirty liar on top of everything else.
• Now let's actually deconstruct the pensieve scene, where Harry supposedly learns that his father was an insufferable prat.  This scene is clearly intended by Rowling to make an excuse for Snape's present day sociopathy and (by Harry's reaction) get the reader to sympathize with him.  It does not.  It fails in every way, and here's why.  Let's start at the top:
• Snape purposely follows the Marauders after the OWL test.  He has supposedly been bullied by them before.  Why on earth would he hang near them?  Probably to catch some personal secrets that he could use to humiliate them (hey, he learned early!), unless it was to catch one of them alone and jinx them behind their back, which I wouldn't put past Snape either.
• Then, he directly places himself in harm's way by sitting near the group of supposed bullies that supposedly made his life hell.  The whole engagement that followed was partly Snape's fault for not exercising prudence (which he supposedly prides himself on having in great quantities).
• Next, when James approaches him and hurls over a vocal insult, Snape immediately goes for his wand and tries to curse James.  Let's remind ourselves that Snape used his time at Hogwarts to learn a battery of dark spells, designed to maim, injure, torture, and murder (not the least of which was Sectumsempra, a spell that almost kills Draco Malfoy in Book 6 when cast by someone unfamiliar with it's execution; in the hands of its master, who knows what it could do).  A wand in Snape's hand is akin to a loaded gun.  Imagine if a kid on the playground got approached by some other kids hurling vocal insults, and then pulled out a gun and aimed to kill.  Is that okay in anyone's book?
• Next, James reacts to having a loaded weapon pointed at him by disarming and then freezing Snape when he goes for his gun-- I mean wand-- again.  Sounds prudent to me!  In fact, he only starts humiliating Snape after Snape gets his gun-- I mean wand-- and fires a bullet-- I mean Sectumsempra-- at James, causing blood to appear.  Let's think.  James at this point has not really harmed Snape.  Snape reacts by trying to murder James.  Snape is getting what he deserved in my book.
• Instead of attacking Snape back with a deadly spell, James hoists him up and humiliates him for punishment.  After caving in to Lilly Evans, Snape again goes for his gun-- I mean wand-- and tries to murder James again.  What the hell?  
• When Harry talks with Sirius, Sirius confirms that Snape often hexed James whenever the chance presented itself (probably from behind, without showing his face, because that's how Slytherins roll, especially greasy slimeballs like Snape).  This really seems to be a lot less of a jock-bully vs. innocent nerdy victim set up and more of a friendly, popular guy vs. sneaky, sociopathic coward kind of deal.  So, really Snape comes off looking no better than usual, and maybe even worse, as he's transferring all this proxy hate and loathing onto Harry with not even the excuse of a real childhood trauma.
• When Snape tries to teach Harry occlumency, "Professor" Snape completely fails at teaching, despite that being his only necessary job function at Hogwarts.  He not only fails to convey any of the subject matter, he proceeds to bully, intimidate, and emotionally assault Harry so much that Harry ends up permanently unable to acquire skill in occlumency, and constantly complains of his scar feeling worse than before the lessons were forced on him.  Yes, Snape ruined a student so bad that not only did the student not learn the requisite skill, he became crippled in that skill forever.  Nice job of anti-teaching, there!
• Also during these lessons, Snape uses the penseive to protect his own privacy, but constantly intrudes and assaults Harry's very personal memories.  Not only does he get off on humiliating and assaulting children, he is a yellow-bellied coward as well.
• In Book 5, Snape mentions that only the highest level scores on the OWLs can get into his advanced Potions class.  He then proceeds to threaten and blame the students for his own poor pedagogy and failure as a teacher.  These are traits that anyone who has been through basic teacher training (like J.K. Rowling!) would recognize as being the classic telltale traits of a very poor teacher: basic inability to self-reflect and self-analyze.
• After Harry finds out about Snape's "worst" memory, Snape outright tries to murder Harry, despite Harry's protests.  This is not the act of a redeemable man.  Harry dodges spells that completely obliterate various pieces of furniture and equipment, any of which could only have had a very violent, and most-likely fatal, effect if they had connected with a 15-year-old boy.
• Afterward, Snape ignores Harry during the next Potions lesson, and Harry actually does a lot better in class.  What does it say about your worth as a teacher and as a human being, when not doing anything at all is many times better than any alternative.
• Of course, Snape still uses the opportunity to blatantly and unfairly destroy Harry's schoolwork, and gives him a 0 for a perfectly acceptable potion.  This has two problems.  A) It shows Snape to be a foul, unacceptable excuse for a teacher, and B) shows that many kids probably could make his advanced classes, if he weren't actively sabotaging his own students' work.  Then he blames the students for being "stupid."  Nice bit of professorship there!
• During the OWL exams, without Snape there to intimidate them, both Harry and Neville do much better than normal.  So, just Snape's absence is a vast improvement over his teaching "skills" (or lack thereof).  Why is he a teacher again?

Half-Blood Prince

• This book is relatively tame as far as Snape's detestability goes, considering most of the time is being spent to set up Snape as the villain for the infamous ending.  But even then, I knew Rowling was going for the ole double twist.  Still, at least Snape is too busy trying to fool everyone into thinking he's the bad guy to actually be a bad guy.  This man can't do anything right!  But in this case, it's at least a positive.

Deathly Hallows

• At the end of the main story, Harry learns all about Snape's love for Lilly Potter, his mother, after viewing Snape's final memories in the pensieve:
• We learn that Severus has done all of the "good" works in his life simply for the sake of a promise to Dumbledore, wherein Dumbledore would attempt to save Lilly (and Lilly only, he didn't give a fig about the murder of an innocent man and infant) from Voldemort's wrath. 
• After Dumbledore fails to uphold the bargain, Snape is then bound only by promises of revenge and guilt.  At no time does Snape do the "right" thing because it's decent, or moral, or just the right thing to do.  
• He always had a self-absorbed reason for every action he took, even if it was all for the sake of a pitiful, obsessive unrequited crush on a girl he could never have, not because of his birth or station or anything, but because he exposed himself as a narcissistic, racist, murderous thug, and good people (like Lilly) generally don't like those kinds of people.
• After we are told everything, we realize that Snape views Harry as the final fruit of his lifelong obsessive love.  Harry is Lilly's child, the child of the woman Snape supposedly "loved" more than anything else, enough that he was able to resist and betray the darkest wizard in the history of the world.  So, does he honor her memory by treating her child, the boy she died to protect, with care and compassion?  Did he  try and become that father figure Harry never had, to make sure Lilly's spirit continued inside Harry?  Ha!  Don't forget who we are talking about.  Yeah, maybe a normal, well-adjusted human being with an ounce of goodness inside him would do all that.  But that's not Severus Snape.  Instead he "honors" Lilly's memory by treating her beloved son with nothing but hate, spite, scorn, and contempt.  He makes Harry's life a living hell, and does his best to see Harry afflicted with depression, sociopathy, psychosis, or worse. 

In Conclusion

Bullying is known to cause severe depression, trauma, sociopathy, suicidal inclinations, and other very harmful syndromes in victims, even into and throughout adulthood, and it's bad enough when coming from classmates, but from a teacher?  Rowling should know better what kind of important duty and trust a teacher has in a child's life, as she has taken a teacher training course herself.  So, why would she paint Snape as a teacher brutally betraying his most sacred responsibility to young children, and then expect readers to sympathize with him (and in a crazy twist, actually succeed!)?  

Rowling turned Severus Snape into such a loathsome individual, such an immature, sickly, pathetic man-child, that his backstory and actions throughout the story in no way matches up with the "Anti-Hero" image we are clearly supposed to get from Snape.  Instead, the backstory scenes come off as a transparent ploy to gain cheap sympathy points from the readers, and the epilogue's revelation of Harry naming one of his son's after Snape falls flat with forced emotions that just don't resonate.  

While Snape isn't a murderous black-and-white, mustache-twirling villain like Lord Voldemort, he is nowhere near a good person, inside or out, no matter how deep you go.  Nor is he any kind of hero, anti-, dark, tragic, or otherwise.  He is a sad, pathetic excuse for a pitiful human being who never grew up from being an immature brat, and who uses his childhood trauma as an excuse for sociopathy.  Sociopathy which has undoubtedly scarred many young children, perhaps (as bullying often does, unfortunately) even causing some of them to end their own lives in bouts of severe depression due to constant bullying by their own teacher (as an aside, I believe Neville Longbottom shows considerable strength in putting up with Snape's constant humiliation as well as he does; no wonder Neville's a Gryffindor).  Sociopathy which on many occasions indirectly aided Voldemort's return to power.  Sociopathy against those most vulnerable (like orphans, say), who are most in need of a strong guide and mentor (i.e. practically anyone other than Snape).  Sociopathy that would have been okay with the murder of an innocent infant (as well as countless others) as long as the object of his one-sided, obsessive "love" was kept safe.  Sociopathy that is not in any way redeemed by his pointless death in Book 7.

Oh, and the last nail in the coffin?  Snape can't teach worth a damn, even when just looking at basic subject matter.  Sure, he's a "genius" with potions, but none of his students really learn in his class, as they're all too frightened and intimidated to try anything new.  In fact, most of his same students flourish under a different Potions teacher, even one who is less skilled like Slughorn.  Even Snape's old textbook does a better job of teaching than he ever could in person.  So, not only is he a child-bullying sociopath, he can't even teach!

Basically, Rowling messed up big time with Snape, doing a very amateur job of characterization, and it shows.  This is probably one of the two major errors in the book (the other being the over-the-top evil vileness of every single Slytherin, aside from one side-character in Book 6) that really has the potential to derail the story for a lot of readers.  It makes it hard to re-read the series, actually, and has raised a lot of debate on how "good" the series really is (the answer to that, of course, is that it's all in the eyes of each individual reader, but still...).

And for those readers who do sympathize with someone who gets off on tormenting young children, I have to wonder a little bit if their minds are really in the game, or if it's mainly due to Alan Rickman in the movies.  At the very least, Rickman did a masterful job of toning Snape down, which was necessary because I believe to actually see Snape's sociopathy on screen would have traumatized viewers.  So, good on Rickman for turning Snape from a monster into someone at least we can kind-of relate to.  But, if not for Rickman changing Snape into the author's original intention, I can't imagine very many people (not sociopaths themselves) cheering Snape on.

In the end, maybe Lucius Malfoy was right all along with his opinion about Dumbledore's fitness for the job of Hogwart's Headmaster, letting Snape stay on the job.

Four Levels of Story Craft + Twilight = ?

A 4-layered anaylsis of writing craft on a popular teen romance series

Twilight, for those who might not know, is a best-selling teen romance series by Stephenie Meyer.  There are four books in the set: Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn.  It is, by all accounts, wildly popular and has spawned a film franchise based on the books as well as a couple spinoff novels, fan-fiction, and millions of heated internet discussions worldwide. 

The series revolves around the relationship between a normal human teenager, Bella, and a supernatural vampire, Edward, who is a little over a century old.  At one point a love triangle develops with another teenage boy, Jacob, who has the ability to shapeshift into a wolf.  The stories of each of the four books consist mostly of this tumultuous romance and eventual aftermath.

This will be an analysis of the series from a top-to-bottom perspective, as well as a discussion of how I see the various levels of story crafting and writing.  As such, it will be rather lengthy, so please pull up a chair and relax!

Emotional vs. Analytical Criticism

The Twilight series has also proven to be quite controversial for myriad reasons.  Some people are concerned with the featured romance of the series, worried the relationship between Bella and Edward is not a healthy example for impressionable young teens in this day and age.  Some are concerned about particulars, like how Bella interacts with her father and friends, or how when two characters in the book develop deep attractions to a toddler and an infant respectively, this is portrayed as cute and romantic rather than problematic.  Others are worried at the series being presented (sometimes by English teachers in school) as some sort of literary masterpiece, some sort of exemplar for budding writers to aspire to.

Quite frankly, bashing people for enjoying Twilight is unfair, as is assaulting (either physically or through electronic means) people who criticize Twilight.  The fans, the detractors, even the author herself, have all acted like immature children (forgiving those who are, in fact, children, of course) at many times, across a wide spectrum of silliness, with personal attacks being flung back and forth.  

Instead, I'd rather focus on the literary mechanics from a more analytical angle.  Saying "anyone who likes these books is [insert insult here]..." is wrong, logically and ethically.  We all like different things.  I've thoroughly enjoyed stories that were written so poorly that I'm sure a 12-year-old first time writer could accomplish a similar level of prose.  I've enjoyed movies that were nothing but action schlock: robots beating the snot out of each other and a teenage dork "winning" a hot girl, with only the barest of notions given to a ridiculously hollow plot.  Some people call these "guilty pleasures," but whatever.  I can see how the notion of Twilight's story and fundamental concept can be enjoyable to a reader.  That's not a problem for me.

What is a problem for me is English teachers and Literature professors allowing their emotional enjoyment of the aforementioned "guilty pleasure" to cloud their educational judgement, and pass along Twilight as some sort of literary masterpiece.  I'll be frank.  Twilight, from a literary perspective, stinks like durian fruit left under a pile of cow manure on a scorching hot summer day.  It should not be shown to kids as educational material unless it's to examine how not to write a story, nor should it be shown to anyone as an exemplar of writing craft.  Like it?  Sure, okay.  Enjoy it?  Go for another re-reading!  Teach children that this is how writing should be done?  No thank you.

Yes, this is my opinion, and yes, I will proceed to back it up with my reasoning.

Popularity vs. Quality

There are many aspects of writing a story.  It truly is a form of art.  Mastery takes decades, though sometimes talent can really shine through at a young age.  Many young authors show raw ability at a young age, unrefined and ready for years of work to hone into a sharp skill.  Some, like Christopher Paolini (creator of the Eragon books) let early success from a monetary standpoint deceive them into thinking they have achieved the pinnacle of writing craft.   Thus, they refuse to learn and get better, close their ears to criticism, cite their popularity as a symbol of their mastery, and continue to get paid to write mediocre crap.  

Good enough for a day job, and occasionally enough to turn a third-rate hack into a millionaire, but I would like to separate literary quality from monetary success.  These are two completely different things.  Every discipline, from consumer technology to gourmet cuisine to basic household goods, has its share of products which are popular and sell very well, but are cheaply produced with poor quality.  The fact one brand of earphone is the best-selling among its peers doesn't mean it's the best made, or highest quality.  The same goes for food which may be highly popular, but not necessarily superior as a cuisine (thinking fast-food here).  Yet, there are many people who defend a literary work in this same way, by citing its popularity as a measure of its quality, and prohibiting any criticism or logical thought to penetrate their bubble because a book ended up on a bestseller list.

We can't really say critiquing Twilight is unfair because it is a bestseller, popular though it may be.  Temporal popularity is by no means a measure of prolonged excellence.  In fact, if we allow temporal popularity to become the standard by which all literature should be judged, purple-prose romance novels, pulp science-fiction/fantasy, and schlock airport thrillers like The Da Vinci Code would be considered the pinnacle of writing.  Classics from Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Ernest Hemmingway, Mark Twain, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, J.R.R. Tolkien, and even William Shakespeare wouldn't be considered "good" books.  Some were moderately popular in their day, but most only became classics over the test of time and after critiques and analysis by studied literary experts, accomplished readers, and scores of junior high and high school English Lit. students.

And let's not even start any "you can't talk until you write a best-selling novel" baloney: 

1. This is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority."  One doesn't have to be a recognized expert in something to make a good point about that topic.  
2. This just connects back to the "popularity = quality" argument, as if not having written a popular novel means one can't be qualified to comment on writing.  
3.  It's lame, immature, irrational, childish, and completely dodges the main issue.  

Whether or not I write a best-selling, acclaimed novel has no bearing on how well-written another book is, and has no bearing on whether what I say is true or not.  Who I am is not important; what I say is the thing which should be analyzed and judged.

Finally, to head off the childish "why did you write/critique/criticize/care about this if you hate it so much?" antics (I can't help but to read that in the whiny, arrogant voice of an 11-year-old spoiled princess, if that helps cement the image I get when I hear this).  Basically: a) because I have fun deconstructing things, which is why I was an engineer, b) because maybe some people can read this and decide for themselves, and c) because I am a licensed teacher and I am appalled that anyone could show these books as an example of "good writing" to children who don't know any better.  If I can stop just one child from buying into that idiocy or one teacher from making a terrible mistake with his or her classroom full of impressionable blank-slates, then I count all the work as worth it.

So I have to ask: can Twilight withstand analysis from an unpublished, aspiring writer on an Internet full of self-proclaimed know-it-alls, let alone the test of time by true literary analysts?  If it can't even survive me, how can anyone expect it to truly stand up as a romance saga that beats the Bard himself!  For reference, here is a quote from Stephenie Meyer herself, when asked to compare Twilight's romantic main leads to the leads in The Princess Bride:

"Actually [the] Bella and Edward love story is better than them. When I was in college I wrote a paper from a feminist perspective (it's an easy way to write) on The Princess Bride so I am little biased. The problem I have with Westley and Buttercup is Buttercup is an idiot and it doesn't bother anyone, all that matters is that she's beautiful, that is her only value. At the end she redeems herself a bit, but the female characters are very weak in that story. Westley is brave and smart and fights, Buttercup is just beautiful, it's her only thing: her brain means nothing, her personality means nothing to him, they have the kind of love where they can't leave without each other. It's not a great example to me. I couldn't find one who was a really good comparison to me, I mean, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr.Darcy's it's pretty good, except you should think that if either one of them dies the other one will carry on bravely, and Romeo and Juliet were kind of idiots, they didn't know each other very well. And Anna Of Green Gables and Gilbert Blythe (Anna Dai Capelli Rossi), but they are much more like Jacob and Bella, they’re friend they get each other's nerves a lot. I didn't find out yet a Bella and Edward love story that really satisfied me that way." - Stephenie Meyer, VolterraTV Interview, 2007 @~3:40

Let's forgo the analysis of this quote, for while it is rife with misunderstanding and arrogance, it is not my intention to focus on the author of Twilight rather the work itself.  I only include the whole quote as evidence that there are people who hold Twilight on the same level of the classic works mentioned above.

So, does Twilight stand on the level of these classics in terms of writing craft and story telling?

My answer: No, it does not.  Now, to the why.

Four Levels of Fiction Writing

Good fiction writing is a composite of many skills.  A story is complicated, with nuance piled on poetry, back to imagery, then to accuracy.  There are many things that go into making a story not-only enjoyable, but durable as a work of art to be appreciated by many, even centuries down the road.

I have tried to distill my classification of story crafting into four main categories.  These go from the most abstract, examining the story as a meta-concept, to the most concrete, the actual mechanics of the English language (this lowest level is what you get graded on with your junior high school essays).

More abstract
Plot	Plot coherence, beginning/middle/end, plot structure, story movement
Character Building	Motivation, characterization, character change (especially for protagonist), likability and sympathy
Painting the Scene	Word choice, poetic flow, drawing the reader into the scene
Raw Mechanics	Grammar, punctuation, spelling, correct word usage
More concrete

Plot

This is the highest, most abstract level.  It encompasses the story as a whole.  It can only be examined by taking into account entire story arcs: a whole book, or even a whole series.  This is how the story itself stacks up in terms of a tale to test the sands of time.

This includes things like plot coherence.  Does the story make sense?  Are there plot holes?  Are there pieces that just don't match?  Is there a solid continuity, in other words, does the story follow its own rules?  Does a story keep its own facts straight about previous scenes?

Plot structure is also important.  Is there a clear beginning, middle, and end?  Most well-written stories have them, even in non-traditional storytelling.  A beginning sets the stage, introduces the reader to the plot and characters.  Even in media res stories have this step, if only in bits and pieces interspersed with action. A middle section drives the tempo.  It sees the problem(s) develop, confound the protagonists, and puts the heroes on the path to confront the problem(s).  Even problems as inane as a trip to the grocery store, or the general discomfort of daily high-school life suffice in many well-written stories.  But, there must be a tempo as the story develops.  The end sees the problem(s) come to a head and ultimately be faced by the protagonists.  Sometimes the heroes win, sometimes not, but there has to be a point where the protagonists' interaction with the particular problem(s) is resolved, either for good or ill.

Finally, story movement must always push the plot forward.  This is about tempo and pacing.  If we stall too much, the reader will get bored.  This doesn't have to be fatal, and many readers might even find certain side stories enjoyable.  After all, the classical tale Moby Dick by Herman Melville has an entire chapter dedicated to the business and technology of whaling.  However, do this too often, and the plot becomes a jumbled mess, lost in what amounts to authorial self-indulgence.

However, the most important facet of plot is consequence.  There has to be an effect, a change, a cost exacted in the process of the hero(es) facing the problem.  It can happen sometime during the story or at the climax.  But either way, the protagonist shouldn't get to solve the problem for free.  There should always be something meaningful that the hero has to give in the course of his or her adventures.  It can be as simple as childhood innocence, a life of luxury, crushing despair as they work to fix the problem; or as weighty as losing their best friend or mentor or family, or even their own life.  This gives the plot meaning and purpose, like it was something worth fighting for after all.

Character Building

This next level deals with a slightly more concrete notion in the story: the characters.  Every story has at least one character.  It can be a person, an animal, a plant, or even a concept.  There is always at least one protagonist at any time, although it can change multiple times during the course of the story.  Furthermore, something has to be happening in each part of a story, and the observer(s) and/or actor(s) constitute the characters.

A static character is boring.  They can do interesting things, but if they don't change, they are not interesting.  A story has to show change.  Even if that change is in the reader's perceptions, making him or herself a character in the story.  Although some good stories play fast and loose with this rule, generally a character arc should be present with at least one, hopefully many, of the written characters, and generally one of them should be the protagonist.  This makes the hero or heroine of the story an interesting, dynamic character.

And this can lead to the author's number one goal with characterization: sympathy and likability for the main character(s).  The characters don't have to be goodie two-shoes.  They can even be outright jerks, but they should be likable jerks.  Likability is what makes a reader want to read this character's story.  The reader should care about the main character, and want them to succeed.  Some stories can pull off a thoroughly detestable protagonist, where the reader wants to keep reading to see them put through misery and punishment, but this is a risky venture, in most cases best left to veterans with decades of writing experience.

This ties in with motivation.  A character's motivations should be made clear throughout the story, protagonists and villains alike.  This helps the reader to sympathize with them and understand their reasons for doing what they do.  This makes a story believable, real, and engaging.  A madman villain who likes to torture small children just because he's evil is asking for too much suspension of disbelief.  There is no cause and effect here, and using insanity as a defense only creates a random force of nature rather than a believable antagonist.  However, a villain who tortures small children because he was himself tortured by bullies the same age as those he is directing his psychosis toward?  Now the reader understands what drives the character.  Even if we are horrified by his actions, we understand the "why?", the motivation.  Sympathy is simply an extension of this, and when the villain's actions don't cross the reader's Moral Event Horizon, maybe we can even see ourselves doing the same thing in his shoes.

Example: Let's take a fantasy tale of an evil-for-the-sake-of-being evil queen waging a pointless war of domination against her one-time friend, a perfect "good" princess in a neighboring country.  Okay.  Pretty stale so far.  Maybe we root for the princess of the bereaved kingdom because readers often take the side of the oppressed, and we like cheering on "good" in general.

However, say the enemy queen was seeing visions of an apocalyptic force destroying both countries and she has nightmares of her long-time princess friend lying in a pool of blood, her eyes, once so full of life and energy, now empty and void.  Now, let's say the force will be summoned by a priceless relic in the princess's domain, which can only be won through force of arms once the princess's castle is conquered.  Isn't this getting more interesting?  Why didn't the queen just ask for the artifact?  Why not tell her princess friend about her nightmares?  Why not reveal the visions?  Maybe diplomacy failed, maybe no one believes her, maybe seeing visions is taboo or prohibited magic.  All this starts to make the story more dynamic, more believable, more engaging than a simple good vs. evil tale.  Some readers may even want the "evil" queen to win, so she can save her friend and both kingdoms.  Many will probably wish for a third option, where they can stop the fighting and confront the force together, as allies.

Sympathetic protagonists make us root for them to succeed and gets us engaged in their story.  We are interested in their plight and their eventual confrontation with the problem.  Sympathetic villains make them believable, and not just cardboard cutouts.  We know why they are acting a certain way and can see them as three-dimensional characters, even if we don't condone their actions.  

Painting the Scene

Once the overall story is set up and the characters developed, we get farther from abstract concepts and thoughts, and closer to the actual words on the page.  The top two stages really deal with story planning, while the bottom two deal with actual writing.  The fundamental part of writing is the scene.  It is the basic building block.  Constructing a scene is very important in the crafting of a story.  In fact, it can be said this stage is the most vital, and consequently, the most in need of practice for a budding writer.  Hence, this section will also cover the most territory.

Here are the general items to remember for scene construction:

• Purpose of a scene
• Tone and story movement
• Point of view and perspective
• Flow, rhythm, rhyme, and meter
• Word choice and crafting prose

Each are vital in the creation of a story, and cheating on any of these will have effects on the reader.  Sometimes, it will be minor, like an afterthought, or a  subconscious reaction.  A reader may feel that something is odd, but not know why, like looking at a drawing of a person that is slightly off.  Sometimes, it will be a fatal error that will cause a reader to throw the book away in disgust.  But now matter how severe, these reactions can be avoided by taking care when crafting the scene.

Purpose of a Scene

First of all, each scene should be constructed with purpose.  If a scene does nothing to drive the story forward, it should be excised in editing.  This connects with the idea of authorial self-indulgence mentioned above.  Too many of those and the reader might see the story as an author's self-insert fantasy, rather than as an individual story about a believable character.  Second, the purpose of a scene should govern the set up.  Fast-paced action scenes should be written differently than slow, relaxing, descriptive scenes. This leads to pacing and flow.

Tone and Story Movement

A story needs to be constantly changing from beginning to end, just as the characters.  The pace should change and vary.  If the pace is too constant, the effect will be similar to listening to a lecturer droning on in a steady, unwavering monotone.  But if it varies too much in tone (i.e. the "feel" of a story), from happy and comedic to sad and melancholy and back again in the space of a couple chapters, a reader may get mood whiplash.  Also, taking time during a fast-paced fight sequence to describe the character's clothes, weapons, and the background all to the tiniest detail, will disrupt the tempo.  The detail in the scene must match the tone and pacing of the story.

Point of View and Perspective

Narrative perspective is very important.  Choosing a particular point of view (POV) governs what can and cannot be presented.  A first person POV, of course, cannot be used to show the inner thoughts of other characters besides the narrator.  A limited third person POV that constantly flips through other character's perspectives will eventually be confusing to the reader as they try to remember who is thinking what.  Each have their uses and limitations, and sticking to the rules of the chosen perspective is very important.

Cheating on POV will jar readers out of the story.  For example, consider a first-person narration definitively telling the reader why another character is performing an action (as in motivation).  Unless I am reading someone's mind like a certain Betazoid counselor, it is impossible for me to know their feelings; I can only guess at motivations from what I see and know from my own perspective.  Thus, only other character's actions should be displayed, with their innermost feelings and motivations left to the narrator's (and hence, reader's) intuition.  This also goes with cheating on what the characters should and shouldn't know at the time.  Just because the author knows something doesn't mean the characters should.  Characters who magically figure out the puzzle, know not to be worried because "it will all work out fine," or  amazingly know where the bad guy will head next are all cheap shortcuts, bypassing good story telling.

The reader may not even pick up on these things right away, and some readers are more attentive to details like this (or just care about it more) than others, but from a literary sense, these cheats are indicative of sub-par story crafting.

Flow, Rhythm, Rhyme, and Meter

Within the scene itself, the author must gauge the flow of events.  The speed and pacing are important, as is the actual poetry of the words.  Readers usually read in their heads, a process known as sub-vocalization.  This leads them to feel the flow of the verse, which can affect how they interpret a scene.  Using the same word over and over again, even when mechanically correct in each sentence, disrupts the poetic flow and rhythm of the scene.  Rhyming words in prose (as opposed to a poem) can have unintended, sometimes amusing, consequences.  Also, as books in print are a visual medium, seeing words line up on a page can have side effects very difficult to predict for an author, as formatting often changes depending on the material (hardcover vs. paperback vs. Kindle, etc.).

Word Choice and Crafting Prose

Next, there are the words themselves.  An author needs to paint the scene in our minds.  This is where the aphorism "show, don't tell!" comes into play.  We as readers have to be drawn into the story through the words by being shown the story and feeling responses for ourselves in lieu of the characters, not merely be told how characters are feeling in a dry, emotionless vacuum.  

Word choice is vital in this regard.  Overusing the same word, or wearing out one's thesaurus describing the same phenomenon in twenty different ways will test a reader's patience.  We don't generally need to see thirty variations on the color "green" to get the idea.  This is especially bad when the POV character or narrator would choose different words based on their characterization (or character building, as shown above).  A straight-laced soldier-type, or example, probably wouldn't describe his sergeant's eyes as "a silky, chocolate hazel" in color.  This is jarring and pulls the readers out of a story. 

Keep this in mind always: In general, the author's main goal is to draw the reader into a story such that the reader forgets they are reading words written by someone else.  If the reader focuses on the story as a meta-concept, they lose immersion and become acutely aware of the story as a fictional construct.

Scene construction is the main place where this unfortunate event can occur.  It often happens for several reasons:

• The words being used don't match the POV character as mentioned above.
• The flow of the prose is jarring or too artificial.
• Details are missing from a scene, like setting description, tactile sensations (like wind, grass rubbing a foot/leg, etc.), sounds, and especially smells (the number one most forgotten sense in prose!).
• The construction of the prose becomes jarring and stilted.

The third point is important, and shouldn't be overlooked!  Senses are how we interact with our environment, so the characters should use them too.  The more the characters see, hear, touch, taste, and smell (in order from common to almost completely absent from most fiction writing), the more the reader is immersed and can imagine themselves in that scene.  And that is the ultimate goal, as made above.

The last point is almost at the mechanics level, but even if the grammar and spelling are correct, certain things make the reader very aware they are reading a made-up story.  The speaker attribution or dialogue tag (the verb used to denote dialogue; usually said and similar variations) and "ly" adverbs (adverbs like quickly, forcefully, disparagingly) describing the speaking action are probably the biggest culprits.  It is actually a very quick-and-dirty method of gauging the skill of a writer, as amateur writers with little research and practice at the craft will try to avoid using the word "said" at all costs.  These unwieldy replacements for the word "said" are often paired with redundant, contradictory, or plain impossible-to-perform adverbs describing how the character is speaking.

This sometimes lead to ludicrous results that are called Tom Swifties based on a character in an old book which used them constantly.  Some possibilities are more tame and include (with my explanation for how they can jar a reader out of a story):

• "I can't believe that!" Martha screamed wildly.  (Yes, I know she screamed because of the exclamation mark.  And I would guess it's in a wild fashion because a) she's screaming and b) the context of the story up to this point.  Both the speaker attribution and adverb are worthless and sound forced.)
• "Shhh.  Look over there," Bob whispered discreetly. (Again, I understand whispering is a discreet action.  The -ly adverb is repetitive and clunky.)

But they can get even more ridiculous, including using verbs as dialogue tags which do not relate to the action of speaking at all, or provoke silly imagery:

• "Don't look," she hissed.  (Try hissing this, I dare you.  It just sounds, and looks, ridiculous)
• "Don't look," she growled through her teeth (Double dog dare you to try this one!)
• "Don't look," Betty smiled.  (As hard as I try, I just can't muster the talent to smile a sentence.)
• "I'll say he is," ejaculated Chet Morton (A real one from The Hardy Boys, and yes, when an author tries this hard to avoid "said," the results can be quite amusing.)

And ultimately, with enough adverbs and "said-book-isms" (synonyms for said and other speaking actions), the writing just becomes a parody, like in my favorite Tom Swifty knock-off:

"They had to amputate everything below the knees," Tom cut in defeatedly.

For some, who-knows-why reason, many Elementary School and Junior High School English teachers unreasonably pound the idea into children's heads that using "said" is some sort of crime against language (maybe because, despite being teachers, they are unpracticed writers themselves).  In fact it's the exact opposite.  Skilled writers, who have honed their craft, are well-read themselves, and are willing to take advice and critique from others, as any apprentice craftsman should do, will advise others to just use "said".  Without fail, without worry.  There are two main reasons for this:

1. "Said" has become something of punctuation to a reader.  When a reader reads "So-and-so said," they just skip over it and mentally make a note that So-and-so was speaking.  Other words don't fit the mold and can be jarring, especially some of the more creative synonyms for "said."  
2. The context and dialogue should be enough to carry intent.  Using an occasional "whispered" or an "asked" should be fine, but a "replied" or "answered" is redundant.  These are obvious from the context of someone having spoken first or asked a question.  And, even worse, using verbs which describe motivation and other non-speaking activity, like "So-and-so allowed" or "So-and-so ventured," or the inclusion of a lot of -ly adverbs attached to these speaker attributions is a dead-accurate signal of hack writing.  If these are required to show intent on the part of the speaker, it shows the story has deep flaws with characterization and dialogue construction.

Everything mentioned about said-bookisms apply equally to other parts of writing craft too.  Describing any action with adverbs which are silly, over-the-top, or downright impossible (like "crushing" something "gently") will have similar effects on many readers.  

Raw Mechanics

This level is the simplest and most concrete.  This is what gets students red-marked papers returned after their English tests.  Spelling, sentence construction, punctuation, and word choice.  It seems so basic, but at the same time, basic, easily-caught mistakes are rampant in published writing, especially at the "schlock" and "pulp" level.  In fact, this can be said to be another great guideline for measuring writing quality.

Spelling

Mistakes in spelling can be caught by most modern word processors, but this should be used as a last-catch only.  All good writers should have a veritable data-bank of words at their disposal, with the confidence to spell each one.  Relying on the computer to catch spelling mistakes without actually understanding the rules for English spelling or how to actually spell words is dangerous.

This being said, it should be pointed out that quite a few of the "rules" teachers grind into us in Elementary School, are actually not all they are cracked up to be.  If a "rule" has more words acting as exceptions than following the rule itself, can it really be called such anymore?  The easy answer is to find the rules that work most of the time, learn the exceptions, and just use words in general.  Write them, read them, type them, and spelling will sink in even without the little red, squiggly line.

Sentence Construction

Before talking about punctuation, which greatly depends on understanding various pieces and parts of an English sentence, some coverage of actual sentence construction should help.  Most of us learn early on what the various parts of speech are, but sometimes when crunch time is on, we tend to forget some of the lesser-known ones.

• Nouns and Verbs - These we pretty much all remember; nouns are people, places, or things/animals while verbs are action or "doing" words.  Sometimes the distinction is tight (like an "idea" being a noun, but not a tangible "thing"), but those rules hold for most cases.
• Adjectives - Another easy one, adjectives describe nouns, with no exceptions.  Colors, feelings, style, and many more words which describe or modify a noun are adjectives.
• Adverb - Boldly heading into sometimes troubled waters, adverbs generally modify verbs, but actually have myriad uses.  They describe how an action is taking place.  Adverbs can also modify other adjectives, however (as "sometimes" in "sometimes troubled waters"), as well as entire clauses or sentences (as "only" in "Only the good die young").
• Preposition - These usually describe object (noun) relationships ("under", "over", "around"). 
• Conjunctions - These join sentence clauses (either dependent as "and" in "He went to the store and bought a fish", or independent as "but" in "He went to the store, but there was no fish") and sometimes even join sentences (as "so" in "He went to the store. So, he's not here right now.")
• Interjections - Simple phrases like "Hello!" or "Over there!" or commands like "Run" or "Sit down."
• Articles or Determiners - Words that declare or identify nouns as definite ("the"), indefinite ("a/an"), possessive ("my/mine"), declarations ("this"), and many other helper words that point out or substitute for nouns.
• It should also be said that most parts of speech can also be found as phrases instead of single words.  For example a "noun phrase" could be "the dog running by the lake" which is treated as a noun for the purposes of the sentence and any other modifiers (like an adjective as "fast" or an article as "that" in "That dog running by the lake was fast.")

Moving on to putting words together, basically, English is a S-V-O (subject, verb, object) language.  These refer to parts of a sentence, which, to review, are:

• Subject - The noun doing the verb
• Verb - The word(s) or phrase that describe the action or state the subject.  They come in two flavors: transitive and intransitive.  
• Transitive verbs must take an object noun-phrase.  This is an action something is being done TO something, so a direct object must be provided.
• Examples (subject in red, verb in blue, object in yellow, indirect object/adverbial phrase in black): "Tom punched Jerry.", "Carrie placed the apple on the table."
• Intransitive verbs must not have a direct object.  This is an action something or someone does by itself.  In what might be a confusing rule, they can take indirect objects.
• Examples (subject in red, verb in blue, object in yellow, indirect object/adverbial phrase in black): "Tom waited.", "Carrie stood up."
• Many verbs can act as either, depending on the subject and situation.  These can have the direct object provided (making the verb transitive) or omitted (making the verb intransitive).
• Examples (subject in red, verb in blue, object in yellow, indirect object/adverbial phrase in black): "Tom read a book in the store.", "Tom read for an hour."

These two parts of a sentence are necessary for any complete sentence, and that's all that is needed (barring interjections and commands).  But there are optional parts mentioned above we can add:

• Direct object  - The noun receiving (or is the target of) the action.  These are used with transitive verbs.
• Indirect object - A noun which is being used to perform the action or is a secondary target (like "blackboard" in "He wrote his name on the blackboard.").  Indirect objects are often used in prepositional phrases.

As seen above, it is possible to have an indirect object and no direct object as in "He ran into the tree."  The verb "to run" has no direct object, but the secondary target or noun helping this action is the tree, unfortunately "helping" in an apparently painful manner.

These form simple sentences, but sentences can be more complex, through use of clauses.  A clause is either a complete sentence by itself (known as an independent clause) or is not a complete sentence with both a subject and a verb, and requires more of a sentence to help complete it (known as a dependent clause).  This distinction comes in useful when using punctuation, especially with the comma (see below).

In addition to clauses, phrases can be used in place of most parts of speech, as indicated above.  Noun phrases substitute as nouns, adverbial phrases substitute as adverbs (like "when I go shopping", etc.), and so on.  In every sense, however, phrases act just like the part of speech they substitute, and can have modifiers, clauses, and everything attributed to them just as single words can.

But even with all this, the basic required format for English sentences is one of these three patterns:

{subject} {predicate}.

{subject} {predicate}; {subject} {predicate}.

{subject} {predicate}: {subject} {predicate}.

The {subject} must be a noun-phrase and the {predicate} must be a verb-phrase.  They can each be fairly complex.  Each can include adjectives, adverbs, sub-phrases, clauses, etc., but there must always be a subject and a predicate, with very few exceptions (like commands, interjections, and informal conversation).  If one of these two is missing, it is an incomplete sentence.  If there are more than these two phrases not separated by appropriate punctuation (a full-stop like a period, question mark, or exclamation point to end a sentence and start another or a semicolon/colon to separate independent clauses in a single sentence), it is a run-on sentence.

As can easily be seen, the more complicated the sentence, the easier it is to lose one's path.  This is why simpler sentences are preferred for most writing, with complicated sentences coming every once in a while to mix things up.  But true labyrinthine monstrosities can really mess with the reader, who will be aware that "something" is off with the sentence they just read, even if they have to diagram it to figure out there were really two predicate clauses--or none at all. 

Punctuation

Punctuation can drive many people to the brink of insanity, but there are a few basic rules about when to use various English punctuation.  The comma (,) is probably the most difficult to grasp, but semicolons (;) and em-dashes (--) are also confusing for most new writers.  A full guide is out of the scope of this blog post, but here are a few pointers:

• Period - Also known as a "full stop" because it ends a sentence (see below).   It should not be used (except for artistic reason) without a complete sentence, nor should the sentence continue beyond the period.
• Comma - Ah, the most difficult, misused, and most poorly understood punctuation of them all, with very complicated rules that get to the core of the English language, but still very necessary in, what could be easily described as, nearly all works.  Commas aren't placed at random, based on speaking style, or due to author's taste.  They have a very defined set of rules:  
• Separation of list items (A, B, C, and D) or combining more than two descriptors (He drove an old, boxy, blue car.)  The last descriptor before the noun does not have a comma following it.
• Mechanical devices, such as numbers (1,234), dates (March 13, 2010), locations (Ft. Knox, Kentucky), etc.
• Separating dependent and independent clauses in a complex sentence, but only when the dependent clause comes first (If you are going to the library, please bring back my books. vs. Please bring back my books if you are going to the library.)
• Separating off a) introductory, b) non-essential/ancillary, or c) interrupting information (a) Jane, you really have been working hard lately., b) Bob, the editor of my local paper, talked to Dan about his article., c) This work is, if I may say so, exemplary.)
• Separating a dependent clause when which is used (but not with that) (She wrote a book, which I use to teach my class vs. She wrote a book that I use to teach my class)
• Separating two independent clauses separated by a conjunction (He was going to the store, but he went to get his car washed first or She went to the store, and she bought some potatoes.) but only when both clauses are independent (contrast with He went to the store but got his car washed first. or She went to the store and bought some potatoes.)
• There are many other more-detailed rules when using more complex sentences (like two independent clauses split by a dependent clause, etc. etc., but the above ones are a good foundation)
• Semicolon (;) - This one is easier; it has a smaller set of rules that the comma.  It is used like a period in that it should only ever be used to separate two independent clauses with no conjunction word.  However, it is usually used when the second independent clause naturally follows the first, like a train of thought, or a natural consequence (Jane went to George's house; she knew he was already home.) or when certain connector words are used (like "consequently", "for example", etc.) (Jane went to George's house; nevertheless, she didn't find him.).  Semicolons can also be used in lists or combined-descriptors when continuous use of commas would be confusing (He wanted a sleek, fast motorcycle; new, black riding gloves; some new leather boots, which he was only going to use while riding; and a nice motorcycle jacket, plain but strong).
• Hypen (-) - A hyphen is used to join certain compound words, usually two or more nouns or adjectives (blue-green or mother-in-law), when a string of words act as a single adjective (He saw the five-year-old girl walking her dog by herself. or He's a can-get-a-date-anytime type of guy.), and also common compounds like "stick-in-the-mud" or "rubber-stamp".  It can also be used to split a word on a syllable boundary at the end of a sentence, although this use is discouraged except for typesetters trying to justify page margins.
• Note that when specifying numerical or date ranges without using prepositions like "from" and "to", we usually use a hyphen since the proper punctuation (an en-dash (–) ) is usually not available on most keyboards (The population of Japan was 120–130 million in the mid 2010s).  But, technically, the en-dash would be the typeset and correct punctuation to use in these cases.  The dash would not be used if words like "from" and "to" were present (From 1952 to 1960, The United States President was Dwight D. Eisenhower. or The VIP section is from row 21 to 30.)
• Em-dash (-- or —) - This is an oft-abused punctuation—people often don't know when to use the em-dash or commas—but it is still important to master.  This punctuation is used as an offset, when an idea interrupts the sentence for a moment, and then allows it to continue.  It would normally take the place of a comma or parenthesis, but is always more emphatic and in the readers' faces.  It is not subtle or gentle, so they should be used relatively sparingly—definitely no more than one set a sentence.  If the parenthetical thought comes at the end of a sentence, only one em-dash is used, otherwise they should be used in a pair to denote the start and end of the ancillary, off-hand, or parenthetical section. A space offsetting the em-dash is optional.
• Note: The elongated dash is used after typesetting, although it is rarely found on a keyboard.  To instruct a typesetter (and most computer-based word processors) to use an em-dash, usually two hyphens are used in succession (like "--").  
• Exclamation Point (!) - This is an easy one!  This is just putting a big bang on a sentence, or indicates shouting!  As always, don't overuse this!  It might appear your characters are shouting at each other all the time!  Or, readers might believe your characters are even shouting in their heads when they think!
• Question Mark (?) - Is this for a question?  Yes.  A question.  Even when not used with a complete sentence, this indicates a rising tone of voice and a question.  See?  Note that a) this is not a replacement for a rising tone of voice and b) this must be used when and only when the preceding sentence is actually a question.  For example, when someone is in an inquisitive mood, that doesn't mean they are asking a question. (Tammy wondered if Bill was coming home early tonight. is a statement, not an actual question, and should not get a question mark).  Likewise, use question marks in the middle of a sentence (Bob wondered where? how? Peter was going to try to kill him.) very sparingly as an artistic choice, because it is a rule-breaker.  
• Note: And for all that is holy to whatever religions exist in this not-so-gentle world of ours, never use more than one-question mark in succession (????).  The same goes for combining a question mark and an exclamation point (?! or !?).  It is an amateur shortcut and indicative of hack writing.  If a writer needs to relate a shouted question, or an incredulous inquisition, they should do it via the text, by setting the mood and showing us the speaker's worry, anxiety, or inquisitiveness via description.
• Parenthesis (()) - Parenthesis have some mechanical uses (listing examples, enclosing numbers in numerical lists, dates, etc.), but also some artistic uses (of course, all writers need to use all the tools at their disposal, right?) revolving around parenthetical thoughts, or off-hand comments.  It should be noted that using parenthesis in fiction can be seen by many as distasteful, as we are in people's heads and people don't think in parenthesis (they just think normally), and hence the writing should reflect that, as fiction writing is just a construct around trying to represent people's thoughts and actions in a situation.  So, use artistic (as opposed to mechanical) parenthesis in fiction writing sparingly or knowing full well what the end-result might come across as.
• Ampersand (&) - This represents the conjunction "and" & that's pretty much it.  It shouldn't appear in fiction writing except when quoting a real-world item.  In fiction writing to take the place of "and" in normal prose, this would be seen by most readers as distasteful, distracting, and juvenile.
• Colon (:) - Colons have many mechanical uses: time, ratios, etc.  Colons have many grammatical uses: a) beginning a list, b) setting off an emphasis, or c) separating a correlating phrase that is an example or immediately follows the first (similar to the semicolon) (a) Bob loves many genres: sci-fi, fantasy, mystery, non-fiction., b) Jane only told Jim one thing: stop., c) Jerry replied that he didn't know: he had just arrived, after all).
• Single (') and Double-quotes (") - "These denote someone speaking," Jack said.  It can be used for any dialogue, speeches, telepathy, thoughts, internal monologue, and other questions as well, but should never be used to represent prose or action.  If the speaker/thinker is quoting something inside their speech/internal monologue/whatever, a single quote should be used to offset the embedded quote.  Try to never have a situation with three-levels of embedded quotations.  Finally, quotation marks (single or double) should always be paired, with one exception.  When a quote continues through into another paragraph, the closing quotation mark is omitted and a new paragraph is started.  The new paragraph should begin with another opening quotation mark.  The entire speech should be concluded with a closing quotation mark.
•     Jack gave his thoughts to the assembled speakers.  "Never leave off a quotation mark, because it really makes it difficult to determine when someone is speaking or just acting.  Like they always say, 'Quotes should always come in pairs.'  Now that I think on it, though, there was one place where the closing quotation mark can be left off.
•     "When a paragraph breaks during a long quote, you leave off the closing mark and break for your paragraph, and then start with another opening quote to show that I am still talking.  Wow, good thing you really shouldn't be writing about people speaking this long too often.  It might get boring if your entire story is just one long block-quote!  Oh, do make sure to use the closing quotation mark when the long-winded speaker is finally done talking, though."
• Slash (/) - This is used to take the place or "and," "or," or "cum-" in certain compounds, in some abbreviations, to show a rate, or in fractions (and/or, him/her, printer/fax, c/o, $20,000/year, 3/5 the quantity), as well as some other rare cases.  It shouldn't really be used in fiction writing outside these mechanical uses.
• Ellipsis (...) - These are used to show omission.  In fiction, the ellipsis is usually used to show someone trailing off or an idea that never quite gets finished.  For interruptions, the em-dash should be used.  Again, overuse of this device is sure to pull readers out of the story and make them remember they are just reading a novel after all...

This also extends to knowing definitions of words, including using the correct homophone. Just like a mathematician knowing her formulas and a computer programmer knowing his programming languages, the better an author is at using the English language, the higher quality the writing will be, hands down.

Here are some of the more frequently mistaken word pairs that every writer should have down pat:

• it's/its
• "It's" is a contraction for "it is" ("It's about time you showed up!")
• "Its" is possessive (The cat bared its teeth)
• their/they're/there
• "Their" is plural possessive (They showed their passes to the guard) 
• "They're" is a contraction for "they are" ("They're on the way now!")
• "There" is a positional adverb to describe a place ("The gate is over there")
• your/you're/yore - Possibly one of the most confused homophones (at least the first two).  
• "Your" is possessive ("Take out your gloves.")
• "You're" is a contraction for "you are" ("You're going to see how fast this car can go!")
• "Yore" is not quite as common, but is a poetic way to mean "long ago, in the past" as in "the long dead days of yore", etc.
• two/to/too - While the first (the number 2) is not usually mistaken, the other two can often get fiction writers into trouble.
• "To" is a preposition indicating direction of travel or application ("He flew to San Francisco")
• "Too" is an adverb indicating inclusion or more than expected ("Jane made a cake.  She made a pie too!" or "Jill drove too fast and almost crashed.")
• lay/lie/lied - These are some of the easiest words to misuse as they are very similar and confusing.  
• "To lay" means a subject puts an object somewhere.  It is a transitive verb which must have a direct object.  It's past tense is "laid."
• "To lie" means the same thing (to place or to put one's self), but it is intransitive, meaning it takes no direct object.  A subject lies down.  It's past tense, just to make everything more confusing, is "lay." 
• "To lie" also means to tell a non-truth.
• "Lied" is only the past tense of "to lie" when it means telling a non-truth.
• Here are some "sound alike" mistakes often found in writing:
• loose/lose - Not really homophones, but often mistaken.  The former is the opposite of "tight" and the latter means something has either gone missing, or someone was defeated at a competition.
• mute point/moot point - The former is never used and makes little sense.  The latter is talking about a point which has already been agreed on or is no longer even being argued (it comes from "moot" which was a meeting where everyone came to decide and agree on actions or rules for the community).
• for all intensive purposes/ for all intents and purposes - Again, the former is never used and makes no sense.  The latter is talking about a point which functions in pretty much all practical cases (for all intents, i.e. desires, and purposes, i.e. outcomes).
• And please never use these commonly misused words:
• Irregardless - The word is "regardless," meaning a lack of regard or relevancy.  The "ir-" prefix (meaning a contradiction) is useless, as the "-less" suffix (meaning lack of) is already present.  "Irregardless" may now have a spot in the dictionary (more as a surrender to the large masses of people who can no longer write or speak proper English than because it is correct), but its redundancy and warped pronunciation should give writers a hint to stay away if they want to be considered serious authors.
• Literally - Unless it is "literally" happening exactly as said (as opposed to an analogy, metaphor, parody, or other figurative speech), this word is wrong.  It does *not* mean an emphasis or something shocking is occurring.

So, let it be said that even writing masters will fat-finger a word or goof on a piece of grammar once in a while.  This is akin to getting a 95% on a test rather than 100%.  But when a published best-selling novel is running multiple grammar errors in a single chapter?  That's a failing grade, simply put.  This is what editors are for.  And what revisions are for.  And what reviewing your own work is for.  And what listening to critiques from other people is for.  When a writer fails to do these things, especially listen to others critique their work, they are ultimately doomed to be a poor quality writer forever stuck at mediocrity, despite how popular their latest pulp romance or sci-fi novel gets.

How Does Twilight Measure Up?

There are precious few novels which can show mastery of each level of writing simultaneously.  Even classics have their weaknesses and strengths.  However, a strong showing on a couple levels of writing can cause readers to forgive mistakes or neglect of others.  

For a personal example, I love David Eddings's novels, especially the Belgariad and Mallorean.  The story-telling is fantastic and the flow of the prose really works well for me.  The characters are mostly sympathetic, charming, and entertaining, and even the unsympathetic characters have some things I can find endearing once in a while.  The dialogue is witty, well-voiced, and offers great insight into each character.  But, honestly...  The writing kind of sucks.  He really overuses said-bookisms and -ly adverbs like crazy and his story is full of tropes seen in every fantasy adventure from here to Narnia.  Still, the good parts really carry me through, and I can forgive the cheesy cliches and the eye-roll inducing speaker attributions because the story, the characters, and the plot are entertaining and well-written.

So, how do I rate Twilight in each of the four levels?

I don't think it's any surprise for me to say I believe it fails miserably.  But of course, just saying it would be a purely emotional antagonizing, so I will show my reasons why I believe Twilight does not pass muster in each of the levels I laid out:

Plot

This can only be used as a loose term with these books, as there really is no plot to speak of throughout the series.  By Meyer's own admission, these books were created from a simple, somewhat-erotic dream, then expanded from there into a book, then expanded into a further two books, with the last being a mishmash of idly-created epilogues and continuations of the middle two books.  

Creating a book from a dream isn't a bad thing.  In fact a dream can be a great creative spark.  But given that the dream was apparently erotic in nature, and given that the whole purpose of the book was this romance, which is resolved fairly quickly, it becomes obvious that the rest of the series is a constant barrage of filler just to pad out word count and sell more books.  Again, Meyer admitted to only writing Twilight and a bunch of epilogues which she called Forever Dawn, which turned into Breaking Dawn after she got pressed by her publishers to write two more books: New Moon and Eclipse.

There are four books, so let's examine the "plot" of each:

Twilight 

The main plot seems to be the romance between our first person narrator, Isabella Swan, and Edward, a century-old vampire.  There is some attempt at suspense as Bella tries to piece together what Edward really is, but it's mostly window dressing and ultimately plays no real role in the story and has no real payoff.  Bella figures out Edward is a vampire with no consequence toward their romance. She is neither frightened by this, nor does she tell anyone else.  Bella is highly attracted to Edward physically, with a lot of mention given to physical attributes.  Edward is attracted to Bella's "smell," and although there is mention of him possibly losing control and feeding on her, that threat never goes anywhere, nor has any effect on any actual resolution.  The fact that Edward is a vampire in no way interferes with their romance. 

The romance "plotline" is resolved about 300 or so pages in, with Bella more or less being accepted as Edward's girlfriend, complete with confessions of "true love" despite having met only 8 weeks prior.  A new plot arrives apropos of nothing in the form of another heretofore unmentioned vampire trio, which then kicks the next plot into gear.  A new vampire threat begins to hunt Bella and she must escape!  This random plot does try to ramp up tension and at least puts our heroine in danger (even though it starts 378 pages into the book).

The quality and believability of their sudden relationship is subjective to the reader, a "perfect, true love" from a starry-eyed tween's perspective, to a "stalking, abusive disaster" from a cynic's perspective.  But, objectively, I believe I can say that this plot is non-existent.  

To figure out the plot, simply ask: What is the problem?  What situation(s) do they face that confounds them and they must overcome with diligence, action, and choice (and hopefully some sort of sacrifice)?  The "vampire" thing doesn't stop either of them for a moment (aside from Edward's hesitancy, and even that disappears pretty fast), nor is there any real danger of another person "stealing" the love of a character (as you would imagine would be an issue in a high-school romance drama), since it's abundantly clear that Bella only has eyes for Edward and vice versa throughout this whole book.  There really are no setbacks with them getting together socially or financially, nor do they have to overcome difficulties as a result of their choice to be together.  Simply put, there is no problem confronting the main characters.

A plot with no problem is not a plot.  It's a series of events leading to boring inevitability.

The quality of the tacked-on second section is iffy.  It has some tension, but it's so short and it comes so late in the story, almost like an afterthought.  The resolution really has no lasting effects or consequences for any of the characters. 

So, in summation, I must conclude that Twilight has no plot.

New Moon

The main plot of New Moon is ostensibly that Bella has been dumped by Edward and now has to get on with life.  Despite it being obvious to anyone with half-a-brain that Edward pretends to not love her because he feels his proximity to Bella puts her in great danger, Bella still plays the bereaved, tragic heroine, and throws a major infantile fit over losing her first boyfriend (of less than six months) as if it is the end of her world.  Stephenie Meyer then leaves four pages blank with only a month written on the page in possibly the most obtuse, juvenile, and hackish attempt ever found in the written word at portraying Bella's catatonic depression.

Believability of a teenage girl falling into bleak depression for four months after losing a boyfriend of half-a-year aside, the plot here is a mystery to me.  What is exactly the point?  Bella goes on to meet Jacob and they have fun together.  In truth, many feel that this relationship was written much better, with actual depth and shared interest, more showing and less telling than the Edward-Bella romance.  

But still, they're just events strung together with no real arc.  Just as Bella looks to be changing, coming out of an immature and self-absorbed "depression" of losing her first boyfriend (I mean, did they even get to second base?), she starts seeing imaginary visions of Edward and partakes in some crazy stunts (including almost getting a friend and fellow student raped) just to see his image in her head.  She immediately reverts back to her original state, thus rendering her character growth null and void.  This culminates in her attempting suicide from a mix between depression that she was dumped and hope that she might see and hear Edward again in her hallucination.

I must ask again: What is the problem?  What confounds Bella, leading her to attempt to overcome it?  Edward's absence?  Moving on with life after being dumped?  Those don't really seem to be addressed in this book, due to the hallucinations becoming a proxy for Edward's character.  Bella doesn't move on with life.  She doesn't face any problem.  Hence, there is no plot.

The last part of the book revolves around Edward glumly going to Italy to attempt his own suicide after he hears about Bella's supposed death (which was misinformation spread by a contrived Rube Goldberg-esque series of mishaps, misinterpreted conversations, conveniently dead cell phone batteries, and other goofy antics).  Thus Bella goes after him and eventually stops him at the expense of revealing herself to a bunch of mustache-twirling, cartoon-cut-out villains known as the "Volturi".

Although there is some tension and risk to the characters developed, it ultimately leads no where and has no lasting consequences to the characters.  The Volturi let them go with a vague commandment that Bella be turned into a vampire to protect their secret (which was her goal anyway, so it doesn't even cause a conflict there).

Another failure at a "plot" in Book 2.

Eclipse

This book is essentially a mishmash of scenes detailing the growing love-triangle between Edward, Jacob, and Bella.  There is a phony attempt at tension by having a vampire, who had made a cameo appearance in the first book, come after Bella based on some flimsy, silly Deus Ex Justification, but even that gets put on the back-burner for the great romantic love-triangle to get milked for every word.

Quite frankly, this book is an atrocity when it comes to plot.  Again, what is the problem?  What do the three main characters face and overcome?  Each other?  Although it's fairly obvious that Bella and Edward will end up together from the outset, still it seems like this is intended as the main "problem" of the book.  But what do the characters do to solve the problem?  Work it out?  Have Bella finally choose, and then the other guy has to move on?  Gloves-off werewolf vs. vampire BRAWL?  No, that would have been too good.  Instead, we get nothing except weird, scientifically-bereft metaphors about magnets and planets, and more moping and sulking than a B-grade soap opera.  The characters are absolutely static and boring.  Each scene is played in sequence with no real purpose behind any of it.  Really, two-thirds of this book should have been cut, and the newly arrived vampire threat taken center stage as the plot of the book, in which the three main characters learn about each other and bonds are formed and broken.  

Instead, once again, the tension-based plot gets ramped up in the last part of the book, only to be resolved in a consequence-free finale.  No one of importance gets hurt or has lasting effects, the antagonist is killed, no main character has to change as a result of the events in the story, and w're done.

Are we going to get anything resembling a plot in any of these books?

Breaking Dawn

This book, originally a mishmash of direct epilogues to Twilight combined with some clunky edits and filler to make it connect to the other two books in the series, is essentially three sections, two told from the same POV as the other three books, Bella Swan, and one part from the POV of one of the main characters from Breaking Dawn and Eclipse, Jacob Black.  None of these sections has anything that could be called a plot.

The first section focuses on Bella and Edward's wedding, honeymoon, and Bella's improbable and science-defying pregnancy with a half-vampire child.  Simply put, there is no problem here.  It is essentially Stephenie Meyer describing rich people doing rich people things with rich people stuff.  She lavishly describes six-figure cars, jewelry, a wedding to make a Hollywood actress say "over the top", a private jet to a private resort island, and more.  No plot.  Zero.

The second section, narrated by Jacob Black in a forced, affected voice with clunky descriptions, out-of-character word choice, and dialogue which sounds like a 35-year-old trying to sound like a teenager, deals primarily with Jacob's internal dilemmas, struggles with his "pack" (as a werewolf, he of course has a pack), an impending threat of attack from the other werewolf pack, and his reaction to Bella's pregnancy which results in her eventual change into a vampire.  

What is the problem?  Well, here we have problems (for the first time in the series)!  The other werewolves want to attack the Cullens, so Jacob and his pack have to protect their kind's worst enemy (werewolves were created to fight vampires apparently).  The Cullens also (ostensibly) have to nurse Bella through her pregnancy.  Jacob also has to deal with new responsibilities as pack leader, especially as he doesn't get along well with one of the members.  So, we have problems confounding the main character!  What does he do?  What sacrifices are made, what choices have consequence?  Quite frankly, nothing.  The other pack never attacks, hostilities are dropped, Bella gives birth to a perfect child and becomes a perfect vampire.  

Oh, and this section ends with Jacob falling head over heels in love with Bella's newborn infant girl.  You read that right.

The third section returns to Bella, and the hack writing gets amplified to ridiculous levels.  Instead of a mediocre romance novel, now we have a self-insert, grotesquely self-indulgent fantasy about Bella as a vampire.  She is turned into what is called a Mary Sue in writing parlance, where she is perfect in every way and can do no wrong (based on a character satirizing Star Trek fan-fiction).  She bends the very laws of reality just so she can be the greatest vampire ever.  Mary Sues are usually reviled for their over-the-top saccharine perfection as well as the complete lack of any interesting plot element.  They can do no wrong, and there is no foe they cannot defeat, so there is no tension and no problems to overcome.

Eventually, every thread from the series that could have led to some consequence (thin as some are):

• Bella having to deal with leaving her father and human friends behind when she is changed into a vampire
• Bella having to deal with her own humanity being sucked away as she turns into an inhuman monster
• Edward's inner torment at supposedly subjecting Bella's soul to eternal damnation
• Jacob having broke off the main werewolf pack, thus creating hostilities between his group and the main pack on the reservation
• Bella being turned into a vampire breaks the treaty the werewolves had with the vampires, and could start a supernatural war between them
• The whole love-triangle from Eclipse where Jacob has to come to terms with the fact that Bella chose Edward.
• The painless, consequence-free resolution to the Eclipse love triangle is that Jacob is instead romantically in love with Bella's days-old infant daughter
• Said infant daughter is a half-breed monster who has the awareness and mental/emotional development of an adult, whose body is aging at an accelerated rate to catch up
• Bella having to actually deal with caring for a child after barely being able to care for herself
• etc.

gets wrapped up neatly with no resolution.  They are either handled in such a way to cause little or no pain to the protagonists, or are just swept away with a line of excuse (like "oh, since Jacob luckily 'imprinted' on my infant daughter, the werewolves aren't going to attack anymore").  Thus, there are no consequences for any of the character's actions.  Nothing happens to them, they give up nothing.  Therefore, there is no point to any of this.  Period.

At the end, there's a big confrontation with the Volturi from Breaking Dawn that comes apropos of nothing with about a quarter of the last book left, and is resolved with a few kind words.  One unimportant character who was mentioned once before dies for no real reason and with no consequence or care given by anyone, but that's it.

Again, nothing happens.  They all go on their perfect lives, happy ever after, the end.

Seriously, if anyone can come up to me and explain how any of this constitutes a plot, please go ahead and try.  But from my current perspective, there is no plot in any Twilight series book, nor one in the whole series altogether.  Events occur in sequence with only the loosest threads tying them to one another.  

There are entire characters who perform no function in the story.  There are chapters of nothing but descriptions of expensive clothes and cars.  There are entire plotlines started, put on hold for thirty chapters, picked up out of nowhere, then dropped just as fast.  There are plot holes wide enough to drive an Amtrak locomotive through.  The pacing is completely messed up, fast when it should be leisurely, and slow and relaxed when it should be high-paced and frantic.  No one seems to find things alarming when they should:

• For example, Bella's dad finding his daughter missing, beat up, apparently suicidal, etc.
• Bella finding out Edward is a freaking vampire, a murderer, and a blood drinker
• Everyone seeing Renesmee-- yes, that's the child's name-- aging super-rapidly, apparently headed for an early grave

None of these sparks concern in the characters.  There is no clear problem that the characters face throughout any of the books, much less a beginning, middle, and end plot structure.  There is no clear antagonist (even in the form of a concept) other than the Volturi (who are weak and only show up twice in the series).

Remember, the most important aspect of plot is consequence.  There is no consequence for any character facing any problem in this series.  No hero gives up anything.  Bella gets to have her cake and eat it too: obscenely wealthy, immortal, perfectly beautiful, stronger than anyone else, constant sex with a physically-attractive husband, and she gets to keep in touch with her human family and friends (despite that supposedly being the one thing she at least had to let go).  Even poor, jilted Jacob gets to fall in love with his perfect mate in Bella's rapidly-aging infant daughter, who turns out to only age quickly until she's a perfect teenage model of youthful glory, then she will stop aging forever.  Everyone lives happily ever after without having to give up a single sliver of anything.

From a plot perspective, Twilight gets a big, fat F from Kyuubi-sensei.

Character Building

This part can be quite subjective, as how one feels about the believability of the romances in this series has a great bearing on how one views the characters in the series as a whole.  

If a reader can accept how Bella and Edward's paths intertwine from beginning to end, then they may not see certain aspects of Bella or Edward's behaviors as problematic.  This reader may be able to accept Twilight as a story about true love and true romance.  

On the flip side, some readers see Edward:

• Breaking into Bella's room to watch her sleep (without her knowledge)
• Demanding she break off her friendship with other male friends
• Disabling the engine of her car so she can't see her other male friends
• Bribing his adopted sister to outright kidnap Bella against her will, again so she won't see her other male friends
• Constant antagonism of other boys for having the crime of being remotely attracted to Bella (including actual murderous impulses toward Mike Newton according to the Meyer-created canon in Midnight Sun)
• Harboring genocidal impulses toward the werewolves, who were, at that point, peaceful and defenseless (again according to Midnight Sun)
• Having murdered humans in his past because he fell off the wagon and really wanted human blood
• Constantly use his mind-reading ability to invade other people's private thoughts
• Treating Bella's father with constant disrespect, calling him by his first name to his face instead of "Mr. Swan" or even "Chief Swan" as Bella's father is police chief, disobeying the rules of his house (sometimes brazenly)

and call him a stalker with classic abuser behavior and clear power-control issues.

Or Bella:

• Lying to her father on a constant basis about pretty much everything and treating him with profound disrespect and derision
• Giving up all of her human family and friends without a second thought just so she could become a vampire
• Constantly complaining about "getting old" (and seeing herself as an old geezer) after she turns nineteen
• Treating a male friend like crap (Mike Newton) for no real reason that anyone can see, calling him a dog and other unkind imagery
• Hypocritically insulting a fellow student for being smart and a little nerdy (despite her own complaints about being looked down on for not having a model body)
• Treating other girls like crap because they happen to be blonde and separating her acquaintances into "likes Bella Swan" and "enemies" in her head
• Running away to Italy without telling her father, and getting angry when he's upset
• Caring more about the price tag on something rather than its quality
• Wasting food, clothes, furniture, and other luxuries just because her new family is rich (such as only wearing some set of designer clothes once and then "donating" them)
• Falling "irrevocably in love" with Edward despite his professions of a desire to murder her and despite having only known him for a few weeks
• Falling in love with Edward despite not having anything in common with him, having no shared interests, simply because he's physically attractive
• Pressing Edward to have sex despite knowing his "no sex before marriage" principles then trying to use these principles as blackmail to get him to turn her into a vampire
• Forgetting where her various body parts are (especially her lips)
• Forgetting to breathe (seriously, this wasn't a metaphor, the monitor on her hospital bed actually showed her heart stopping!)
• Going into a four-month-long catatonic depression when a boyfriend of six months breaks up with her, despite them never having had real intimate relations, any physical or emotional feature in common, any shared interests, real time spent living together
• Performing insane stunts, including almost getting her friend raped, just so she can see a hallucinatory image of her ex-boyfriend (again of only six months)
• Attempting suicide by jumping off a cliff due to this breakup
• Playing her two suitors off each other despite clearly only being interested in Edward
• Refusing to tell Jacob to get lost and instead stringing him along, causing him more pain
• Claiming intelligence by being such a good reader, but never actually reading, and even going as far as decrying reading as a useless skill that no one gives awards for (despite that not being true)
• Showing no sympathy for her father when her father's best friend passes away, instead running off to another country to go find her ex-boyfriend without telling her father (and then getting all petulant when he gets upset with her afterward).
• Seems to care not one whit for taking care of her own daughter, instead passing duties off to others, including the guy who has proclaimed himself madly in love with said infant daughter
• Loses track of her daughter (who might have precious little time on this earth due to her rapid aging) because she's busy having sex with Edward.
• And so much more

And say she's a sociopathic airhead who is broken in so many ways, a psychologist could make a career out of psycho-analyzing her.  

These readers have very good points.  There is so much imagery in these books that smacks of misogyny, abusive behavior, control problems, father issues, shallowness, and selfishness, that many have called them out as some of the worst examples of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship to show impressionable preteen and tween girls.  And on top of this all, is the fact that, although Meyer herself calls Bella and Edward's "love" a more pure and romantic love than any in classical literature, in the books, we see that Bella and Edward have nothing in common.  

They have no shared interests other than their attraction to each other.  Their attraction is purely carnal: he is attracted to her scent, she's attracted to his sexy looks.  Their entire relationship is based entirely on physical lust.  Before they can even find compatibility with their personalities, interests, moods, behaviors, etc., they are professing their love.  They get married less than a year and a half after meeting.  This by itself isn't crazy, as many older couples do this, but usually in their late 20s and 30s when they are old enough to a) be financially independent and b) have "fished the waters" a bit first and know what they are looking for in a mate.  But Bella is 18-19 and furthermore constantly rants about how her mother got married too young and how it ruined her life.

So, already, this looks less like "timeless romance" and more like "stupid teenagers ruled by hormones and horniness over good sense" (at which poking fun is the actual real point of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, not the former).  In reality, Edward and Bella stand a very high chance of getting divorced within a few years, or continuing an abusive, emotionally broken relationship, especially with a child thrown into the mix.

Furthermore, we are presented with such amazing inconsistency with characters, it's hard to know what's supposed to be right and wrong.  

• Alice's powers of precognition change by the chapter, depending on whatever's needed for the plot.  
• Carlisle is supposedly a doctor, but never acts like one, ever (like stealing life-saving blood from the hospital as food despite the Cullens all drinking animals' blood, mistreating Bella's pregnancy issues, moving patients when they should not be moved, not moving patients when they clearly need emergency care, and consistently abandoning his patients to go on months-long jaunts like in New Moon), 
• Jasper's powers are explained but the explanation is factually incorrect (something about physical vs. emotional response, although it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't on either), 
• Edward's mind-reading powers turn on and off depending on whether Meyer needed something to happen to ramp up tension, 
• Emmett's entire character changes midway through Breaking Dawn from the comedic straight-man into a faux-jock, frat-boy jerk

Vampires are given "scientific" explanations, but Meyer's grasp of science is apparently worse than her writing skills:

• Her grasp of geography is wanting, as she consistently messes up the geography, culture, demographic, and languages of different areas (Forks, WA, Italy, Brazil).
• Her physics make no sense, because while her vampires have super-fast reflexes, the cars they are driving, the people they carry, the road they walk on, the forest they run through, all still should obey real-world physics (as this story takes place in our normal world), yet they frequently behave like Wile E. Coyote cartoons with no ramifications from the environment around them (like a rock face giving way, or another car hitting them).
• Supposedly vampires don't breathe, yet they can talk (which requires air to pass through the vocal cords).  Even if we say they can breathe if they want to, there are several moments where it is expressly mentioned they are not breathing, yet they are still talking.
• Vampires have no blood, so how does Edward get an erection in order to have sex with Bella?  Other vampires supposedly have sex (Jasper and Alice, Emmett and Rosalie), so the same question 'arises' there.
• Bella constantly "blushes" as a vampire, despite blushing being the act of blood collecting in blood vessels near the surface of the skin (often around the cheeks).
• Vampires are super-cold, so how does Bella spend a whole night making love to Edward (with a super-cold part of his body inside her) and not get hypothermia?
• Vampires are "dead" according to Meyer, and their cells have changed, turning to this hard diamond-like substance.  So, how does Edward have any sperm left to merge with the egg-which-will-someday-become-Renesmee inside Bella's womb?
• Vampires have a different number of chromosomes than human.  What?  They gain extra ones when they turn?  How?  Aren't they still human?  Does every cell in their body change?
• Even worse, Edward's sperm and Bella's egg have different numbers of chromosomes! They should not be able to produce any offspring!  Even if we wave our hands and go with the "mule" and "liger" approach, it is shown that Renesmee has a different number of chromosomes than either parent.  Whaaaa...?  
• And apparently, Renesmee has the same number of chromosomes as werewolves, who are also different from humans, and this is why Renesmee and Jacob are supposedly "compatible."
• But wait, if werewolves have different number of chromosomes from humans, and 'imprinting' (see below) is the method for them to reproduce, then why would they imprint on humans?  They wouldn't be able to mate and produce viable offspring!
• The whole Renesmee pregnancy is an affront to science:
• Renesmee needs blood, so Bella drinks it. ...  ...  What?  Does Meyer not know anything about female anatomy?  Umbilical cord?  Placenta?  That food from mommy's tummy does not go straight to little baby via magical tube?
• Bella drinks pints of blood at a time (she even has a sippy cup with a straw!).  It's pretty much common knowledge that drinking too much human blood at once will cause someone to vomit.  Remember Bella is still human at this point.
• The amount of damage Renesmee does to Bella in utero should have turned Bella's internal organs to pulp long before birth.  And in keeping with the book's anti-abortion message, nothing is done to stop this pregnancy (which should have clearly ended in the loss of both mother and child well before childbirth).
• The pregnancy lasts a matter of weeks, not months.  Bella is still human!  Her body should be torn apart as the baby grows so much faster than a human body is designed for.  Remember all those organs humans have inside them that have to move out of the way for the baby?
• So much more

This isn't even hitting on the problem that is werewolf imprinting.  All the "loss-of-free-will and becoming a sex-drone-slave is supposedly romantic" aside, the main problem comes when two characters, Quill and Jacob, imprint on two children, ages 2 years and 1 hour respectively.

Basically, imprinting is a reproductive device, as stated by Meyer in the book and in canon guides/interviews/etc.  Therefore, the characters imprinting on children are looking to reproduce.  The book handwaves potential issues by mentioning that they don't want to have sex with the children now, and they will wait until the child is legal age to have sex.  There is a word for this: child grooming.  It basically means an adult in a position of responsibility raising a child, becoming her friend and confidant, rather than a parent (which is exactly what imprintees do, according to Jacob: "until then, he will be the best big brother Claire could ever have", never mind that a give-the-child-anything-she-wants "caretaker" like this would be horrible for a child's emotional growth), then when she reaches physical maturity, the adult will coerce her into sex, using his position and holding their friendship hostage as a way to guilt her into a relationship she doesn't want.  And she generally won't want a sexual relationship with someone who she was raised to trust as family, due to something called the Westermarck Effect.  But according to Meyer, who wouldn't want to return that kind of dedication with love?  Meaning little 2-year-old Claire will be expected to become the sexual partner of a young man she will see as her big brother when she hits 16-years-old.  And she will know her future long before that, probably around the time she hits puberty.  And she will be coerced by the community to comply, and she will even physically assaulted if she tries to escape (which happened to another character in the book, who has claw-scars across her face from when she tried to leave the relationship with her werewolf partner).

This is sick and disturbing, yet it still could have been written well, in the hands of a decent author.  If it were presented as unfortunate and problematic for the main characters, and maybe it's a dirty secret, or it gets covered up by the werewolf tribe, etc. this could have formed an interesting conflict.  But nope, no conflict in these books!  Everything is A-OK.  Until Jacob does the same thing with Bella's infant daughter, then Bella gets pissed (whereas doing it with a toddler was okay?), but ultimately it gets accepted and never is mentioned again.

So, in summation, character building in Twilight is a total mess.  Sympathy is hit or miss since every one of the main characters seems to be a selfish, abusive, sociopathic jerk.  With the exception of how physically attractive they are, I doubt anyone would find them sympathetic in real life.  I suppose it is subjective, because some people find Edward's stalking, borderline-abusive behavior sexy and desirable, and some people even apparently find an adult child grooming a toddler and an infant for a coerced sexual relationship "cute and romantic."  Since there's no accounting for taste, I'll give this a 50%.  Half-points for the subjectivity of the characters' likability, but points off for the poor writing which makes such a love them-or-hate them scenario even possible.

Still failing.

Painting the Scene

Where to start with this.  Quite bluntly, this is a mess and there are so many examples of a complete and utter lack of writing talent in every book.  The sheer number and consistency of the awfulness is amazing to me.

If you want a good summation by someone very skilled at English grammar and linguistics, I suggest you head over to Reasoning With Vampires at tumblr.com.  I cannot even begin to catalog all the flagrant violations of English grammar and writing craft in these books like you can see listed there.

But still, let me at least list generalities (you can check the Reasoning With Vampires site for specifics which back up my statements):

• Meyer grossly abuses the poor thesaurus, especially to describe body features.  Eyes aren't brown, but "chocolate."  Skin isn't pale, it's "alabaster" or "ivory."  Once or twice is enough to cringe at, but practically every chapter?  And let's not start on "chagrin."
• Ridiculous and sometimes highly amusing dialogue tags abound.  People "hiss" words that can't be hissed and "growl through teeth" despite that being a ridiculous image.  No one ever just "says" anything.
• Sentences are twisted into labyrinthine mockeries of English grammar, rambling over "runon" and wrapping right back around, lapping itself.  
• We are constantly told how other, non-narrator people feel, what they are thinking, and their internal motivations, despite it often being impossible for the narrator to know the information (remember, this is from first person!).
• Words and sentence constructions are often repeated within a couple lines of each other.
• The writing often uses strange metaphors which evoke ridiculous images (e.g. "I felt blood flood my face.  Tears-- tears of rage-- filled my eyes"  - Your face was a fountain of blood, what?).
• We are rarely shown what is happening; instead we are downright told using -ly adverbs and cheesy speaker attributions like '"...," I allowed.' or '"...," I sighed' (please go ahead and try 'sighing' a whole sentence.  Record and post to YouTube please!).
• Sentences start, break the train of thought for an aside, come back, break again, break from that break, return to the original, break to finish the other break...  over and over again, too many times to count.  Even if it's grammatically allowed, it's tiring to read, having to decipher each sentence like I'm translating from Ancient Egyptian.
• Several scenes fall prey to "grocery listing" were a character does A, turned her B, looks C, does D, moves E, ...
• Cliched stereotypes abound, from the mousy nerd (of course he has greasy hair, don't all nerds?  And yes, of course he loves chess!), the bitchy blondes (Meyer really must have had issues with blondes in her high school), the American Indians who are "one with nature" (they even have totems and a shaman!), the fantastic villains in the Volturi (you don't think they might have homosexual proclivities, do you?), the witch doctor Brazillian natives who know all the "ancient lore" (just once, I want to see a finely dressed business man whip out a voodoo doll and start chanting old Jamaican spells), and so much more.
• Characters are written with completely unrealistic voice.  Edward is supposed to be from Edwardian England, but the word usage is nothing like the period, nor any other, and Bella is supposed to be 18, yet sounds more like a bored 35-year-old (authorial excuses of Bella saying how she "was always confused for a middle-aged 18-year-old" are just that, excuses for poor writing).
• Plot points are constantly introduced via the dreaded "oh, but that couldn't possibly be true!!  Let's just forget about it until it inevitably turns out to be the case all along" construct more times than can even be counted.  This construct makes it 100% obvious that whatever the narrator/characters are discrediting as being completely impossible, is, in fact, the truth.  We (the readers) know it is, so this is essentially the author constantly insulting our intelligence (and not doing very good justice to the intelligence of her characters either).

And these are all when she follows the rules of English grammar.

The sheer number of failed voicing, ridiculous and forced metaphors, over-the-top cliches, wandering run-on sentences, mind-boggling actions and speaker attributions, telling instead of showing, and other prose failing have to make it obvious that Twilight is not a well constructed series of novels at a scene level.

Raw Mechanics

Much like scene construction, the Twilight saga is awash with grammar errors, misused punctuation, and incorrect word choice.  The most egregious recurring error seems to be Meyer's complete inability to use punctuation properly.  Semicolons are used to divide dependent clauses (should use a comma), commas are used to separate independent statements (should use an end mark or semicolon), em-dashes are thrown in willy-nilly with little rhyme or reason (I've seriously never seen this many em-dashes in a single body of literature before; it astounds me).  About the only punctuation to escape misuse is the question mark.

Grammar is often completely broken with adjectives and adverbs modifying the wrong noun or verb.  Pronouns are many times used to reference incorrect subjects or objects, creating amusing imagery of characters holding open staircases or even extra characters appearing out of nowhere only to disappear again the next sentence.

Whether this book was edited and Meyer threw out all the edits, or the editor was asleep, or Meyer refused to allow the book to even be edited is unknown, but it is a travesty for any published book to come out this sloppy, much less four books in the same series.  Any English teacher who holds up this unedited mess of English grammar mistakes and sloppy writing as an icon of literary perfection needs to have that teaching license revoked and be forced to back to high school to read some real literary masterpieces which actually follow the rules of the written English language.

Twilight completely fails at displaying proper mechanics and it's increasingly likely, despite being an English major in college herself, Stephenie Meyer has only a tenuous grasp on the written English language, if her bibliography is anything to go by.

Conclusion

Very rarely is a single book a complete failure in all levels of writing, yet still considered by anyone to be a "literary masterpiece" worthy of the great classics.  Oft times, highly-acclaimed books will at least excel in one area or another: either being an intriguing play on words pushing the boundaries of English language; a wonderfully painted series of scenes which artfully display emotion, interaction, character, and tension; a tale told with colorful, highly sympathetic characters who grab us with their unique voice; or tales which show heroism, love, poignancy, sacrifice, or the human condition from start to finish, leaving us questioning the state of society, the futility of war, the true nature of companionship, or at the very least, satisfied in a remarkable adventure with sacrifice and determination overcoming the most difficult odds.

Twilight has none of that.  It is a mechanically bereft series of sloppy writing and questionable editing telling a poorly constructed tale of a pair of sociopathic characters who have a romance in a consequence-free, tension-less universe completely devoid of plot, character growth, or sacrifice.  

• No one works for anything; everything is just handed to every main character.  The main character gets to become a God-like creature with everything she could ever want despite having given up nothing nor doing anything to earn it.
• Nothing resembling  a plot shows up throughout the majority of each book; there are few if any "problems" for characters to face, and when they are present, they are solved offhandedly with no real work on the part of the main characters.
• Characters are vapid and empty.  The main character and narrator has no personality to speak of.  The other characters are sociopathic caricatures completely undeserving of sympathy.
• The scene construction is bland and awful.  Word choice is laughably juvenile and often a confusing jumble of adjectives and adverbs tossed together by way of an abused thesaurus.
• Grammar and punctuation mistakes abound despite this being  a best-selling published work.

In conclusion, Twilight is not a literary masterpiece.  It is literary trash, schlock, and hack writing at best.  It is a well-loved, popular, and best-selling piece of trash, but it is still trash.  But that's okay, in and of itself.  Liking Twilight is not a sin, nor should anyone be considered less intelligent, less well-read, less literary, less able to write a good story themselves.  Whether someone likes Twilight or not has no bearing on the kind of person they are, just like enjoying Transformers, Dan Brown, slapstick comedy, or any of a million other "guilty pleasures."  

However, defending Twilight or Stephenie Meyer herself as being some sort of genius, literary master-work or an author to rival the Bard himself...  That is ridiculous and worthy of rebuke.  And holding this up to children as an exemplar of good English, a bastion of brilliant creative writing, or a model of healthy interpersonal relationships is doing a major disservice to young students.  

There are so many other high quality Young Adult fiction that we should be showing our children.  So many, in fact, I can't really include a list, although Harry Potter and The Hunger Games instantly spring to mind as decent literary exemplars.  Suffice to say good young adult literature is as easy to find as Twilight in the bookstore, on Amazon, and at the library, if you know what to look for.  

And with my guide of "four layers to good writing," it should be a little easier to spot books which feature well-designed plot with tension and consequence; realistic characters with depth and complexity who simultaneously prove themselves worthy of sympathy; creatively crafted scenes which bring us into the moment and allow us to experience the story ourselves; and fresh, sharp English writing which uses creative tricks of the language to evoke emotion, but still sticks hard to good mechanics and proper grammar.