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.