I’ve recently been having an animated discussion in one of the forums on Goodreads.
One of the posters there claims that Stephenie Meyer, author of The Twilight Saga, was dishonest because she changed the definition of the substance her vampires are made of. While I personally cannot see the contradictions in the information he/she has posted, that may be because anything scientific causes my eyes to glaze over.
But the question I wanted to ask here is, if she did change it deliberately because the earlier definition couldn’t hold up under scientific scrutiny, does that mean she has been ‘intellectually dishonest’?
I have argued that fantasy elements don’t usually hold up under scientific scrutiny anyway, because by their nature, fantasy elements are never going to hold up in the real world. That’s why they’re not in the real world. But should she have stayed consistent to her original definition, or was it better that she changed it, if that’s what she’s done?
This makes me tremble in fear when I think of my own book, which will be released in just a few weeks. I’m sure it has contradictions galore. Will I come under pressure to change them? Will that make me ‘intellectually dishonest’?
If you’re a fan of Meyer’s work, I’d like to hear your take on the matter. If you’re an author, I’d like to know if you’ve encountered this problem in your own writing. So if you’d like to share your wisdom with me, please feel free.
To see the conversation on goodreads, go here: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/966330-the-twilight-saga-official-illustrated-guide?page=2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=comment_instant#comment_73019856
I hadn’t heard that SM changed the substance of what her sparkly vampires were made of, but I have heard complaints that her stories don’t use the standard vampire mythology (yes, there is one). I had a look at the Goodreads discussion. Interesting.
I suspect that Meyer’s problem isn’t ‘intellectual dishonesty’, more that she wrote herself into a corner she couldn’t get out of. This reflects one of the common complaints about the Twilight saga: Meyer actually isn’t that good a plotter or writer (compared, say, to JK Rowling, who had the key elements of all seven Harry Potter books sorted before she got the first published, as illustrated by the fact the invisibility cloak turns out to be one of the Deathly Hallows).
Personally, I’m less bothered by the about-face on whether vampires can have babies. I’m still suffering the yuk factor from Jacob imprinting on Bella’s daughter. Yes, it explains why Jacob has been fixated on Bella for so long. But it’s still revolting (as one of the GR commenters touches on). The more I think of it, I also find there is something inherently creepy about a 100-year-old guy (Edward) hanging around with an 17-year-old girl and watching her sleep. Even if he looks 18, he’s not.
Hi Lynne
I give an explanation of what an Adelphi is in one book that is contradicted in the next. However, I haven’t changed it because the first explanation is given by one the characters who doesn’t have full knowledge but is half-guessing (and I think that’s apparent from the dialogue) while in the next book it is the leader of the Adelphi themselves who says “no, that’s not right” and gives a different (more accurate) explanation. In fact part of the tension of the sequel is the tension between different views about the Adelphi – are they evil or good, what are their capabilities and their intentions etc. I think if I changed it in the first book I would be giving the characters more knowledge than they have (or perhaps could have) at that stage. But I must admit I have wondered about leaving it.
I googled “intellectual dishonesty” and got this:
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.
So I can see how the poster on Goodreads might think that Steph changed her stance on vampires in order to accommodate her professional goal, eg, that Bella and Edward have a baby. It’s a stretch, but I will not accuse the poster of intellectual dishonesty.
But this concept of intellectual dishonesty usually applies to serious debates, not the creation of fiction. It could very easily apply to people debating aspects of fiction, but applying it to the author/world-creator does not seem right. The author creates the rules. Maybe things weren’t well thought out at first (Meyer), maybe the author decided to mix things up a little to serve a plot goal (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Darkover series). Maybe things were mixed up for fun (God, the platypus). But this poster’s objections seem to stem from disappointment (why didn’t she tell us more about how this works?) and misinterpretation (I took her original comments this way, neglecting to consider that she might speak misleadingly on purpose, so as to conceal future plot devices). I don’t think Meyer is dishonest, just not as much of a scientist as she would like to be; and I’ve never considered a fiction author dishonest.
Yes, as a long time Doctor Who fan, I’ve seen numerous occasions of comments being altered in later episodes after errors have been pointed out by the obliging public. My opinion in all this is that authors do get things wrong. JK Rowling, for instance, didn’t pick the right station in London for her secret entrance to Hogwarts. The one she uses is not laid out that way in real life. My father reminds me of this regularly, since he used to work on that very station. But we have a laugh about it, because authors do get things wrong sometimes, and that’s just the way it is. We’re not perfect, especially when we’re trying to write about things that aren’t real.
Ok, first. I don’t see the argument?!?
Changing it from a diamond like cell to a crystalline membrane structure is completely the same thing to my pretty basic scientific mind!
Second. Its fantasy!! Get over it! lol
I completely agree with Brenda. The author creates the rules, so her word is gospel, if you will.
And as a fan I had no trouble accepting everything SM was trying to get over in her novels. And really, that’s all that matters in the grand scheme of things.
Was she intellectually dishonest? Not to me. If her original explanation wasn’t scientifically true, and it was changed to reflect this, then I would argue she changed it as soon as she noticed this was the case. meaning that she didn’t realise upon writing it that this was the case, rather than going ahead with the original explanation even knowing that it would have to be changed, as the poster argues she did.
In terms of other authors, all I would ask as a reader is think about your story.
If you think about it enough, and make a genuine mistake that you didn’t see, so what. Everyone’s human. It’s an error. Get over it.
I think my over opinion to the GoodReads post is get over it! lol
I think that’s a good approach to have, Sarah.