Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Segway miniPro

Harry Potter Sales vs. Twilight Series Sales

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-236 of 236 posts in this discussion
Posted on Apr 27, 2012 10:53:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 10:54:29 AM PDT
Cory says:
Back for a bit before I head back to class, then play rehersals in the evening.

Fogor, you have not stated a single problem or inconsistancy in Rowling's works. Rowling is extremely consistant, well plotted out, and she builds things up, setting a foundation for things that will happen later.

What you are doing, again, as I keep having to say this, is putting your EGO into everything. Nothing you have said is valid, because nothing you have said is objective. All you are doing is putting forward your PERSONAL TASTES. You are making up lies (rowling gave harry the broom to make him more popular, Rowling never plans her books ( here is jk rowling in a old interview talking about plotting her books: , and here is another, somewhat readable-handwritten outline for a portion of book five: etc), and then attack her because the books are not written to your TASTE.

There is a difference between taste and quality. I loved the R. L. Stine 'Goosebumps' books when I was younger. I can't read them today for two reasons: one, they are no longer my taste (subjective), and they were fairly shoddily written and plotted (objective).

You have now moved onto claiming things that are of your subjective taste as problems, yet readers (and literary experts alike) do not view those things as problems, because Rowling meticulously sets her stories up in a way so that fantastical things have a solid foundation in the world before they truly become important, or serve their purpose (I.E. plot devices, which are used to do specific things, or represent specific ideas.) You are not listing problems or inconsistancies; you are listing things you as a reader are uninterested in/did not like. they things are not inconsistant, because Rowling prepares you for them. They also, because she sets them up ahead of time, are not pulled out of thin air (an accusation you made to her i think last weekend, but never once provided a legitimate example, because they technically dont exist, and you have proven not to be a very deep reader so far, so you probably did not notice the setup in the first place *not everyone is a careful, thoughtful reader, and its just a fact of literature*).

You really need to learn to seperate your personal tastes from literature... otherwise, you really are not equiped to be able to actually comprehend what is good literature and what is not.

I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code for what it is: a fast paced, emotionally charge thriller that tackles some controversial ideas. However, it is in no way great literature... it is a good read, but the pacing and flow of the story is designed to move you quickly through the story, not tell a thoughtful story. it asks a few what if questions, but by the end, while you may have enjoyed the ride, you ultimately are not going to get much else other than the questions to ponder and a since of wonderment that eventually fades. The writing is fairly basic, and at times over done, or in need of tightening (tightening is something few writers escape the need for), and the characters are caricatures, as the story is paced so fast that you really can't develop them, as it would slow the story down so much that its flaws become even more apparent.

I can enjoy the ride (taste, as sometimes I just like to read for fun, not to think too deeply), but I can also seperate my taste to see what works and what doesnt in it (the objective and quantifiable).

Rowlings books, while not perfect in terms of writing, are near flawless in their storytelling. She paces them expertly, allowing for character development and growth to become the driving force behind the world, while crafting a rich, and varied world filled with nearly 300 characters, each with their own personalities, backstories, allegences, and ideologies.

When one learns the highschool level lit skill of being able to seperate the subjective fluff from the objective foundation of literature, then one becomes capable of beginning the long journey of understanding what constitutes good litereature.

Alot of people hate mark twain, but he is one of americas most celebrated writers for good reason: he knows how to tell powerful stories that capture and teach about moments in time, human nature, and our shared history, while poeticly using language expertly, and using a highly underutilized skill in today's literary world (Rowling uses it with great sucess) dialect and voice.

When Huck tears up the letter, and says "All right then, I'll go to hell.", Twain so perfectly summed up the characters journey.

Alot of people hate him.

However, every defence of twilight is based purely in the subjective realms of taste. It is not defended in the objective because objectively, you have to lack comprehension in literature and writing to think that twilight is even passable.

Romance is divided unequally into two spheres: there is the rare, one out of a thousand romance novel that is well written, imaginative, and formula-breaking. Then, conversely, there is the dime a ten-thousand formulaic, unimaginative, poorly written romance tripe novel. Twilight is the latter, not the first. Meyer is not the first person to write a paranormal romance involving vampires, nor the first person to pit vampires and werewolves against each other. She is not the first person to have a human girl become the object of obsession/fall in love with a paranormal creature.

She is not even the person who did it best... not by a long shot.

She found a niche with a narrow audience not known for thinking things through. tweens and immature adults are impulsive, and given the extremely impulsive nature of the books (written by a impulsive writer who says she writes what pops into her head as she goes along, and doesnt plan), and so it spoke to them.

but the writing and storytelling is still objectively and quantifiably horrible.

Posted on Apr 27, 2012 11:08:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 11:10:35 AM PDT
Foger says:

HP is not realistic at all. Any of it. From page one on. Anyone would tell you that. The whole plot is carried by anything goes writing. Magic is ok, but you need a story to build the magic, not the magic to build your story. It won't feel real, and it's simple to write. That makes your story land in childrens fiction. Meyers story reads well before we even see vampires. HP is dependent on it's magic, wierd characters, and NO set rules it lives by.

Book one---The enchantment they have to pass at the end just happens to be what each 11 year old is great at. A broom for Harry, a chess set for Ron, and logic for Hermione. Oh please.
Book two--- Harry is saved by a bird, that brings a hat with a sword inside it. Harry and Ron are about to be ate by spiders and a car shows up to save them. Rons broken wand just happens to save him from getting mind wiped. How hard was it for her to go to the beginning and break Rons wand? The balisik? Just happens to kill no one. They all just happen to see it through reflections?
Book three--- She has them save the day by having a student, who's been time traveling for classes. This is a obvious quick fix. She went back through the book and added less than five sentences that hint Hermione time travels. Not to mention it's dumb. Let a student time travel for extra classes and not use it for good purposes? Even if they don't want to interfear with fate, they could go back in time for knowlege. Like Voldemort being back, and the Sirus murders.
Book four--- a ghost tells Harry to grab the portkey. How does the ghost know Harry will get there when it's active? The complete plan of the fake Barry Combs?/the fake Madeye is stupid. He could have kidnaped Harry anytime, and not had to set Harry up to win. That means seventy percent of book four is all plotted on garbage.
Book six--Malfoy fails to kill twice, and Harry happens to remember a bedzor? Harry happens to win the lucky potion that will get his hard to get memory at the end, and break Ginny and Dean up. Harry falls over and stays under the cloak, when in earlier books before it, the simpilist things knocks it off. Then the big one. Why in the world couldn't Dumbledoor tell Harry that Voldemort might try to trick him? Because Rowling needed a reason for Harry to be heroic again. Snape could have taken Harry at the end. Instead. "He's the dark lords leave him". Yes Snape was a good guy, but those were death eaters he was talking too. For Snape to do that it means Voldemort must have specificaly said to leave Harry for now.
Book seven---His conection with Voldemort seemed to close book six, but guess what!!! Harry and friends port away from the Lovegoods to barely escape. Why don't they when they get captured in the tent? They don't even try. Dobby can port anywhere. That's fine and she built that before, but why hasn't the death eaters used elfs to get into the school? Instead of Malfoys plot in book six. Why didn't Harry call Kreature to port them in? Aberforth just happens to know their outside his door? Maybe he saw Harry cast the patronis, but what are the odds that Harry is right by a ally? He just happens to have secret passage into the school? Malfoys Mom has no reason to pretend Harry's dead. None at all. All she does is risk her own life that way, or give Rowling her anything goes ending. This is the book after the romance. It should be the maturist of all.
These are what I can think of off hand. I guarentee there are many more, every couple chapters. Such as Harry falls of his broom how many times and how many times is someone there to catch him?
Then we have her whole Snape is and is not a spy. I think, she just threw that in too. That whole character surprise is messed up. The Dursleys do not have enough reason to almost abuse Harry. You can have one character that goes to far, but two is a pattern. A sign of a weak author.

You find all of that realistic? Yes, that is a story remaining consistant all right... It's consistantly not realistic, and obvious that Rowling thinks of anything out of the blue to fix her plot. That is terrible writing. Or a childrens tale. Or both. It's also very easy to write. Anyone can make a anything goes story. This is how second graders write!

Meyer doesn't do any of that. She is realistic. The only debaitable thing that Meyer might have done is the surprise pregnacy. But even that can't be proved impossible until we know exactly how her male vampires work. Everything else of Meyer's is built up in prior books.
Meyer does do a character error in book three, but that's nothing compared to HP. We see Rowlings errors every couple chapters.

To be honest, I can't think of one author less realistic than Rowling. Her overall plot is started in book one, but everything in between is bull poopie. Yes, she keeps the major points in check, but each little thing she builds on is garbage. If your going to argue, scroll up please so I don't have to copy this again. Mature readers overlook all of this to see her great plot, but just because they overlook it doesn't mean it's good writing. As for the critics, I'd say they are morons. Especially if it's booklist. I've seen a lot of bad booklist praise lately.
Her poor writing aside, I love the HP series. But, I think she got lucky. I think she sent in a great plot, but had no idea which age group to write it for. Do I think I could write better than Rowling? No, espescially not the plot, but I trash stories when I run into errors like she got published. I look at each character and say what would they most likely do? Sometimes you have to push bad choices through to have your story, but you have to keep it at least a little reasonable. You have to say does this make any sense at all?

An ego ignores all the examples I listed above. Someone speaking from truth uses the books as a example. I dunno why you even brought this up again if you don't want to consider it with a open mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 2:28:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 2:37:22 PM PDT
A.Marte says:
Well I would really suggest giving up Foger, he seems to be completely vain, thinking that his personal understanding and taste is what everyone in the world shares. The fact that he think Meyers is a better writer than a lot of other writers, tell me that he has poor reading comprehension skills. I mean come on.....he tried to use a candy analogy when explaining why he believes Twilight made vampire books sell like crazy( he obviously did no research because writers like Ward, Hamilton, Harrison, Kenyon and I can go on, have been writing very popularly about vampires since before 2000). It is unfathomable to suggest that a book read by so very few people in the world, got adults to read YA and children books. Especially consider that a much more popular children/YA had been released almost 10 years before this one; if any book was responsible for bringing adults to the YA market its HP. But that is not the case because people in general do not just stick to what is appropriate for them, especially not in America, they do what they want. Which is again not to say that adults read YA just because one is popular, because many do not. It is even more ridiculous to post the same long thing over and over because people are not "buying what you are selling." Your inability to like something in a story does not make it a flaw.

I may not have a great affinity for HP but that does not mean it is not great writing; especially considering it was written by a welfare mom, who probably knew just the basics in writing education. Twilight on the other hand, was written by a graduate of English who after taking creative writing, English and Composition, and various classes dissecting literature; should know better when it comes to writing. All that stuff he list as flaws is good writing. Good writers introduce things into the story, that can later be used; that's a moral in itself. Everything is a learning lesson, things we might consider so small or trivial could have a lasting affect. It is also the sign of good writing not use everything as a crutch, like Meyers and Alice's ability. Hermione was a genius and a muggle, I believe she wanted people to like her and respect her. So she used the time stopper to take classes, to hone her skills and nothing is wrong with that. It was a good thing: a bad thing would be to use it to try to rewrite history in one groups favor. But then seeing all these things goes back to how a person comprehends what they are reading: if they want neat bows and little realism, then twilight is for them. If the want realism in fiction and fantasy: a story were the main character is not all powerful or perfect, needs others, and makes mistakes; HP is for them.

I just thought of how a good writer can make you buy every little piece of ridiculous but a bad writer will just make you mad. I am not at all a huge fan of magic and fantasy but Rowling got me to read her entire series, something I have not done since Tolkien. Books do not advertise like other media, so it depends mostly on word of mouth and the high praises is what peaked my interest. The same way of all of the negativity regarding twilight made me want to read it thinking "it cannot be that bad." To find out it was not just the writing but the message made all those assessments true.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 5:38:12 PM PDT
Foger says:
I made a mistake earlier. I said if it wasn't for Twilight, VA would only be read by teens. I should have said, if it wasn't for Twilight, VA wouldn't have been read by teens. That's what I was remembering earlier but got it wrong, though it may not have originally been about vamps either. VA would have been a adult novel, and may not have even had a academy. That's why stuff tugs at me when I read it. It's in the same mold as her adult books, but toned way down for teens. Barely.

Even though Twilight brought adults to the market, it did much more than that. I was just using adults as a example. The new adult readers alone wouldn't make YA the hottest selling books.

Another thought. What would a storeclerk think about a thirty year old fat man buying a teen book with a blonde beauty on the front called Vampire DIARIES? Notice the diaries. hehe. The fat man would get less looks by buying a adult romance, or hanging out near the womens clothing department. That alone would keep most adult males from giving YA more than a glance. A guilty glance at that. But Twilight changed all that. Now we don't care what clerks think and buy them anyway. We still get some hard looks, but they know that's what everyone is buying.

Not mad are ya? You won't give up, but will throw the debate into HP fans to get some help? Anyone as long as it's not Meyer right? hehe I don't mind. I'll even throw some kindling on the fire to get them awake again.
HP couldn't have brought adults to YA, because HP isn't YA. Nor does it follow the mature writing styles of most YA. Readers interested in books similar to HP will only find them with the childrens books. Even book seven. HP has as much shot of bringing adults to todays YA as Dracula does.
I don't think Meyer is the best author around. I picked this thread because it's the easiest for her to beat.

Posted on Apr 27, 2012 11:34:09 PM PDT
Cory says:
Harry potter is a story about a young boy coming to gripes with the death of his parents, and having to face the person who killed them. magic is a element of the story, but magic is NOT THE STORY.

Twilight is a story about a shallow, simple-minded cliched romance heroine who impulsively lusts over a vampire, and forsakes all identity or concept of self-existance from that point on, wrapping everything she is up in that person.

Harry Potter has developed characters.

Twilight has static characters.

Harry Potter is made realistic by the humanity of its characters.

Twilight is made unrealistic by the lack of humanity of its characters.

You dont get it, Fogor; Twilight is not about anything meaningful. It is about lust, and perpetuating imaturity and immorality as ideals.

Harry Potter is about taking a stand against evil, while recognizing the faults and flaws of ones self. Harry Potter is about the horrors of biggotry and intolerence, and the cruelties and atrocities that happen when factions within society base their behavior in pursuit of those intolerences and biggotted ideologies. These books are about the challange of growing up, and facing the reality that the world is not black and white, and doing the right thing is not always the easiest path to take. It is about the need to keep striving to a better ideal.

That makes Harry Potter more real than Twilight, and ultimately most all fantasy literature. The world provides a setting where aspects of human nature can be exagerated so that their strengths, weaknesses, and risks can be more easily seen and explored.

Why dont you unwrapped your identity and life from Twilight, and join the rest of us in the real world, where tween-smut that only glorifies selfishness, pedophillia, stalking, and disregard for human life is not a realistic or desirable ideal.

Society would rather accept a 11 year old boy who makes mistakes, and takes his punishments without complaining, than a 17 year old brainless cardboard cuttout who obsesses over a man who breaks into her bedroom, and drives her to insanity cause she cant live without seeing his physical, skin-deep-only apperence.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012 12:33:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 28, 2012 12:41:13 AM PDT
Foger says:
But you got everything backwards.
Twilight is about taking a stand against evil, while recognizing the faults and flaws of ones self. Twilight is about the horrors of biggotry and intolerence, and the cruelties and atrocities that happen when factions within society base their behavior in pursuit of those intolerences and biggotted ideologies. These books are about the challange of growing up, and facing the reality that the world is not black and white, and doing the right thing is not always the easiest path to take. It is about the need to keep striving to a better ideal.

Harry Potter has undeveloped characters. As far as I can remember Harry doesn't change except to turn into a angry person who bellows at girls. Ron doesn't change at all. Hermione, learns that it's ok not to be good all the time. Oh Harry gets less selfish sortof. After a few books.

Harry is more realistic because they are human and fly around on brooms? Because it has no romance at all? Because he can call on Lord Dumbledoors name to send him a bird to help?

Society would rather accept a 11 year old who yells at girls, gets in fist fights, sneaks around at night past curfew, cheats on his homework, breaks about every school rule, runs away from home, and shows a disregard for people's property?

Check this out. First we have to change Harry's wand to a t-ball bat. A knife won't work since it's fatal.

Would you rather have a son, who yells at girls, and teachers. Breaks every school rule. Cheats on homework, gets in fistfights, hangs around with thieves, and carries around a t-ball bat and hits anyone who calls him a name? Oh and runs away from home if you lock him in his room and says "See you next summer!"

Or would you rather have a daughter who does her homework, chores, cooks, obeys curfew until she's eighteen, never complains even if you ground her for nothing, usually puts her parents ahead of herself. Pushes her pride aside and groups with murderers to save her families life. But, she thinks she's in love and sneaks her boyfriend into her room each night.
Which would you rather have?

Now look at the worst case scenario a few years down the road.
The girl ends up pregnant and maybe with a STD. She gets questioned for accessory to murder, but no charges stick, since she has no idea who or where the murder took place.
The boy ends up having no respect for the law, comes home if he wants too, yells at his wife, beats his wife, and probably hits someone too hard with his bat and kills them.
Which would you rather have?

And the bigger question, which would you rather read about? Which character feels more real? Which can you relate too? First love, or anger and violence?

Posted on Apr 28, 2012 7:56:05 PM PDT
Cory says:
so basically, no you have devolved to copying peoples text, then switching 'harry potter' with 'twilight'.

in essence, you just acknowledged you dont have an argument.

Twilight is not about love. Love is a emotion, and one of the most deeply rooted emotions humans feel. Twilight is about lust: the characters take one look at each other (or in edwards case, he is incapable of invading the privacy of bella's mind), and thats the basis of the entire relationship. Lust only goes skin deep, not deeper into emotional realms.

Harry Potter is not about anger and violence. Harry Potter is about taking a stand against evil. Twilight is about pursing selfish, impulsive, lustful needs at all cost, (including the damage you do to others in your pursuit of it.)

Harry Potter messes up, because he is human. He gets punished and faces consequences for his screw ups. He also learns from them. He is not, as you have ignorantly claimed, a angry person. He does get frustrated in book five, and has a tendacy to shout, but when you look at everything that is happening to him, its a reasonable -- even if annoying -- reaction.

people of all walks of life relate to Harry Potter because they see harry struggle, not just with the ascepts of what it means to be a hero against evil (playing to our highest ideals), but also the fact that he goes through the same trials and tribulations that come with growing up, (first loves (love, not lust, which is the foundation of everything in twilight), the awkwardness of youth, learning that adults are not perfect (that is one of the more taxing realizations of growing up when you think about it) and the challange of being responcible for ones action that is the very transition from childhood into adulthood.)

Bella takes one look at edwards physical apperence, and that becomes ultimately the only real driving force in her actions throughout the series. It is always about pursuing the achievement of having Edward as her own. She allows others lives to be put in danger by drawing attention to herself and her relationship with the cullens. She forsakes her very identity when edward leaves her, and ceases to be capable of doing the most basics aspects of perpetuating her very existance (requring others to do it for it), and then is obsessive in her pursuit to get rid of everything that makes her human just so she can have eternity with a man who in essence is extremely dangerous (and in some ways, criminally so; stalking, and breaking and entering are crimes).

I, and the vast majority of literate people choose Harry Potter over Twilight for a very good reason. Harry Potter Speaks of our highest ideals, and the fatals flaws of humanity in falling into patterns of oppression and intolerence. Twilight speaks only to the lowest, darkest aspects of unrestrained lust, promoting as ideals things people with even the most basic concept of morality and human decency reject.

Posted on Apr 28, 2012 7:57:59 PM PDT
Cory says:
Also, I love that in your post, fogor, you imply a pro-child abuse stance.

do you think about what you are writing?

If your defending the dursleys for abuse and neglect, then your going to find very few friends even among the pro-twilight crowds. they may overlook stalking and pedophillia because they are in love with the idea of edwards physical apperence and objectifying tendacies, but I doubt they will be cheering on child abuse.

Posted on Apr 28, 2012 11:47:48 PM PDT
Foger says:
Ah but we already went over the Dursleys but you missed it. I'm not surprised.
If the Durleys are abusive, why doesn't the school do something about it? All we know is the Dumbledoor says no, but we don't find out why till book five I think, and we don't know if Lilly's blood will keep deatheaters away. Or dementors. Dumbledoor also see's Harry's blood protect him in book one, so he shouldn't have to go home for three years. If he's being abused.
The bigger question is why would Harry return if he's being abused? Harry shows he has no trouble standing up for himself in book one by jumping on Vernons back. Then we see Harry's increasingly violent behavior through the series. We also see Harry return year after year.
Harry it seems is not being abused. Which means he runs away because he wants too.
This is another sign of Rowlings poor writing. She hints that they are abusive to keep our attention, but then shows us they aren't. Then poor readers think they actually are.

Harry is angry is every book, but angry after book four to the point of insanity. Most grown men don't bellow at girls like Harry did. The opposite of love is hate, and he shows that too. Anger is very close to hate and is very destructive. It's apalling to see Harry so far gone at such a young age. I pointed out before that anger is much more devestating than lust.

I repeated your lines back to you because they fit Twilight better. You have a habit of useing stuff from both books just on HP.

Bella is a character full of love that mature readers can relate to and envy. Meyer expertly writes us a story where the pages nearly turn themselves, while mature readers have to choke down the first few HP books.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012 1:55:06 PM PDT
W.Westphal says:
Really Foger? You are implying that the Dursleys are NOT busive. The fact that they are abusive is right in front of your eyes. Why do you say "If the Dursleys are abusive"? It is clear that they are. They lock Harry in a cupboard and they almost starve him sometimes. They hit him and are downright mean to him. You are NOT going to win any arguments saying that they are not abusive.

And the school did to something about it. Remember in OOTP when Moody confronts Vernom? I call that doing something.

Posted on May 2, 2012 2:53:42 PM PDT
Bookd says:
Harry increasingly angry? Sure is and who could blame him, he's dealt a lot of injustice in his young life, and as an adolescent I'm sure he's grappling with both parents being dead. I think Harry behaves better then most boys would-many kids from bad situations turn to drugs or worse. And I can speak from experience, I taught for many years on the children's ward of a psych hospital. You wouldn't believe the things kids are capable of-stuff so unbelievable I couldn't write it here. So, anyone saying Harry is violent etc, makes me laugh at their complete inexperience in life and total ignorance.

And Bella, mature and loving? Did you actually read Eclipse? She becomes the most selfish, self centered person on earth by the end of that book. She treats not only her parents but both love interests like absolute garbage.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  47
Total posts:  236
Initial post:  Sep 14, 2008
Latest post:  May 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Breaking Dawn Special Edition (The Twilight Saga)
Breaking Dawn Special Edition (The Twilight Saga) by Stephenie Meyer (Hardcover - August 4, 2009)
3.8 out of 5 stars (6,993)