I am in my 40's and have read all HP books at least once. I am half way through the third book of the Twilight series. I agree that the HP series is superior. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the Twilight love story is best for teenage girls whereas HP appeals to all ages. The writing in HP is more creative and clever also.
I don't get it either. Sure, they're both a series that appeals to young people and center on the supernatural, but that's about it. I'm not hating on fans of Twilight, but there just seems to be a lot less to it. Twilight will likely pass out of its level of public consciousness long before the Harry Potter series will.
I don't get it either. This is my opinion. I think that alot of this debate came about when: 1. Eclipse knocked Deathly Hallows off the best sellers list No. 1 spot. Uhhh, that's no big surprise. Harry Potter was bound to leave the No. 1 spot sooner or later, and really, pretty much all the fans of HP had the last book bought when it came out the first weekend. There was no more to the series. But DH stayed on the best sellers list for a whole year after it came out, even with SO many copies sold it's opening weekend. I know alot of people wanted something new to read after they were done with HP...and Twilight was it. 2. Someone stroked SM's ego a bit by telling her that she's going to be bigger than JK Rowling....or at least the new JK Rowling. That, I have to laugh at because JK's writing is far superior to SM's. Sorry but it is. SM likes to repeat herself.....ALOT. I mean how many times did you hear about how gorgeous and perfect Edward was through the whole series? She could have edited ALOT out of all 4 of the books and gotten the same points across. 3. Yeah, when Diggory was cast as Edward, well that just added to the fire because all of a sudden people were debating that Edward (Robert) is so much more hotter than Harry (Daniel). Well of course the fans are going to think that. That's how SM wrote the book. Edward is meant to be portrayed as 'hot', and it's ingrained into your brain with the repetitive descriptions of Edward and his perfection.
This is just me, but when I was reading HP, I was eager to read them over and over, because the mystery was there. Like many, I wanted to figure it all out. I picked up something new each time I read the books. There were things left to be discovered and there were so many theories and discussions. That and all the books were written so well, I never got sick of them. It was great fun! With Twilight, the only mystery I felt was whether or not Bella was going to be changed. It just didn't add to the need to read over and over and over. I admit though, that I really liked Twilight when I first read it. But Twilight was the only one of the series that I read more than once. I liked New Moon less and Eclipse less, and only read each of those once. I hated Breaking Dawn. But my desire to read the series really dwindled after Breaking Dawn. That and SM said a few things that probably were best kept to herself.
Harry Potter is a children's story. Twilight is a teeny boppers love story. They are not even the same 'type' of story. The only thing they have in common is that they are of the Fantasy genre. The reasons for the debate don't make alot of sense, IMO. If people feel the need to pit Twilight against anything, maybe it should be compared to the writing of other love stories and other teen novels, not a childrens story.
Both are good and I think that to compare them is like comparing apples and oranges. The twilight series is very much geared toward teenage girls, but if any book can reach and have the reaction that both Harry Potter and Twilight have on people of all ages, then I don't see what the big deal is. Harry Potter is by far more adventureous and better written but I found myself not wanting to put down any of the twilight series either. So why do we compare these two series? Because they are they are both electifying in their own way. Both are very popular, and well, you can't get that popular without something to back it up. Both series live up to their hype.
I'm an avid reader. Have been since a child. When I was reading HP series I was amazed by the level of writing. Her writing was great. I've reread the books and enjoyed them even more. I've given the complete series to each of my children and nieces and nephews. I've always loved vampires, so I got the Twilight series and read through them all. They were entertaining but they could have been so much better. The storyline was there but the stories themselves could have been written so much better. They were written on the level of a young teen girl's diary. I won't be giving them out as gifts. I've seen where SM has written other stories but now I'm not sure I even want to bother. As for the movie..It was okay for one time.....
I don't think so either. I didn't like Pattinson when they first announced he was going to be Edward. But I guess I let myself get used to him, because...well he wasn't going anywhere. He was still going to be Edward. But then I saw the movie, and it reminded me why I didn't like him in the first place. I didn't care much for him as an actor, and he just didn't pull off Edward good enough for me altogether.
But the silly thing is, there is no need for them to compete with each other. I've read the HP books, and I've read all the Twilight books. Twilight, while I liked it the first time through, really got on my nerves the second time through. Too much detail and repetition of Edwards looks and Bella's swooning. Ick. Harry Potter, I've read 7 times each, and just started on my 8th reading, and I have never gotten sick of them. That, for me personally, says a lot about the writing of both series.
A lot of fans of Twilight like to say that those who don't like the books have just never read them and are just jealous (for whatever reason, I don't know :\). That just simply isn't true. Everyone I know that doesn't like the books has read them. I don't really see any reason why people would be jealous of those books. It makes no sense. Each of the Twilight books could have been at least 200 pages shorter and still the same things would have happened. But SMeyer like I said, likes to throw in the repetition.
I really don't see the necessity of comparing the books. It's almost as if the Twilight community has some big point to prove. But there is no point to be proven. Both books are of different story line and plot. HP is childrens wizard/magic fantasy. Twilight is YA paranormal romance. Not the same thing. HP was never written with the intent of romance and "sex appeal". JKR said herself that she's not much of a romance writer and that HP was not about the sex appeal kind of romance. It's a different kind of love. Twilight was written with "sex appeal" and romance type love. Again, not the same kind of story. Harry Potter appeals to all, male/female, young/old. Whereas Twilight's majority is female, young/old with a few males mixed in. Just everything about the two is different. It's rather silly that this stupid "war" is still going on.
My opinion on why these two series get compared to each other is because of popularity. These are probably the two most famous series for "younger readers" in the last decade (at least) that have struck a huge cord with people. I was starting to believe that no one under the age of 15 enjoyed reading good old fashioned BOOKS anymore till HP came along. The series completely restored my faith in the younger minds of the world again. Suddenly, reading was fun again. Then along came Twilight (completely different from HP with the small exception of it falling into a category of 'fantasy'), and once again, young people (this time more tween-aged and so on) were reading again.
They are completely different tales, but they are both series that pull you into another world. The only difference is that one takes place in a wizarding world with spells and curses, and the other brings you into a rainy Washington town with vampires and werewolves. Who knows why exactly they automatically get compared (I hope it isn't the plain fact that Rob Pattinson has appeared in both series' films), but I firmly believe it's because these two series have been two of the most successful group of books among kids and teenagers in what feels like a lifetime. Both series have made reading fun, and dare I say, "cool" again. Just my two cents on the matter.
I am sick and tired of hearing all of these little teenage girls and weirdly obsessed adults commenting on how much better the "Twilight" Saga is compared to the "Harry Potter" series. Now, don't start judging me and think that I'm just hating on Stephenie Meyer. I own the books and read them before they became the huge success they are. I think it's wonderful that there are more books out there that are intriguing young readers to WANT to read. J.K. Rowling started the trend, and Stephenie Meyer has come along to help with that.
I've done research and written a couple of papers about how the "Harry Potter" series has helped increase literacy rates in my generation and the generation younger than myself. I was nine or ten when the books first came out, and the fandom has grown immensely since then. They practically reinvented fanfiction, and here's the reason why: Rowling is an amazing writer with original ideas, plots, character development - can you honestly say that about Stephenie Meyer? Not in my opinion. Rowling has back story beyond back story about characters, Dementors, and other parts of the Wizarding World stored away. She CREATED that world. Sure, she drew from other books and myths and those sorts of stories, but she made them her own and gave credit to those stories within her novels. When you're writing a novel with fantasy involved, good triumphing over evil, you're going to see similarities from other kinds of stories [i.e. Star Wars, The Lord of the Ring]. It's just going to happen.
I believe that Stephenie Meyer was in the right place at the right time with "Twilight". Everyone was bummed about "Deathly Hallows" being the last book in the Potter series, and there was a longing to find the next Rowling within the literary world.
She had a plot, with a fantasy-type twist, and a romance story that was in the teen/young adult realm. She uses Romeo and Juliet comparisons and Bible connections [Adam and Eve, the apple... ringing any bells?]. Naturally, everyone wanted to find the next phenomenon and clung to something that could, somewhat, be found in the same genre as the Potter books.
Rowling wrote her books from a third person perspective, letting the reader see characters for their flaws and quirks. She was able to create characters that you could easily hate, love, laugh at, adore, be embarrassed for - you name it, Rowling created it. Meyer took a different route as far as the way the "Twilight" books were written. They're from a first person perspective, of the character Bella Swan. She meets this family of vampires and falls in love with one of them, the dazzling [and sometimes sparkling] Edward Cullen.
While I think that some of the dialogue in the "Twilight" saga is quite witty, it's easily outdone by Rowling's writing. There's something about the Potter books that just... draw you in from the very beginning.
I find Bella's character to be annoying, in all the wrong ways, and I don't find her relatable at all. In the books, I'm supposing Meyer wanted to give her a "unusual", or "quirky" disposition, so she made her clumsy beyond belief. It grated on my nerves, having to read about her constantly tripping and falling and doing idiotic things. I couldn't stand reading her point of view for too long. At least she gave us a break in "Breaking Dawn" and let Jacob speak for a change, right?
I know that by saying all of this, I might upset a lot of the Twi-hard fans out there. But you simply cannot compare them to the experience of the Harry Potter books, which have sold over 400 million copies worldwide [comparing to the 53 million Meyer's books have sold]. And if you REALLY want me to get started, ask me about the movies involving both book series's.
No, I don't agree with some of the things the directors have done with the past "Harry Potter" films. I was not a fan of Alfonso Cuaron's "Prisoner of Azkaban", nor was I a huge supporter of Mike Newell's "Goblet of Fire". But movies are going to do that. Name one movie based on a book that hasn't changed something to make it look more action-packed or to move the plot along. Name one. I dare you.
When I look at the movie "Twilight", however, I see much more than just a few sub-plots taken out. The very essence of the books that people care about so dearly was SUCKED OUT of the film. I found Kristen Stewart's characterization of Bella to be drab, dull, and unemotional - like most of her other movies. She's one-dimentional. And while I stated earlier that I dislike the character Bella, she's definitely not one-dimensional. I feel as though Catherine Hardwicke was given far too much credit for making the film and it being a success because she's a woman. You can't place Hardwicke in the same category as Sophia Coppola, can you? No, I didn't think so. The continuity of the film, as far as the editing, was horribly done, and it didn't capture what I thought would be the heart of the novel[s].
"Harry Potter" and "Twilight" are different. Two different stories, different characters, and different authors. So why are so many people comparing them to one another? Everyone wants something to hang on to. The Potter books ended, and Meyer was able to get her foot in the door when they needed someone to "step up" to the plate, as it were. However, the "Twilight" series lacks the brilliance, the plot, and the imagination that Rowling has instilled in the "Harry Potter" series.
There's no comparison here. "Harry Potter" has a magic that "Twilight" clearly is incapable of reproducing.
The only reasons I can think of are 1) both are best sellers, 2) both series are fantasy, and 3) mostly teens read them. And Harry Potter is more universal to everybody and not just teens. Plus the Harry Potter books don't have any annoying purple prose.
extremely well said. hp was much better written. jk rowling let me guessing to the very end and that's difficult for an author to do when writing for an adult audience. hp is a series that all ages can enjoy and it was not repetitive for the most part. the only repetitive thing that jk rowling wrote was having to fight to the death at the end but it was essential to the conversation at the time she wrote it.
A lot of people say this, but what most don't realize is that Harry Potter and Twilight have a lot more in common than everyone thinks.
First, they were both written by middle age women who had no idea their books would ever sell and only intended them for close friends and family.
Surprisingly, they both got extremely high book deals, especially for first time authors.
They both became extremely famous after their books went to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.
They both made a ton of money off of supernatural young adult books (JK Rowling becoming the one and only billionaire author).
Both of their books were made into extremely successful movies and merchandise.
Finally, both sparked a large amount of debate over the Internet and between friends/family.
So, the fact that people keep comparing Twilight and Harry Potter isn't that surprising. It has nothing to do with the actual storylines, which are really different other than the fact that they're fantasy. It has everything to do with the amount of success each book garnered and the success of the movies (about 400 million for the first Twilight and 1 billion for the first Harry Potter).
Yes, Harry Potter is a far better series and JK Rowling is a far better author. But you cannot deny that they are not similar.
In my humble opinion ... these are two different story lines and they don't compare at all. I like both of them ... that stands for both books and movies (they are different too) All I can say is enjoy them for what they are and don't try to compare. Have Fun S