WHY HARRY POTTER IS BETTER THAN TWILIGHT
The Harry Potter novels are one of the very few book series which have been deemed a classic by critics and readers right after being published. It was obvious for everyone from the start that Harry Potter would be remembered forever. The same cannot be said for the Twilight novels by Stephanie Meyer which are poorly written trash, surprisingly amusing to many teens nationwide. The movies came out as well, which were even worse than the books, which is saying something. Honestly, I could only watch the very first one; it was too painful to see the soap opera continue.
To summarize the books, Harry Potter is the story of an orphan boy who discovers he is a wizard, and his parents were killed by the evil Lord Voldemort. Each book records his epic adventures in the thrilling battle of Good vs. Evil. Twilight is the story of Bella Swan, an ordinary girl who moves to a small town, and there she meets and falls in love with gorgeous Edward Cullen. Who, (surprise surprise!) turns out to be a vampire, the books are about her love for Edward, and what she does to be with him. You might think that because the two series' are so different, it's stupid to compare the two. Still, there has been an ongoing war between the Twilight fans and Harry Potter fans, so I hope to clear all of this up.
After the Twilight Saga became so popular with many teenage girls, the movies and books were deemed by some "the new Harry Potter" which was immediately an insult to HP fans around the world, myself included. It was hard for me to be able to compare the two at first. It was like comparing a two year olds drawing to the Mona Lisa. There are many reasons as to why this is so offensive to us. The novels of Harry Potter draw the reader in, transporting them to a whole new world with its descriptive and fluent writing. JK Rowling, the author of the novels, created a place full of wonders, new languages, new creatures, and thousands of fascinating spells. So much detail is put into this amazing setting! On the other hand, the Twilight Series is set in Forks, Washington, which is a boring and bland place lacking in diversity in race and personality. The background of the Cullen Family, and how they became vampires is poorly thought out and cheesy, while the history of the wizard villain Voldemort, is explained thoroughly, and has many unique and imaginative characters, yet is simple and easy to understand. Also, the Twilight series is a bunch of romance novels, with one genre. Harry Potter on the other hand, is mainly fantasy, but also incorporates comedy, romance, adventure, and action! A boring setting creates the mood for the tedious stories that await you in the Twilight novels.
Though many Twilight lovers argue that there is no romance in Harry Potter, they obviously have not read the books. They weren't part of the main plot, but there were many romances in the books, which meant much more than Edward/Bella love, because as the books continued, there were hints of crushes, relationships building, friends becoming more than friends, and more teenage awkwardness. These are much more realistic than the blatant ones of the Twilight Saga, and therefore much more meaningful to most anyone who has experienced these kind of situations, which includes most people who have gone through puberty. One could argue that twilight is not romantic, but instead full of lusty desire, which is, though some might not recognize the distinctness between the two, quite different.
Another popular reason that Twilight is better than HP is that the Saga has "hot guys and girls"in the movies and books. Seriously? Is this even an argument in a literature debate? I suppose it is valid enough and because it is such a popular response, it must be addressed. Hot guys and girls don't make a good story. A good writer does. If "hot" people is all you want, go look at celebrities in some magazine, but don't bother the rest of the world with your insensibility. We value quality literature, not attractive men and women. This is not a valid reason. Most people value good actors and actresses, and not how attractive people are. Is the Hunchback of Notre Dame not a classic? Think of the countless stories with less than gorgeous characters which are renowned as fine literature.
The actors and actresses from Twilight aren't even good! Some people appreciate those stars who are humble, but Kristen Stewart who plays Bella in the Twilight movies, takes it a step further than necessary. She has no presence and breaks down on stage. She is so timid she can barely talk in front of people, lord knows how she even acts in the movies. At the MTV movie awards, Kristen Stewart was so nervous she actually dropped her award, after muttering into the mic for a couple awkward minutes. And her acting in the movies isn't much better. With her monotone voice, she manages to go through entire films without showing any emotion. Her bland acting skills make the movie painful to watch… so why waste your time watching it at all? But I suppose she plays Bella well, Bella doesn't have a personality either.
The Harry Potter books are fascinating because of their twisting plot, with a great deal of subplots along the way. Many of the earlier books contain details that may seem insignificant, but really tie into the future plots of the later books. For example before Harry discovers he is a wizard, he has a conversation with a snake at the reptile house. In the beginning, readers believed this to be a normal part of being a wizard, but in the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, we discover he is special even among other witches and wizards, and not everyone has the ability to talk to snakes. This ability proves itself useful later in the story. Some details are so fascinating but so small, that most readers don't recognize them, like the fact that the way to get into the Ministry of Magic is pressing 62442, which spells "magic" on a phone! HP's plot is peppered with unique and interesting characters which have a lot of depth to them. Rowling's characters are lovable not because they are attractive, but because of their personalities. The Twilight series has a bunch of lovesick characters, whose emotions don't go much deeper than that. Twilight has none of this, just one simple plot that continues through the whole series. The first book can be described as this: Bella falls in love with a guy but he is a vampire. New Moon: Edward leaves Bella and she is sad, her friend Jacob tries to help. But, try summarizing the Harry Potter books in a single sentence, especially the more intricate later books! As the praised writer Stephen King said "The real difference is that J.K. Rowling is a terrific writer, and Stephanie Meyer can't write a damn."
Harry Potter is an amazingly popular series and their author, JK Rowling knows it. As a result, she's sufficiently secure that she's not afraid to kill off some good guys, even if they are a lot of people's favorite characters. Most HP fans are so devoted they don't even consider that to kill off the characters wasn't a good choice, it is all part of the Good vs. Evil battle, and what kind of battle would it be if not one of the good guys got hurt? A boring one, that's what. And that is exactly what Twilight is, a boring book, where no favorites get hurt. In Harry Potter, the ending isn't all happy, which keeps it real. More people can relate to a pleasant reality with a few sad parts, than a fairytale ending. When you know nothing's going to happen, there is no point in reading any more. The books are too predictable, which is why they are so exhausting to read.
Edward and his vampire family are nothing like the vampires we previously knew. These vampires are fierce, and strong, and…. Sparkly? Yes, my friends, Twilight has created vampires who do not burn in the sun, or sleep in coffins, or even drink human blood! There is no such thing as a vegetarian vampire! That wouldn't be a vampire! The whole idea is simply ridiculous, and Stephanie Meyer has made up a whole new creature, yet she still has the audacity to call it a vampire! JK Rowling alludes to the great authors and classic myths of the past, but also throws in her own twist, like that mermaids are really ugly and lawn gnomes infest wizarding gardens. She adds to the creature, and creates more detailed histories and origins. Because she stays loyal to the creature, readers can connect with her characters more and appreciate the twist she gives them.
You can really relate to the Harry Potter characters, but the Twilight characters don't develop, or evolve. The readers watch Harry grow and mature, and so do his relationships with others. Character developments are very complex, as they are in real life. The courageous and loyal Harry from The Deathly Hallows is massively different than the small, timid Harry in The Sorcerer's Stone. With every trial he faces, he learns new lessons and learns from his experiences. No one could have ever believed that eleven year old Harry could have taken on Voldemort in a face to face battle, but byt the end of the 7th book, confidence in him is obvious, as he has he has endured so many tests of his courage and compassion. Ron, one of the leading characters in Harry Potter and Harry's best friend, starts out as an insecure boy, who turns out to have a wonderful sense of humor and be very brave and loyal as well. In Twilight, the characters were introduced in the first book, and there was nothing left to expand out through the next three books. In Twilight, we learn that Bella is caring, whiny, clumsy, shy, and pretty smart; traits that remain constant in the following books. The same can be said for Edward, as he is a vampire, and they don't age, so he remains virtually unchanging throughout the rest of the "saga". When Edward left Bella in New Moon, it was hard to feel sympathy for the lovesick girl. Their relationship wasn't developed, and so it didn't mean as much as those in Harry Potter. There was no sense of true love between Edward and Bella, only lust and Bella fantasizing over his amazing features. I can honestly say that I don't think anyone would be able to relate to having a sparkly vampire as a boyfriend.
Relating to readers is a very hard thing to do. Many people (not only in books) struggle constantly with it. Parents with their children, teachers with students. Stephanie Meyer must have a hard time with kids, because her books come off as condescending, and like an older adult trying to stay relevant with the times. The only way fathomable that teenage girls relate to the books, is their love of romance, no matter how poorly written. Kind of like a poorly done chick flick in the form of a book. But JK Rowling really captures all of the feelings of teenage awkwardness in love and friendship, so that readers can feel his emotions. He deals with complicated relationships, hurt feelings, jealousy, and lies. These are all things teenagers face in their lives.
She cares about her research as well, and many of the spells that Harry and his friends learn are based on Latin words, which are similar to the use of the spell. She also researches material on her characters names, for instance one of the characters who can turn into a dog is named Sirius, which means "Dog Star". Also, the headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry's name is Albus Dumbledore, who is a powerful but kind Professor. Albus means white, signifying that Professor Dumbledore is a kind, and pure person. J.K. Rowling takes the extensive research she has done, and twists it into a wonderful, original, story, that no one has ever thought of before. The Twilight series is a poorly done modern version of countless other "forbidden love with vampire" novels, the most famous of which is Dracula! It's obvious that, though Stephanie Meyer has attempted her own twist on the love story, she failed, leaving us all with a disconnected mishap of a story.
The HP films credit the epic tale they record, and remain as loyal to the books as possible in such a small amount of screen time, which is very impressive, seeing as they have a lot to live up to. They used all the material and special effects possible, while Twilight's pathetic display of modern affects is sparkly vampire bodies and quick movement. Not to mention actors… Like Kristen Stewart who plays Bella, the main character, with no emotion or inflection whatsoever. And what about Robert Pattison, the guy who plays Edward, the brooding vampire? You'd think that it would be good for him to look dead on camera, he is playing the "undead"! Funnily enough he actually acted as Cedric in the fourth Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire! Still, I can't help but feel sorry for him, he has been quoted on numerous occasions saying that he can't wait to be done filming the series, and that he liked it much better working on the Harry Potter movies!
Even parents will agree that the Harry Potter books are educational as well as entertaining. Through magical creatures it taught its readers of prejudice and slavery. In the novels, Voldemort was evil because he only respected those with "pure" wizarding blood. If you were only half wizard you were frowned upon by those of "higher" class. One of Harry's best friends, Hermione Granger, was one of these "Mudbloods" as they were called, and she was the smartest witch in her grade, showing that it doesn't matter what background you're from, you can still be the best.
The consequences of being mean are also displayed in the fifth HP book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, in which Harry believes that Sirius, who is his godfather, is being tortured by Voldemort. Sirius has a house elf, a magical creature which is devoted and loyal to the one designated as his or her master. House elves enjoy working, as long as their master is nice, which Sirius is not. Kreacher (the house elf) reminds him of his troubled childhood, so he treats him poorly. In the end, it turns out this wasn't the best thing to do, because when Harry asks Kreacher if Sirius is home, he replies no. This leads Harry to believe that Sirius is being tortured, so he goes to save him, realizes he has been fooled, and Sirius is killed in the process of trying to rescue Harry from Voldemort. Though bleak, the lesson is clear, as Sirius once said ""If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." Pretty ironic, seeing as he died because he treated his "inferior" (Kreacher) so poorly.
This also brings another thing into light. Role models. Bella Swan, the girl in Twilight, is a weak individual who cannot survive without her boyfriend Edward. In fact, the whole second book of the series, New Moon, is about her obsession with him, and her depression when he leaves her. This the kind of thing you want to be reading about? If so, go see a psychiatrist, or at least a librarian, because there are so many better, stronger female characters out there. Like Hermione Granger! She doesn't need a boyfriend to hang onto. She can be intelligent and kind independently. That's the kind of person we want teens to look up to.
Because of Bella Swan, many feminists have spoken out against the Twilight series. Bella portrays a girl dominated and reliant on her vampire boyfriend. She is described as "plain" or "normal" while Edward is "dazzling", "beautiful", and even "god-like". This suggests that girls are inferior to males. Their relationship also is rather puzzling. At two weeks Bella declares that she has discovered "true love". This is very unrealistic, and it seems that Bella doesn't really love her boyfriend. Constantly thinking of his looks and "perfect beauty", it seems that the two have a lust based relationships. As many critics of the Twilight series point out, the two never seem to have a decent conversation that isn't unbearably awkward… unless of course, it's about how much they "love" each other. They never share views, ideas, hobbies, or anything that most couples do, and they don't have normal disagreements or fights at all! This sends a misinformed message that no work is needed to succeed in a relationship.
Bella is also unhealthily obsessed with Edward; he is all she will ever think about. Soon she is distanced from her friends and her family, because she is not capable doing anything without her darling Edward. Not to mention Edward isn't the best boyfriend, he tries to eat her and stalks her constantly. He even watches her while she sleeps! (This, by the way, is illegal). Most would be disgusted at his blatant disregard for privacy, but of course "typical teenage Bella" falls even more in love with him.
Things get even worse in book two of the Twilight Saga, New Moon, when Edward leaves her and she is severely depressed for the rest of the book. Her whole life now revolves around Edward, who she has only known for less than a year. She does extremely dangerous things so that she can hear his voice in her head. Obviously, there is something wrong with the girl. This is hardly a healthy reaction to a teenage break-up. She feels as if she "isn't good enough for him", as she says in the last part of the book. She obviously has low self esteem, and insecurity isn't something a role model should have.
Her weak, innocent, personality is also at fault here, as she cannot do anything for herself. In countless dangerous situations, she never can deal with the problem herself, it's always some male figure, like her boyfriend, who has to come and save her. In her Bio class, she fainted because she saw blood, got almost smooshed by a truck until Edward jumped out to save the day, and doesn't fight back when attacked by the evil vampire James. At that point she almost dies, but is saved, once again, by Edward (damn it, why couldn't he have let her die and then the book would be over?). Bella is the perfect stereotypical woman- helpless and fragile. All of the other characters are like this, Rosalie is conceited, Esme is kindhearted and maternal, and Leah and Jessica are boy obsessed, all of which are female stereotypes. And they always have boyfriends who are smarter, kinder, and more attractive than them.
This being said, it has come to my attention, that one of the arguments for Twilight against Harry Potter is that Bella is easier to relate to than Harry! Who can relate to a self absorbed, depressed, whiny teen with a vampire, borderline abusive and definitely creepy boyfriend, who she is obsessed with? An insecure person who can barely lift a finger for herself, even if she could die? I should hope that no one can.
Another good thing about Harry Potter is that it doesn't just appeal to girls, as opposed to Twilight. Harry Potter books feature a very large amount of boy characters, so boys find it fun to read as well! The main character is a boy! And there aren't too many boys either; there are many females like Harry's best friend, Hermione Granger, who is one of the main protagonists. My friends and I are all girls and we are completely obsessed with Harry Potter!
Not only would do boys and girls like it, people of all ages would appreciate it. My father has read the series, and believes that the books are well written and interesting. We had a whole load of fun reading the final book together! The series is also great to read with the family. The books age as you do, getting more complicated and fascinating as the series continues, which is one of the best part of reading the books, watching the characters change and mature. Twilight is geared more towards romance- intrigued young girls.
According to Twihards, people like the books because they could be real. They argue that they aren't poorly written, just made so that people of all ages can understand them, and Harry Potter isn't geared toward such a diverse age group! Because the books are in Harry's point of view, and he thinks "deep thoughts" they are hard to relate to, because most people don't think that way, they have more simple thoughts, like Bella's. However, the fact is, that thoughts ARE very complex, and literature must be embellished to be more interesting. Harry thinks things that we all do, he wonders if his crush, Ginny, likes him, he wonders how he will do in the next sports match(Quidditch). For another thing, this argument is based on the fact that Twilight is more realistic, and I don't think much of the book is realistic. If someone told you in the normal world that they were a vampire you wouldn't instantly believe them, like Bella did, and if you did, it would probably scare the crap out of you. Of course, Bella acts unafraid, as if this is perfectly normal, and reacts to Edward saying he "thirsts for her blood" with no fear at all, as if he politely told her about the weather that morning. No emotion or reaction is not realistic. When Harry is told that he is a wizard, he is incredulous, and doesn't believe it until he is faced with the proof. Seeing the new Wizarding World, is wonderous for him, he is overcome with happiness. If it were Bella in this new world, she would probably just have continued her moping, and find something to complain about… But is that not the argument? Could Twilight fans possibly mean that there story was more realistic because of the characters and setting, not the emotions, reactions and depth of the characters? If so, they should know something that could clear a few things up- in fantasy genres- things don't have to be realistic It is called fiction. In fact, most people enjoy unrealistic places, most likely this is why they read fantasy in the first place, to be transported into a new world. Most would say that being unrealistic about those kinds of things is a plus.
Furthermore, though Twilight's less than brilliant vocabulary can, admittedly, be easier to understand for some of the younger readers, that doesn't mean its appropriate for them. In the last book, there is a scene where Edward and Bella actually have sexual contact, and even before that, the steamy and rather creepy relationship is a bit much for some of our youth. Not to mention that we would want children growing up with good role models and literature… so Harry Potter seems much more appropriate in both categories.
Then of course, there is the stereotypical Twihard argument, "wizards suck and vampyres rulee. its that easy" which is what you will mostly see on the internet if you are inquiring for decent and valid statements from the opposition. Which this is not. Now that these kinds of people who respond in such ways have kindly stated their interesting opinion, would they be kind enough to support this with evidence? Of course not! Possibly if they justified their opinions and learned to spell like a literate person, others would take their "reason" more seriously. I also might add that the above statement, is purely opinion. If you can really refer to those creatures of Stephanie Meyer's creation as Vampires at all, as they don't do anything like these mythical creatures besides drink blood… Which the main characters don't even do! As another point, there are actually vampires in Harry Potter too…
Another statement that I found on a blog in the internet (as it has been seen countless other times in varying phrases) is, "i think h.p. is sooooo immature! it iz totally last year! twilight iz a lot more modern and popular, i'm guessing. and i loooove edward & bella!" which is literally copied and pasted from question/ind… (yahoo answers). Thanks for all the examples there, buddy. And I must say that the releases of all the most recent books are within the same two years, not a significant difference. It's hard to respond to such a vague statement, but I think the point is pretty much clear. People are running out of reasons why Harry Potter sucks. Because it doesn't.
This answer has not come up much in intelligent debate, but it does occasionally, and it is so easily disproved that there is almost no point in putting it into writing. However, to exemplify just how little basis Twihards have against Harry Potter, I will include it in this already extremely long essay. So here goes, "Twilight is popular, HP is not. Twilight is more famous than HP."This is absurd! Whether the rest of the arguments in this essay are just opinions or not, this one can be given a definite "NO". There are 400 million Harry Potter book sales world wide, and Twilight has sold 12 million. Even with the difference of amounts books in the series, (Harry Potter includes 7 books, Twilight, 3) the results are staggering. No doubt Harry Potter is more popular. Not to mention the movies were constantly rated higher that the Twilight films and movies critics are much kinder with Harry Potter than they are with the Twilight films. Looking at the popular movie critic website "Rotten Tomatoes", every Potter film receives positive feedback, no film has gotten less than a 77 percent, the highest rating being an impressive 89 percent for The Prisoner of Azkaban. The first two twilight films got terrible ratings in comparison. Also, whereas Twilight grossed 400 million in theatres and the sequel New Moon grossed 700, the Potter films hover closer to 1 billion dollars worldwide. The Harry Potter books has also outsold the Twilight books by a margin of 4 to 1. There is no denying that Twilight is (most unfortunately in my opinion) popular, but whether you like it or not, it is a fact that Harry Potter is more popular than Twilight. Even taking into account Popularity can be seen as a sign of quality, but in many cases it is not, as it also depends on personal taste. Also, popularity happens for a reason, people like the books because they are good. Harry Potter is vastly more popular than Twilight, so if that was meant to be an argument in favor of twilight, it was a failure. Perhaps next time, they should think about what they're going to say, researching and checking, before putting it into words.
Another point to be made is that Harry Potter really introduced the idea of midnight book releases, which of course, Twilight took advantage of quite quickly. Not only this, but the seventh Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was split into two parts, and soon after, it was announced that Breaking Dawn, the last Twilight movie/book, would be split into two parts as well. Coincidence? I think not.
To interest you, I have added some more Twihard opinions from the blog 2010/… say: that Harry Potter teaches readers that is O.K. to drop out of school and go hunt a crazy, murderous maniac by yourself, and not even go with an adult or anything, violence is totally cool, just because you're an orphan since some guy killed your parents, it's okay to be a jerk to your friends and accuse them of "not getting it", death is no big deal, and happens all the time, it's okay to escape from jail,don't trust your government, and it's okay to break the rules.
Wow, where to begin… First of all, Harry Potter never suggests anything like the first "theme"mentioned, simply because he does it, doesn't mean that they say it is appropriate. The plot is mainly to provide action, and a compel to read, which Twilight fans would not understand, as Twilight has neither of these two things. It also never says that violence is cool, in fact, it more so preaches against violence. Harry and Hermione try not to hurt people, but violence happens, and the series is about dealing with it and taking action. As the saying goes sometimes you must "fight fire with fire". Death is a huge deal in the series, and though it happens in the books, there is nothing in them suggesting that it isn't a big deal. Every death is significant to Harry, and hurts him deeply. Harry is a jerk to his friends occasionally throughout the book, but this is because, as most readers can relate, he feels misunderstood, and that is how he deals with it. The books make it obvious that this isn't the way to handle things, and soon Harry matures, as his character develops. None of the Twilight characters mature at all, and Harry Potter is all about relationships with friends and girlfriends as well, and also talks about the awkward years of adolescence. Bella and Edwards relationship may seem like love to some, but if you look closer, it is easy to see that Bella's relationship is full of lust and not love. This is why most of the book talks about appearances rather than personality. It also doesn't teach that it is O.K. to sneak out of jail, though in this case it was, because the jailbird was wrongfully accused. No one with a sensible mind would base decisions off of fantasy actions… though some of the initial messages in Harry Potter are very true, like its words against slavery, prejudice, and other important topics. Also, if you had a government such as this, who lie to you, and aren't doing their job, then it is perfectly within your right to stand up for what you believe in. Though Harry Potter never teaches that it is right to break the rules, sometimes they must be broken, and you should stand up for what you believe in! All of these counterarguments are true for every one of these "arguments" above.
Because of Harry Potter's awesomeness, barely anyone hates it besides Christians who think it's too magic oriented, and offer no other valid arguments. Some must give in to its excellence, however, like novelist Jerry B. Jenkins, who owns a Christian writers guild, yet admits "They're incredibly written books!" Other than them, HP has almost no haters (except some Twilight fans, but we're not counting mental people here). Twilight however, has many, many, haters, most of which are Harry Potter fans, as well as others who value good literature. Not all of them are obsessed with HP either… so you decide! And if you really want to see how Twilight fans are check out .com. It's scary.
Many Harry Potter fans have been sad lately, because they believe that the "magic will end" after the final movie comes out. This is ridiculous. There are many things to do to keep the magic alive, rereading the books is one (which I have done many many times) and introducing it to younger generations can keep the series popular. The first book came out more than 15 years ago, so the series has already proved it can stand the test of time. Twilight's movies and books were released in a very small time period in comparison to Harry Potter's, so theres no way of knowing how long it will last.
And then there is another thing to consider… which book series has a whole theme park devoted to it? The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is located in Universal Studios, Orlando, Florida. The 20-acre park includes attractions, restaurants, rides, and shops themed around a reproduction of the Hogwarts castle and grounds, as well as Honeydukes, the wizarding village. If there is anything to guarantee that Harry Potter will remain a part of pop culture, it's this. Universal Studios wouldn't put so much money into a franchise that they didn't believe would be popular enough to hang around for a long time. So many people have visited it that they are still building new attractions!
Twilight's movies and books were released in a very small time period in comparison to Harry Potter's, so theres no way of knowing how long it will last.
In conclusion, it really doesn't matter if you like Twilight or not (except it totally does); the Harry Potter books are a joy for anyone to read. I would highly recommend you do read them, if you haven't already done so. I apologize if I have given away too much information from the books, but trust me; there are so many more surprises. So I hope you have learned something today; while Twilight is a grotesque fad that will pass eventually, Harry Potter, with the support of many loving fans, will remain a classic forever.
P.S I don't own anything. Review. And subscribe to my channel. kidding I don't have any channels.