Bullshit. EditAccording to every twihard, Stephenie Meyer is the next JK Rowling, implying that Twishit better then Harry Potter, despite the Potter series having a good 10 years over the comparatively infantile "Twilight Saga." This is generally supported (in the loosest sense of the term) by one of two things: either a "OMG HOW CAN U SAY NYTHING IS BETTER THAN TWILIGHT" or a "but Stephie's sold so many books!!! she's so popular!!!" (sometimes heard as "BUT ECLPSE KNOCKED DH OFF THE BESTSELLER LIST!!!!131" or "DEY HAD TO POSTPONE HBP MOVIE BCUZ OF TWILITE!!!").
Since the first "argument" hardly requires debunking, let us deal with the second. Unfortunately for Smeyer, quantity IS NOT a measure of quality. Even more unfortunately for her is that even if it did, she would be losing. Rowling has sold over 400 million in 11 years, whereas Meyer? Not so much at 85 million since 2005. Even old-school sci-fi, (which are usually condemned to low sales figures) have outsold Breaking Dawn, with Dune selling 12 million copies. And that's excluding the 20 other books that the Dune series has.
Or how about this: The Tales of Beedle the Bard has surpassed the total sales of Breaking Dawn (11 million books total), in only its pre-orders. Deathly Hallows did 11 million in a single day. Math. YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. Or maybe not even doing it.
The Harry Potter movie was moved to the summer, because it was planned to be a big event- it was not shoved out of the spotlight by Twilight. Because of the writer's strike WB didn't have any sure summer blockbusters; in 2008 it made nearly a billion dollars from The Dark Knight alone. However, in summer 2009 it didn't have the same guarantee of a blockbuster movie, and thus making significantly less money wouldn't appeal much to its shareholders. Since the Half Blood Prince is guaranteed to make good money, they made a (pretty smart) financial decision to release it next year. Update: As of July 15, 2009 Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince hit a world record in midnight sales. It made 21 million just from the first midnight showing. That is a feat never before seen in the history of films.
CUD U B MOAR SPESIFICK?Edit
1) General Writing Edit
Harry Potter is a complicated story arc, set in an imaginative and internally consistent universe, played out by realistic, multifaceted characters. Twilight has little real plot beyond "OMG EDWARD <33333", is full of consistency issues, and ignorance of
scientific principles hell, just general logic. And while the characters may have multifaceted skin, their personalities are flimsier than your average well cooked gluten-free spaghetti. Harry Potter has a villain who is practically pure evil; Twilight's villains are sufficiently more compelling than the heroes that the sane reader tends to root for them above the Cullens. Harry Potter is well written, with proper word use, spelling and grammar. Twilight is full of purple prose and basic mistakes, and Meyer relies excessively on words she has no clue how to use. In short terms, Harry Potter is better than Twilight by a long shot.
2) Authors Edit
Unlike Meyer, who claimed she never wanted to be a writer (obviously true, since she claimed that writing Twilight took 3 months) J. K. Rowling worked for years on her series before even thinking about publishing it, and it shows. She spent the first five years figuring out what her character could and couldn't do. Next, she put in details, personalities, character flaws, and creativity, none of which Stephiebrat has. Stephenie wishes she was the next Rowling, but next to Jo and her charities and kind heart, Meyer just comes off as a whiny brat of a 15 year old FF.net writer with an over-inflated ego and no brains to show for it.
While comparing Meyer to J. K. Rowling, Stephen King stated, "the real difference [between J. K. Rowling and Meyer] is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer, and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."
3) Research Edit
Rowling did it. Meyer didn't. (See #2. It really does show.) Meyer had a wet dream about a guy who sparkled, and decided to write books about it, calling him a vampire. She did almost no research about vampires, except for one Google search, from which she copy-pasted a few bits of info into her manuscript, and that was it. She used biology to try to explain her vampires, but did no research into how biology actually works. She did no research on crystalline structures, geography of South America, and numerous other things she refers to in her books. Harry Potter, by comparison, exhibits a blatant lack of unnecessary factual inaccuracies.
Rowling did her research. She took trips to serveral British boarding schools to find out about life inside. She brushed up on her mythology before using creatures from Greek tales. She extensively researched the real names she used in her books (ex. Nicolas Flamel and Fawkes). Not to mention the Latin she used when naming the magic performed.
4) Knowledge about their own booksEdit
Rowling has it, Meyer doesn't. Need proof? Rowling had sketched the whole Hogwarts grounds and some of the characters. She had a list of every student in the age of Harry going to Hogwarts even if they never showed up in the books. She had written the whole Weasley and Black family tree. In fact, Rowling knows so much about her story that she's planning to write an entire encyclopedia of Harry Potter just for all the stuff that didn't make it into the books (man, that takes some dedication). Frozen Apples prediction: That encyclopedia, if it is published, will outsell Breaking Dawn within
a day ten seconds half a day a few hours.
And Meyer? She pulled numerous stories out of her ass about her characters. What background story does she have on Edward other than that he wanted to be a soldier and would have died in the Spanish influenza epidemic? Yeah, nothing. And he's a main character! No explanation as to why he can read minds, nothing about his parents or any other relatives or friends. And the other Cullens? We barely know anything about their past, because they don't need one, right? She doesn't even explain their special abilities if they don't explain themselves (like those stupid powers of being pretty, strong and passionate). Did I remind you about Marcus' power of seeing relationships? (And I thought I was lazy)
5) 'The Books ThemselvesEdit
“Harry Potter is about friendships, bravery and the importance of choices. Twilight is about having a boyfriend ”
- ~ Any sane person
On the whole, the messages and themes of Harry Potter are much more positive than those of Twilight. In Harry Potter, female characters routinely challenge sexism when they see it. All of the "good" characters try to help others as much as possible when they can, and not just themselves. For example, in New Moon, Bella does nothing to help the victims of the Volturi . She expresses no concern for them at all. Their screams do not move her in the slightest, she only cares about making out with Edward. In Deathly Hallows, Harry and his friends cannot simply sit by and watch as Muggleborns are persecuted by the Ministry of Magic. They risk their lives to release the Cattermoles and the other Muggleborns.
6) Female Characters Edit
- Okay let's take a look at a very good reason. Harry Potter has strong female characters while Twilight does not. Look at Hermione Granger, the main female character from Harry Potter. Well, she rocks! She is smart, brave, not afraid to kick butt, and a whole bunch of other things Miss Mary Sue isn't. We also have Bellatrix Lestrange who is something called a real villain, and Molly Weasley, the woman who killed the previous woman after Bella(trix) nearly did away with her only daughter. Look it up fangirls. There really is no weak female character. And don't get me started on the weak characters in the Idiotlight
sagapile of waste pretending to be literature.
BUT NOTHINGS BETTER THN TWILIGHT!!!!!!1!! Edit
There are an infinite number of things that are better than Twilight. Harry Potter is one of them, deal with it.