• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Which is Better: Harry Potter or Twilight?

Which is better?

  • Harry Potter

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Twilight

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Ghosi

Schmetterling
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Location
Z-axis
Definitely Harry Potter. I love it when stories have magical fantasy in it, which Harry Potter does. As for Twilight, it just doens't really stand up to my expectations.... I mean, there is no such thing as a vegetarian vampire. I do not want to offend anyone with this, but I prefer vampires to be real vampires. Vampires are pretty much part of my heritage; I mean with Dracula and my Transylvanian ancestors. :P
 

Justeazy

Todo is the pfuf!
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Hmm...
Harry Potter: Very simplistic characters with minimal development, bad plot, very predictably story arcs and unrealistic, unmotivational enemies. A simple story, badly written, geared towards a wide audience without any specialization for anything, lacking something good in every category it can have. There's a reason it's rated at a fourth grade reading level.

Twilight: Very simplistic characters with minimal development, other than a steadily increasing horniness for eachother, bad plot, very predictably story arcs and unrealistic, unmotivational enemies. A simple story, badly written, geared towards a wide audience without any specialization for anything, lacking something good in every category it can have. Plus, to top (or bottom) it all off, it takes the classic, bloodthirsty, murderous creatures known as vampires and destroys the entire image of them for all of eternity with badly written, cheesy romance and body glitter.


If I had to pick one, I would pick Harry Potter simply because it's not quite as bad as Twilight, but they are both bad. VERY bad. Anyone who thinks either of these books are good, well that's your opinion. But if you think any of these are the best books ever in all of history forever, or whatever, no offense, but shutup, go study some English, increase your reading level and broaden your reading experience. I absolutely guarantee you, if you go and pick any books from the local book store's advanced reading section's matching genre, 3/5 of them will be much better.

And, for the record, I don't give my opinions uneducated. I've owned and read all 7 main Harry Potter and all 4 main Twilight books. Didn't like any of them.

Good for you korp; express your opinion even if everyone disagrees. :P
 
Last edited:

Rytex

Resident Netizen
Joined
May 10, 2010
Location
Random house in Texas.
CrazyforCuccos and Justeazy, now I'll rephrase it again as I did in post 1. I respect your opinions. You don't like Harry Potter (or Twilight, but who cares about those abominations?), and to each his own, but tell me, why do you not like Harry Potter at all?

Justeazy, you say you've read them, so you must know why you hated it (oh, and the reason it's rated at a fourth-grade reading level (at least, books 1-3 are, as 4-7 are considered Young Adult literature) is because there's hardly a mention of death in those three. Maybe a little bit, but nothing outright in your face, like it was in books 4-7). Was it for those reasons listed above?

And CrazyforCuccos, if they both are abominations of literature (which I'll agree with on Twilight), then why exactly are they the two most popular book series in the world? Even more so than The Lord of the Rings (which has been around for over 50 years), the Chronicles of Narnia (same time), Tom Clancy, Stephen King, His Dark Materials, and the Redwall series? Sure, we all get the reason why Twilight is, but I see more than just delusional teenage girls reading Harry Potter. If they're that bad, why does even Stephen King praise them? There was really no reason to call them abominations (besides the obvious). You didn;t like them, we get it.

Oh, and korp? What Justeazy said. Good for you on expressing your opinion when the rest of us don't agree.
 
Last edited:

Justeazy

Todo is the pfuf!
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
I respect your opinions. You don't like Harry Potter (or Twilight, but who cares about those abominations?), and to each his own, but tell me, why do you not like Harry Potter at all?
You say you respect my opinion but refuse to read what I wrote? Because I clearly expressed in an entire paragraph (that I mostly copied and added to for twilight) why I don't like Harry Potter.
Justeazy, you say you've read them, so you must know why you hated it (oh, and the reason it's rated at a fourth-grade reading level (at least, books 1-3 are, as 4-7 are considered Young Adult literature) is because there's hardly a mention of death in those three. Maybe a little bit, but nothing outright in your face, like it was in books 4-7).
No, reading level and reading age are two different things. You separated the seven books by two different classifications, when in reality each book belongs to one of each.
READING LEVEL has to do with things like the grammar and English usage, complicated storylines, character development, and other things that are above or below a recommended reading curriculum for any specific general education grade. The reading levels go from pre-K, K, 1-12. Obviously, sorted by the general education curriculum's relation to the particular story. If it fits the curriculum for a 2nd grader, it'll be classified as a 2nd grade reading level. If it fits what a GE 8th grader should be able to read, it's classified as an 8th grade reading level.
READING AGE is completely different. It's to do with who the publishers and authors intend the text to be addressing for the majority of their readers, regardless of reading level. If the book was intended and/or marketed to a child audience, it'll be marked as a youth's book/novel/etc. If it's made for and/or marketed to adults, it'll be classified as adult. This is independent from reading level.

Although YA literature shares the fundamental elements of character, plot, setting, theme, and style common to other genres of fiction, theme and style are often subordinated to the more tangible basic narrative elements such as plot, setting, and character, which appeal more readily to younger readers. Meaning the stories are "dumbed-down" to appeal to the younger readers from what they would be if intended for adults, as a generalization.

For example, the For Dummies series of books is mostly a fifth grade reading level throughout, yet most of them are geared towards adults to help adults do things adults can't do without a simpler explanation on how to do that specific thing.
The book Ender's Game is generally categorized as an a 11-12th grade reading level, because of the complex storylines and difficult words, but it's written from the perspective of a 6+ year old (he grows up through the story) child and, to kids that can read and understand it, it strongly appeals to them, thus it is classified as a youth book.

Thus, books 1-4 are a 4th grade reading level, books 5-7 jumped up to sixth, I believe, but they're all geared towards young adults. And they're all simplistic, dumbed-down stories using simple, overdone and underdeveloped mechanics to appeal to a wider audience.

Basically, the formula looks like this:
Start with a good, original idea.
Write a good but difficult book.
Cut out a lot of the difficulties so everyone can understand it, and replace with the same drab that everyone else uses so everyone else will "get it".
Lose most of the good.
Makes more money.
 

Ice Sage

these are words
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Location
Ice Temple
Harry Potter! My sister and I are huge Harry Potter fans. I've never liked the Twilight series when I saw that one movie.
 

Rytex

Resident Netizen
Joined
May 10, 2010
Location
Random house in Texas.
You say you respect my opinion but refuse to read what I wrote? Because I clearly expressed in an entire paragraph (that I mostly copied and added to for twilight) why I don't like Harry Potter.
I did read what you wrote. However, at the time, I really don't know why I wrote that... :/ I guess I was being an idiot, and it isn't the first time...

Anyway, good points. I do see where you're coming from, but you have to remember, in the beginning, Joan Kathleen was writing about Death to children. Adults and most teenagers already have a firm grasp on what Death is, but not really any children. So, the books were geared toward people my age (at the time), and the maturity of the story steadily rose, starting in Book 4. I never really recognized any change in reading level as I read, but that may have something do with the fact that Philosopher's Stone came out when I was 4 (and I was so proud that I could read such a massive book (at the time)), I read it then, and Deathly Hallows came out when I was 14, and the darkening of the plot was slow, yet steady, and I never really noticed how dark and mature it was until I decided to read PS, skip the rest, and read DH. It went from nearly a happy-go-lucky plot, with characters to easily step into their shoes, one way or another, to nearly-fully developed characters and much death and dystopia.
 

Ronin

There you are! You monsters!
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
Alrest
Harry Potter is by far better, I don't care if Edward Cullen was in both.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
I've never read the Harry Potter series or seen the movies (I know, shame on me). I did like the Twilight series, it's amusing, but nothing more. The plot is bad, the characters do NOT develop throughout the entire series. But it was a good way to spend time, considering I travel about four hours a day. But since I have only experience with one of the two series, I'm not one to judge.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Location
Malibu, CA
I'm not going to vote, because this exact question tore the last forum I was on apart. I just suggest that you please don't argue, and I'd really like you guys to stay away from flaming on this thread.
 

Nicole

luke is my wife
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Location
NJ
I would pick Harry Potter due to my natural, anti-Twilight bias; but to be fair, I've never read Twilight. I tend to dislike Twilight based on the sole fact that girls my age seem to be too overly fond of it. Call me a hipster if you will. However, from what I've heard of the books, I wouldn't like them anyway. I never liked the "girly" romance and drama type books. One of the bigger plot points in Twilight, I believe, involves Bella having to choose either Edward or Jacob, and that just comes off as cheesy to me. I'm also not interested in the Werewolf versus Vampire war. It's not something I think I would enjoy. I might seem closed-minded for a judging a book before I've read it, but the plot of the story just doesn't appeal to me.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is a series I greatly enjoyed. I've read all the books and seen all the movies, and I loved them all.

Justeazy said:
Harry Potter: Very simplistic characters with minimal development
I will agree with this to some extent. Harry was most likely the most complicated character due to his past and the fact that he was destined to defeat Voldemort. Severus Snape also turned out to be a pretty in-depth character, as he was part of a huge plot twist late in the series. Many of the characters from Hogwarts did seem pretty one-dimensional, though. Hermione and Ron were among them. Hermione was the classic bookworm and teacher's pet. Ron was Harry's fun-loving best friend. Those characters never really seemed to take on a deeper, more emotional or mental level until the very last book, I thought.

Justeazy said:
bad plot, very predictably story arcs
A matter of opinion. I loved the plot of Harry Potter. I've always enjoyed the idea of magic in books. Fantasy stories have always been some of my favorites. As far as predictability, I might agree with you there.

Justeazy said:
A simple story, badly written, geared towards a wide audience without any specialization for anything, lacking something good in every category it can have. There's a reason it's rated at a fourth grade reading level.
I do, to some point, share quite a few of the views on Harry Potter that you do, Justeazy, but I never thought the books were so badly written, nor did I feel the plot was bad. Then again, I'm in middle school, and more eloquent books tend to put me off, so to speak. I prefer simpler terms just so I can wrap my head around them better. That's not to say I don't understand more complicated words, because I do. I just don't look for them in books, nor do I judge a book by the level of its vocabulary. The biggest thing I judge in a book is its plot, and I personally loved Harry Potter's plot. Agree to disagree on that point, I suppose. :)
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom