<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that HP is not really profound literature. But Twilight is just a story concocted by Meyer to satisfy hers and other girls’ want of an “Edward”. Its purpose serves to satisfy, it has no depth. While HP actually has some depth, teaching EVERYONE something.</p>
<p>Could be argued that harry potter is just every childs want to go to a really cool school and be the center of adventure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anybody confuses Harry Potter for profound literature. But there are people out there that completely miss most of its depth and ironically consider themselves superior as a result. Morons, eh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could be argued that someone that hasn’t read certain books shouldn’t be involved in a discussion about said books.</p>
<p>^agreed. If you haven’t read Harry potter, don’t judge it. Say you watch the movie, still doesn’t count. To understand the series, you must read the books and understand Rowling’s writing, structures, and allusion. So impressive and engaging. I love HP. I’ve never read Twilight, so I can’t judge. All I can say is that the plot ine is very cliche and the movie was very predictable.</p>
<p>Harry Potter might not be the best literature, but it sure beats Twilight. By far.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater man
Restore us, and regain the blissful seat,
Sing Heav’nly Muse, that on the secret top
Of Oreb, or of Sinai didst inspire
That shepherd, who first taught the chosen seed,
In the beggining how the heav’ns and earth
Rose out of Chaos: or if Sion hill
Delight thee more, and Siloa’s brook that flowed
Fast by the oracle of God; I thence
Invoke thy aid to my advent’rous song,
That no middle flight intends to soar
Above th’ Aonian mount, while it pursues
Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.</p>
<p>Someone post the first lines of Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone and show me the writing, structures, and illusion.
The fact that high school educated students routinely choose to read Harry Potter (and Twilight) over books by Shakespeare, Dickens, and Joyce and, despite any statements to the opposite, still take pride in the fact that what they are reading is more profound and of greater consequence the mind of a human being than an alternative is not something for our generation to embrace by any means.</p>
<p>I would post something out of the first book, but i don’t have it with me haha…
And I don’t know anyone that really considers HP as “profound”. I would say it’s written better than Twilight though.
Just because one has a high school education doesn’t mean that they’re not shallow. And not all high school kids pick HP over Shakespeare and other renowned literary figures. I’m sure there are CCers here who would choose Shakespeare or whoever over Rowling.</p>
<p>Okay, so everyone here has read both Twilight and Harry Potter?</p>
<p>I didn’t realize ya’ll took childrens’ fiction so seriously, but fine, whatever. I haven’t read either, but I have a friend who puts quotes from the book and they sound funny. Oh, and she has this parody book of the thing and it was hilarious, something about “I tripped but then I was never that coordinated. I inherited that from my father since while I was learning to walk, he would push me down.” or somethings like that, I was laughing. That was hilarious. </p>
<p>It’s just that between a twilight fan or an harry potter fan, the twilight people take it less seriously and are just having fun reading a book while harry potter fans act like it’s the biggest thing to reading since the bible.</p>
<p>^^^Rowling never meant to “compete” against greater writers even assuming her writing has depth (or even Stephenie Meyer; I don’t think Twilight is comparable to HP any more than Danielle Steel’s novels are). Yes, HP obviously pales in comparison to literary masters, but so do Shel Silverstein and Roald Dahl and I love them too. People can like both Harry Potter and “real Literature”, and if they <em>exclusively</em> like the former (which is rarely the case even for the most diehard HP fans), then they’re not the kind of readers that highbrow well-written books should be wasted on anyway.</p>
<p>I consider HP profound for a book series targeted at children and certain teenagers (because not all teenagers can necessarily appreciate didactic masterpieces). The scope of the world Rowling’s created is massive, yet accessible for children. (About the allusions: she took a good chunk of her characters’ names off of Greek mythology, and a lot of the canon universe is loosely based off of it.) The 5th-7th books, especially the 7th, is way different than the first four in terms of subject matter, which is why I rarely take critics of the HP books seriously if they haven’t read more than the first book. HP’s one of those bridges from fluff to literature that a young reader should take and that older readers can appreciate due to either nostalgia, entertainment, or both.</p>
<p>EDIT: (Just for debate’s sake, if anyone wanted to know where I was coming from, I’ve read all seven HP novels starting from 2nd or 3rd grade to the summer when the last one came out, and I read Twilight–the first book–while I was already a high schooler, so of course it seemed silly in comparison.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What quality? At least in HP there’s something called a plot and the characters develop. It possesses substance. I also doubt many think the Potter series is ‘profound’.</p>
<p>EDIT:
</p>
<p>Not to seem terribly elitist here but, on average it seems to me that the average HP fan has a higher IQ level than the average squealing fangirl who ‘loves’ Edward. No one thinks its the biggest thing since the bible ['cept a few nut jobs]. And perhaps take offense when twilighters put down harry potter books/movies w/o having seen more than half of the 1st one o glanced thru the book and barely know what its about. </p>
<p>/somewhatthoughtoutrantthatsoundsabitjuveliebuthey</p>
<p>I’m not much of a Harry Potter fanatic, but I think the two should not be confused with. Because Harry Potter is better written and structured than the Twilight Saga.
I’ve read both series, and Harry Potter is obviously well planned and thought over. Although wizards were not created by J K Rowling, she had developed the idea so that young people around the world after reading the first book, wanted to receive the Hogwarts acceptance letter.
On the other hand, Twilight, was based purely on Stephenie Meyer’s dreams (or some say, sexual fantasies) and are about a Mary Sue AKA Bella Swan (who Meyer probably is in her dreams, seeing as the girl is based on the daughter she never had) and a stalkerish vampire. Vampires are supposed to be a danger to humans and this one is exactly that, he is crazy-obsessed with a human girl’s smell (which is even scarier than just having a crush on her) and he is so difficult to relate to that I couldn’t possibly get out of my mind that he was hundreds of years older and just liked her smell.
Also, Bella is a Mary Sue because contrary to popular belief, being clumsy is NOT a flaw, or at least not in Twilight. It made Bella helpless, so that her man could save her.
But Harry Potter movies have been a let down, after the first ones (when Harry and Ron were actually cute). Still Twilight has been mediocre too, the acting is awkward and there’s just no spark that makes the movie good.
Don’t fight me Twilight fans, this is just what I think. If you can justify well why you like it, I pretty much respect that.</p>
<p>wait, can’t I love both…?</p>
<p>I think I’ve read HP so many times over the last ten years that if you state any random quote from the books, especially from the last four ones, I can literally tell you exactly which part of which book it’s from :o.</p>
<p>^ You can love both (well… your opinion) but what do you like about Twilight? And do you see any similiarities between HP and Twilight? I’m just curious.
Because most Twi-fans I know just want to marry Edward Cullen, which I don’t take as a reason for liking Twilight.</p>
<p>I’ve read both series, and Harry Potter wins, hands down. To those who say that it’s merely children’s literature, that may be true, it is targets towards children and young teens. However, why does that disqualify it from being counted as literature? Sure, it may not be at the level of Shakespeare of Dickens (for the record, I don’t particularly enjoy either of their works), but that doesn’t mean it’s not quality literature that has an effect on the world. If we want to base this on the effect it has on the world, I think HP is up there with those types of “great literary masterpieces” - after all, it has sold millions and millions of copies… many on the first day the books were released. They’ve inspired millions of kids to read books. In that sense, they’re hugely successful. So please don’t just write off the HP books as “children’s books”. Because they have a great plotline, and teach some great lessons to those that care to look deeply enough.</p>
<p>As for Twilight. I read the series. I enjoyed it at first. I was one of those crazy fangirls for a while. Then I started to actually think as I read them, and I realized… there’s pretty much no substance there. And what is there isn’t all that becoming (abusive boyfriends, obsessive relationships… not what I’d want my kids to be reading about). It’s enjoyable for it’s fluff, but that’s it, nothing else.</p>