I have read a lot of artikel-artikel etc like this, but I thought I would write m own papar down.
One thing I have heard about Twilight being better is that SMeyer is a better writer. I ask you, how on earth is SMeyer a better writer.
Take this sentence from New Moon:
'Suddenly, it(the bike) looked intimidating, frightening, as I realised I would soon be astride it.'
How does that flow as a sentence? It has two separate realisations together in one sentence. I found it awkward to read.
SMeyer doesn’t make us connect with her characters. She doesn’t describe their feeling well at all. She is not a good writer at all. In Harry Potter, we can feel Harry’s pain. I cried at every major death throughout the books.
Another thing I found that bothered me was Meyers use of a 'Catch-22'. Her version of a catch-22 in New Moon, in which she is stuck between Jacob and Alice, is not a catch-22 at all.
A catch-22 is when the reason for doing something is the reason for stopping doing it. A famous example is pilots in the Vietnam war. They knew that everytime they flew, they risked death. Obviously, many were unkeen, and wished to stop. However, the only way anda could stop flying was sejak proving anda were insane. If anda wanted to continue flying, anda were 'insane', but being 'insane' was the reason to stop. SMeyers catch-22 is not a catch-22 at all, it is a dilemma, a quandary, a quagmire. It's a lot of things, just not a catch-22.
Secondly, Harry Potter has in-depth characters and plot. I couldn't bring myself to care about any characters at all.
Twilight is just bang-bang-bang. There is no mystery. It doen't require anda to think. anda read it once, think 'OK' and alih on to another book.
Here is some examples of the soalan Harry Potter gives:
-Who is the Half-blood prince?
-Why were Harry's parents killed?
-What is Draco up to?
-Why can't Voldemort kill Harry?
-What is a Horcrux?
Here is some examples of soalan Twilight makes anda think of:
-Edward atau Jacob?
And even then, we know the answer. SMeyer wouldn't build up a romance with him if she didn't want Bella to end up with him, otherwise the first two buku would have been a waste of time.
My main reason for disliking Twilight is the messages it gives out. Here they are in breif:
- Why go to college? anda don't need a career if you're a woman; your strong, superior boyfriend will look after you.
- Stalking is OK, if he's hot.
- Paedophilia is alright, because he can't help it.
Is this what we want people to read? Aren't the messages of love, friendship and acceptance in Harry Potter better?
Also, the social stratification is unlikely. There are many different cliques in our world:
- popular kids.
- Cast-offs.
- Braniacs.
- The 'weird kids'.
- The jocks.
- The peminat girls who go with whatever’s going.
- The geeks.
All these are displayed in some way atau another in Harry Potter. SMeyer, however, displays only the populars, the Vampires and the werewolves. Two of the three she portrays aren't even real.
Prejudice exists, and JKR does a great job of displaying it. SMeyer only alludes to it in the form of Serigala Jadian Vs vampires. In Harry Potter, nearly every character suffers from it. Hermione, for being muggle-born, Ron, for being poor, Luna, for being 'odd', and even Harry, for many separate reasons over the books.
In conclusion, Harry Potter is better because it:
- has lebih believable characters.
- has better characters.
- covers a wider range of issues, feelings and problems.
If any Twi-hards can come with a good response, I’d Cinta to hear it ;)
One thing I have heard about Twilight being better is that SMeyer is a better writer. I ask you, how on earth is SMeyer a better writer.
Take this sentence from New Moon:
'Suddenly, it(the bike) looked intimidating, frightening, as I realised I would soon be astride it.'
How does that flow as a sentence? It has two separate realisations together in one sentence. I found it awkward to read.
SMeyer doesn’t make us connect with her characters. She doesn’t describe their feeling well at all. She is not a good writer at all. In Harry Potter, we can feel Harry’s pain. I cried at every major death throughout the books.
Another thing I found that bothered me was Meyers use of a 'Catch-22'. Her version of a catch-22 in New Moon, in which she is stuck between Jacob and Alice, is not a catch-22 at all.
A catch-22 is when the reason for doing something is the reason for stopping doing it. A famous example is pilots in the Vietnam war. They knew that everytime they flew, they risked death. Obviously, many were unkeen, and wished to stop. However, the only way anda could stop flying was sejak proving anda were insane. If anda wanted to continue flying, anda were 'insane', but being 'insane' was the reason to stop. SMeyers catch-22 is not a catch-22 at all, it is a dilemma, a quandary, a quagmire. It's a lot of things, just not a catch-22.
Secondly, Harry Potter has in-depth characters and plot. I couldn't bring myself to care about any characters at all.
Twilight is just bang-bang-bang. There is no mystery. It doen't require anda to think. anda read it once, think 'OK' and alih on to another book.
Here is some examples of the soalan Harry Potter gives:
-Who is the Half-blood prince?
-Why were Harry's parents killed?
-What is Draco up to?
-Why can't Voldemort kill Harry?
-What is a Horcrux?
Here is some examples of soalan Twilight makes anda think of:
-Edward atau Jacob?
And even then, we know the answer. SMeyer wouldn't build up a romance with him if she didn't want Bella to end up with him, otherwise the first two buku would have been a waste of time.
My main reason for disliking Twilight is the messages it gives out. Here they are in breif:
- Why go to college? anda don't need a career if you're a woman; your strong, superior boyfriend will look after you.
- Stalking is OK, if he's hot.
- Paedophilia is alright, because he can't help it.
Is this what we want people to read? Aren't the messages of love, friendship and acceptance in Harry Potter better?
Also, the social stratification is unlikely. There are many different cliques in our world:
- popular kids.
- Cast-offs.
- Braniacs.
- The 'weird kids'.
- The jocks.
- The peminat girls who go with whatever’s going.
- The geeks.
All these are displayed in some way atau another in Harry Potter. SMeyer, however, displays only the populars, the Vampires and the werewolves. Two of the three she portrays aren't even real.
Prejudice exists, and JKR does a great job of displaying it. SMeyer only alludes to it in the form of Serigala Jadian Vs vampires. In Harry Potter, nearly every character suffers from it. Hermione, for being muggle-born, Ron, for being poor, Luna, for being 'odd', and even Harry, for many separate reasons over the books.
In conclusion, Harry Potter is better because it:
- has lebih believable characters.
- has better characters.
- covers a wider range of issues, feelings and problems.
If any Twi-hards can come with a good response, I’d Cinta to hear it ;)
