Twilight = Twinkie?

[TheAnswerIs42]

Was anyone else actually with Slap to Quell the Hysteria on this one? I mean, I am proud of a BYU grad selling so many books and all, but I personally felt like it was a rather poorly done book series. Don't get me wrong, she has a plot engaging enough to make me curious about what happens next, so I do keep reading. But it didn't seem nearly as well thought out as Harry Potter, and Bella and her WAY over-dramatics kept making me want to hit my head on the wall. Maybe I am just too far outside the intended audience of teenage girls. But the "I can't breathe without him" kind of love just makes me sick. I have been married for a few years, so perhaps it is just because I have left the "newlywed - sappy - soul-mate" stage behind?

Besides that, I just didn't feel like the characters were realistic enough for me to get attached to them, and I don't get the feeling the author knows where she is going with this series. Just making it up as she goes, rather than mapping an intricate web like Harry Potter. To me, there just isn't any comparison!

Okay, enough ranting from me. What do you guys think?

[Portia]

I am certainly not one to think that everything good has to be highbrow. I'm the For Better or For Worse nut, remember? But I think the Harry Potter series is, quite simply, overrated. They have been lauded as books that got people who would never have read to read: well, I am a person who loves to read: that person who always has her nose in a book (on the bus, or walking down the street, or in a pathetic BYU-sponsored fake concert which couldn't hold a candle to Mere Christiantiy), and I, like everyone else on the planet, started reading Harry Potter, and I quite simply thought it was boring. It was slow-paced, and I just don't understand those people who say, "well, it gets better; you have to keep reading." As much as I love to read, I have to say, it's just a book! It shouldn't become this obsession larger than life, prompting 12-hour line waits and costumes and jargon. For many, it seems not to be literature, but a trend.

For instance, I enjoy reading Jane Austen. But I'm not one of these people who would go on a pilgrimage to England to see the inspiration for Pemberley, and runs a fan site, and raves on and on about Colin Firth. See, most people like this haven't even read her work, and if they have, they've only read P&P (I liked Persuasion oodles more.) I didn't like it because it became trendy to do so, what with Keira Knightley and Mormon remakes and whatnot: I simply read the books, enjoyed her observations on human nature and the character development, and read some more.

Harry Potter-philes rarely seem to do this: take the books at their own value. I can appreciate someone who says "they're fun; I liked them, but I've read better." Or, "yeah, the dialogue isn't that brilliant, but they're page-turners." If Harry Potter really is that revolutionary literarily, I missed it. They were, culturally, obviously, but I take issue with the questioner's position that they are GREAT books. I like the distinction Humble Master made between pop culture and what is a "classic:" I don't think I will or should like something, especially a book, just because it is either a classic or currently popular. I thought the Grapes of Wrath was not only boring, but offensive and depressing, and it's considered a classic. But I think anyone who has read outside the HP and Twilight tradition could consider them the GREATest books they've ever read: surely something else was more thrilling, moving, interesting, thought-provoking, exciting, mysterious, tear-jerking, humorous, anything that makes someone want to read than Harry Potter. They probably possess at least some of these qualities (surely they could not sell so well if the entire series was absolute trash, right?), but my argument is that they don't possess them to any definitive degree when compared with the countless numbers of books out there.

I haven't read Twilight, and will therefore suspend judgment, but I suspect (from what I've heard) that it is not the most brilliantly written book ever . . . in fact, I suspect that they might have many of the characteristics of standard LDS fiction, minus EFY/Happy Valley/Seminary Romance, plus vampires/Seattle/Guy from Another Time Period (hmm, hard choice there as to which sounds cooler).

Don't be mad/sad/disgruntled if you think HP is the bee's knees*: I don't hate you or anything. Just read something else, completely unlike HP, and make an honest comparison. Once the hype dies down, I'll probably read book 3 (I've heard good things, even from ambivalent readers), just to step out of my comfort zone. Fair enough?

*Pretty much . . .everyone. Except Lavish. That was one of the best Board answers she ever wrote. Q: Are you a Harry Potter fan? A: No. Maybe I, too, should leave it at that.

P.S. --- To those who dismiss my opinions based on the fact that I have read only a fraction of Book 1, I say: it didn't capture my interest enough to keep me reading: why should I have to keep plodding through something I don't enjoy? If you are breathing in the 21st century, you know plenty about muggles and Gryffyndor and quidditch and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Sorting Hats to get the jist of what's going on. I dislike HP mania more than the series itself.

[Portia]

I should probably clarify that I have friends from my home ward that are quite literally the poster children of HP fanaticism. As in, the Daily Universe interviews one in particular . . . every year . . . she skipped school to go to a HP convention back east . . . we are talking HARD-CORE, just like those ducks.

My whole adolescence, I had to defend my position that I didn't dislike Harry Potter because I wanted to go against the grain or be an intellectual snob, I just didn't like them, in addition to being a little disgusted by their level of devotion.

[TheAnswerIs42]

I want to agree with what Portia said a bit here too. I mean, I enjoyed Harry Potter, and I did think she had a Dickens-like talent for weaving her plots together through the seven books. Her characters were certainly better for me than those in Twilight. So that's why I used HP to compare for those two biggest flaws I saw in Twilight- they were both well done in HP. But I still won't put it in the same category with Narnia, LOTR, Les Miserables, Tess of D'Urbervilles, or other "classic" books that I love to read any time I get the chance. Maybe in the category with Work and the Glory or Tennis Shoes or something- fun series books.

But Portia, I do want to second what your friends told you about it "getting better." I didn't get into the series that much in the beginning, but got rather hooked at the end. To me, it was because they dealt with 11 year old problems when they were 11 in the first book, but as they grew older the situations grew more interesting to me. Hope that helps clarify!

[bismark]

i thought the last harry potter was the most boring of them all... why do we need a hundred pages about camping?????

[UffishThought]

Harry Potter: I'll agree it can't compare to many "classic" books. But I think it was a well-written and engaging series, and does a good job of making a fantasy world really accessible to the casual reader. If no one else knew about them, I'd still recommend them as a fun read. Worth the time it takes to get through them, definitely. I'll be reading them to my kids, as a fun, uplifting, bunch of interconnected stories. They're not intellectual triumphs. They're good, clean fun, and they appeal to an amazingly wide audience. The hype is part of what makes it fun. When I get really into it, it's not for the books, it's because it's fun to get into it. And when I have theories, it's not because I can't wait to know what happens next, it's because I like discussing things with my friends. I won't say they're the best books in the world, but I sure do like them. And the fact that it's so popular is an accomplishment, regardless of what's in it.

Actually, I can say the same of Twilight, which is pretty dang crappy. It's wildly popular, and that requires some talent, even if I don't respect the end product much. But I won't be reading it to my kids, and if I read the other books in the series, I'll do it to laugh at them. But judging by the first one, I'll be reading books that make me laugh, but don't make me feel pain.

I'm a big believer in the school of thought that some things are worthwhile just because you enjoy them. I like the classics, (well, many of them,) but I won't read only classics. A lot of my reading is kids' books and adventure stories and things that don't comment on the state of the world or human nature in a cosmic and recognized-by-the-intellectuals way. They're just fun. You'll have a hard time convincing me that that's not important, too, just as important as Pride and Prejudice, or Othello, or Cyrano de Bergerac or Room with a View. Maybe not in a one-on-one battle, but as genre against genre.

(And I can't stand Tess of the D'Ubervilles. I got 3 or 4 hours in, LISTENING, which makes it easier to push through boring parts and so on, and I had to stop. Narnia's cool, but only a little more awesome than Harry Potter, LOTR is also, but the descriptive passages and depth of culture makes it more inaccessible than I'm willing to just pick up anytime, and I haven't tried Les Miserables, yet. Classics, maybe, but not my very favorites of the classics.)

[Twister of Fate]

I actually really enjoyed the character development of Bella. I understand her. When change happens, when she was stuck at a crossroads, she chose the path that was selfless, though it came at a great sacrifice to her. She then found something--a light in what seemed like a neverending tunnel--but lost it. After going through so much, she finally cracked. Since I haven't read Eclipse yet, that's about as far as I got.

However, once the action parts began, everything just fell apart. Because the author spent so much time developing Bella's character, I felt there wasn't enough time or information to justify certain actions of others, or to understand why certain things happening. In the first book, only about a fourth of the book was about the action. Everything simply happened too fast. There were good parts, parts I couldn't stop reading until I knew how it ended, but I did have to reread some sections over just to figure out what was going on, or try and understand why (then again, I read the more intense parts of both books between 11-2 at night, now that I think about it).

If I could, I'd rate it between "good, but not the best" and "page-turner plot, but poorly written."

[A Mom, but not yours]

Without analyzing any particular books, what I think it boils down to is that we all read books for different reasons (and those may change due to time or place). Some of us read for information. Some read for enlightenment. Some for character studies. Some for excitement. Some for life lessons. Some for inspiration. Some for plain old entertainment. If the book(s) you are reading fills that criteria for you then it a book that you might consider "so good." So by classifying those books that way, the reader was asking for books that would fulfill the same need for her. I think the answers that said, basically, if you like those books, you're just an idiot, or at least misguided, were inappropriate.

P.S. I've never read those books (not the HP, the other set), so I have no opinion on them whatever. However, I've spent a good portion of my life finding out that I either love or hate the classics. And yes, I hate as many as I love. Including some that seem to be great favorites of many board writers.

[ahem.]

I like the series, but I do classify it as "vampire fluff" when I try to explain it to people. It's an indulgence for when I don't really want to think about deep things or try to dissect a heavier text. So in other words, I feel that vampires are part of a balanced literary diet.


In general, though, I have a tough time giving my opinion about books and movies. Once in a while I will have a very polarized opinion about something (LOVED it, HATED it, etc.), but it's not my normal reaction.

[Portia]

As far as more "fluff" books, I love comic strip collections. Calvin and Hobbes is always a classic: it's so interesting the way he actually makes the strips (esp. the Sunday fantasy ones) a piece of art and not just stick figures. Gotta love the Far Side for its offbeat humor. Also have read Garfield, Zits, Foxtrot . . . yeah, I like comic strips (never was into more actual "comic books," like Spider-Man or whatever.)

Uffish, have you read Andrew Clements? (Frindle is his most famous work: I'm pretty sure if you were born in the '80s you've read that book.) I love his novels, and most his books are aimed at 11-year-olds and even have drawings, but I consider them to be wonderful books. They're the sorts of books I'd read to my kids. My favorite is Things Not Seen, which is aimed at high schoolers and is about a guy whose skin becomes invisible. Not exactly Charles Dickens or Walt Whitman. (Note my highbrow/lowbrow disclaimer in my original post).

I'm actually a little bit embarrassed to admit that I have read piles and piles of Mormon fiction, especially as a younger teenager. Tennis Shoes; some of Work and the Glory; Do You Like Me; Jenny Someone-or-Other?; Hearts of the Children; all of the books by that humor guy who wrote a series about some guy named Trust; every Jack Weyland book known to man, even the obscure ones (this latter one makes sense if you know my real name :) ) . . . yeah, I surprise even myself. As far as those go, most of them are poorly written and highly predictable. I did think that the Children of the Promise (the WWII one) was decent, but have found that as far as LDS stuff goes, the non-fiction is waaaay better. Biographies of Church Presidents, or Talmage stuff are the types of Mormon literature I would recommend.

These are what I read if I don't want to think too hard. I do have to admit, though, that I have a fondness for pre-20th-century books: what people usually think of as "required reading." My brain just works in more of a Tale of Two Cities (I don't care that it's ridiculously symbolic and cheesy: I like it) or Cyrano de Bergerac (most girls cry at The Notebook: I cried at that) or Shakespeare way than Harry Potter, I think. Besides, Shakespeare, especially, can be laugh-out-loud funny. And takes only a few hours to read, unlike the all-nighter commitments that HP seems to require.

[Portia]

I read for character development. Maybe that's what kept me coming back to the Mo-Fiction: they were at least attempting to portray what it is like to be LDS, something I can relate to. That's why I don't like Emma and am struggling through Mansfield Park: Emma is an absolute witch/brat and Fanny is boring. It wasn't so much the length of Vanity Fair that made me want to tear my hair out, it was the thorough heartlessness of Becky Sharp. I think Portia (hence the name), Beatrice, Katherine the Shrew, Iago (he stole the show in a performance of Othello I saw this February), and Shylock, to name a few, are interesting and complex characters, whether they are the heroes/heroines or villains. I didn't care about Harry Potter, the character. It seemed more narrative than looking inside the titular figure. Maybe this changes: I don't know.

I think that could be the single summary phrase of what makes me like a book or not: the depth of its players---how real they seem to me. I am one of those vividly imaginative people, and the world of Hogwarts just didn't spark it for me.

[Katya]

I think that could be the single summary phrase of what makes me like a book or not: the depth of its players---how real they seem to me. I am one of those vividly imaginative people, and the world of Hogwarts just didn't spark it for me.

How odd. The character development is one of the biggest reasons that I love the Harry Potter books. None of her characters are flat or boring; no one's entirely good or bad. (Even Voldemort's motives are understandable if not sympathetic.) That's also one thing I find missing in the movies, because the books are full of little asides which give you revealing hints and clues about the characters. (I think that the nickname "Mollywobbles," alone, says volumes about the Weasley marriage.)

[UffishThought]

...And also why I like Emma. Yes, she's a jerk, and I'll admit, the first time, I was so fed up with her character that I couldn't finish. But when I did, <i>man!</i> Emma is stellar! Talk about character growth, and talk about seeming real and being someone I could identify with.

All the LDS fiction I've seen, on the other hand, is full of fairly flat, predictable characters, acting in ways they'd be unlikely to in real life.

I guess our tastes just don't coincide very well.

Oh, and I can't remember if I've read Frindle or the others. They don't stick out in my memory, but I've read volumes, (ha!) especially in kids' lit.

[Fredjikrang]

I don't know if it counts as "LDS fiction" since the only thing that it has to do with the church is that the author teaches at BYU (and so likely a member) but Elantris by Brandon Sanderson is, in my opinion, an amazing book of character development.

[Portia]

note the "embarrassed" (I would add "ashamed") next to my assertion of having read lots of LDS fiction. This was a phase of mine, when I was, say, 14.

Oh, and to Katya: I never got far enough into it, probably---but am I the only one who thinks Book 1 is unnecessarily expository (read: boring)? (Apparently at least bismark thinks Book 7 is.)

[Unit of Energy]

The first 100 pages of Harry Potter 1 are the absolute most boring in the series. Book 7 seemed to be written for the fans, which never makes a good story. That being said, I still enjoyed the series, even if I don't care a ton about it.