17 July 2012
In recent months, the Twilight phase seems, to me at least, to have begun to diminish. I knew it would, but I thought it would linger a little longer, like the noisy fart that never seems to go.
However, it is not over until the fat lady sings, and so far nobody has thought to drive a sharpened stake through Edward Cullen's heart, or if they have they haven't acted on such thoughts!
Now, I'll make one thing clear. I do not despise Twilight. I cannot say I despise Twilight. I have never read the books, and I have heard that they are far better than the films, the first of which was pretty poor (although the BBC's magazine Radio Times did give it a rather generous three stars, so it can't be universally hated.) So, if you are a Twilight fan, I am not going to slag it off.
Well, with my disclaimer out of the way, to the point of this article. In 1997, the first Harry Potter book was published in the UK by Bloomsbury. It wasn't an instant success, taking a little while to get off of the ground, but it is now regarded as one of the finest achievements of British writing. It spawned many copycats. So many people that wanted fame and success and so jumped on the Potter bandwagon (Rick Riordan being one, in my view, although he has taken the idea and done rather well, and now people try and copy HIM!) But JK Rowling started it all.
And then Stephanie Mayer came along. Now, I class her as another bandwagon jumper-on-er who has done EXTREMELY well. There were (are) those that would go as far as to say it is BETTER than Harry Potter. Most fans of Twilight like Harry Potter as well, I have found, but not all Potter fans like Twilight.
However, is Twilight truly better? Of course, I am going to say no, but I shall back myself up! JK Rowling did wonders for children's literature. She paved the way for new writers. And I don't feel that, if JK Rowling hadn't written Potter first, Mayer would have done as well.
In a hundred year's time, Twilight will have well and truly been forgotten, confined to the second hand bookshops or the old collections of Great Grandmothers (I say GrandMOTHERS as it is generally a female thing, Twilight, although I have met a few male fans, though nowhere near as many.) However, I would not be surprised if Harry Potter was still in print.
Perhaps the fact that Twilight is more appealing to women than men, and women of a certain age (generally speaking) is it's Achilles' Heel. It's potential readership is vastly confined, whereas Harry Potter appeals to a more broader audience.
Ok. Say that the quality of writing is equally as good, and that they have an equally wide readership, and that Stephanie Mayer got her ideas completely independently of Harry Potter. And also say that even if she had come first, she would have done just as well, if not better, leaving JK Rowling to look like the copycat. The fact is, it was Rowling who came first It was Rowling who received countless awards for instilling a love of reading in children around the world. Rowling, not Mayer. And so, everything else aside, this simple fact assures Harry his place on bookshelves for generations to come (even if it is in the Penguin Classics collection) and leaves Edward to be confined to the grave.
Potter Vs Twilight • Opuss № I