Vampire fans did not weep, Paul, we cheered as well. Twilight is a poor example of the vampire mythos and I'm glad any time this vacuous series is taken down a peg.

Was the outcome of this ever really in doubt? As for the strong female characters question, I think the message of Twilight is that you can only be a strong, confident female if you're a fucking vampire. Human females should aspire to be inept doormats.

Awesome. Can't believe I missed that.

So great! Wish they would do something like this at the Salt Lake Library, my local. Very entertaining. But since S. Meyer is Mormon, there would be a local riot when the Twilighters inevitably lose.

I'm going to need a recipe for Harry's crunchy munchies.

Really? Prejudism? It is not necessary for this to be an actual word because "prejudice" is perfectly acceptable.

This whole debate is so annoying. Duh HP is a better series, but that doesn't mean people can't enjoy reading Twilight.

This has been bugging me for some time. In HP, even the good (not evil/mean) characters quite constantly refer to us (non-magic) humans as Muggles (sp?). I always thought that seemed like a put-down/prejudice term. Anyone else?

Simone:

I always felt that there were, of course, prejudiced characters (characters which evince prejudism?) in HP, but that the series itself was not told through a filter of prejudism (prejudice). In fact, I think that even though there is a kind of benevolent prejudice in wizarding culture ("Let's be careful around ignorant Muggles because they don't know how dangerous magic can be! It's for their own good, poor things!"), from Harry's POV the whole range of the prejudice continuum is shown to be negative to a greater (Voldemort) or lesser (Mrs. Weasley, etc.) extent. Perhaps only Harry, Dumbledore, and Hermione escape that cultural bias.

I think the biggest reason that I wanted to go to the debate (but didn't: I was too hung over; it was my birthday) was to see by how much Twilight would lose rather than if they would win. Now I know. Thanks, Paul!

Both series are derivative, embarrassing and overhyped crap. It's like arguing whether Jack in the Box or Dairy Queen is the better food option. The correct answer is none of the above.

Yes, but nobody asked which movie had the most smoking hot lead. That would be Twilight, obvs. That's gotta count for something, doesn't it?

I am dissappointed by the Twilight Team. Ofcourse Harry Potter is a better series of more, more in depth, etc. But as far as strong female character? Twilight certainly wins there. Bella is not a doormat! She is a very strong character that is constantly standing up for herself against everyone else in the book - especially her vampire lover. The book starts out with her story as a young teen who has been caring for her flaky mom. She crosses racial lines to form a relationship with a vampire, constantly reassuring her partner that it will work. She has to stand up to the vampire clan and convince them of how she wants to live out her existence. She stands up to them again in forcing them to let her have her baby. That entire ordeal - the physical pain she endured - to ensure the birth of her child alone makes her a strong figure.

Supporting characters: Jacob is a great supporting character, parts of the series are even told from his point of view. Also the members of the vampire clan, the other kids in the high school and the characters from the indian reservation build an international community around the story.

The Twilight series is a great read and a beautiful story that addresses multiple political issues. I am guessing that most people commenting here watched the movie, which makes me think that I won't be seeing it as it probably ruins everything I liked about the book.

That must have been a fun, fun event. It's not about pointing out the better book. It's about teaching kids to analyze, to look deeper for greater understanding, to know why each series is successful or maybe not so much.
I'm sorry to hear anyone compare HP to Dairy Queen. I consider it to be more like a 4 course gourmet meal. JK does not hold back. She lays it all on the line and she is an amzing example of a master story teller. I hope she keeps writing.
I wonder if that guy would have the same thing to say about the NArnia books and Lord of the Rings, both written long before our children were born. I think this is an amazing time to live with people creating encredible things.

DW Golden
Let in a little magic with Purple Butterflies, a new young adult novel now available at Amazon.

Ms. Golden, there would have been no Harry Potter without Narnia or Lord of the Rings (or Roald Dahl, etc), since as far as I can tell everything in JK Rowlings' books have been done and done over again in children's lit. I had actually assumed for years that there was no actual JK Rowlings; her improbable Cinderella, rags to riches biography made her seem like a badly written fictional character herself, created by a marketing department.

I don't see any difference between the equally derivative Twilight series and Harry Potter series in terms of literary value -- each are obviously successful, well-marketed products, like the Big Mac, that probably cause massive tissue damage in kids upon repeated consumption.

That said, I sincerely wish you good luck with your Purple Fairies book.

@Simone- I don't think it's a matter of the term Muggle being derogatory, it's just a descriptive. What are magical folks going to call non-magical folks? Mundanes? Muggles just seems to me to be a made up word meaning mundane or non-magical.
@Foxtrot- From my reading of the books, I always thought magical folk hid from Muggles because they were more afraid of persecution than any other reason. There are more Muggles in society than magical after all.

In the books, Muggle is a neutral term, and Mudblood is the offensive term.

Whatever "I feel sorry for kids," at least kids are still reading and that's what matters!

@salty purl -- If you want your library to do something like this, ASK!!! Librarians love being told what they're community wants to see(coming up with good programming ideas is a bitch) and are always excited when their patrons show interest and initiative.

I love both books although I favor harry more but I feel that twilight did not give a great point of view. bella was not just a "weak insecure girl" and it wasn't just because she was fucking a vamp either. it was about love. a love so great it could over come anything including death and time and space. even the quilulites version of soulmates " imprinting" your souls entertwined. its the yerning for that kind of love that makes it great. bella and edward are just interesting charcters. and bella is strong in her own way. even jane couldnt take her down. she had mental defeneses to make up for her lack of physical ones, abilities that manifested it self in her human trait. in the end she saved the day.

It's possible to be informed on both series and think that they both suck, but no informed person could maintain that Harry Potter doesn't suck a whole lot less. People who issue summary verdicts such as "Both series are derivative, embarrassing and overhyped crap" are advertising the poor foundation for their opinions, because anyone with a decent familiarity with both series would recognize that more of an argument is necessary to explain why one is as bad as the other.

"Bella is not a doormat! She is a very strong character that is constantly standing up for herself against everyone else in the book - especially her vampire lover."

Could you give specific examples of her being strong? It seems to me that she just lets Edward do whatever he wants to her (like watch her sleep, stalk her, control her, listen to her friend's thoughts), because he's hot and has money.

I did read the books, and I haven't seen the movie yet. Hermione could kick Bella's a$$ any day.

@I feel sorry--what did you read when you were a kid, Ibsen?

@mallow: I read Baum's Oz series, Lewis' Narnia series, LeGuin's Earthsea series, Jane Yolen, Roald Dahl, Lloyd Alexander, Madeleine L'Engle, Ray Bradbury, E.B. White, you know, well-written stuff that didn't tend to have movie or videogame franchises, or fast food toy licensing or anything.

I feel sorry for kids today: Don't be such an old curmudgeon. It doesn't matter what kids are reading as long as they are reading. A love of Twilight or the Harry Potter series could just be the one great reading experience a kid needs to get them started on a life long reading habit.

@RaymondChandlerRules -- I'm not sure reading Harry Potter counts as reading. I know that when I was in school, you couldn't turn in a book report on a TV Guide or the latest issue of Batman. Should we be glad that our kids are eating Fruit Roll-ups, because at least they're eating *something*?

While I'm at it, where are the stats to support the idea that Potter and Twilight are gateways to reading, instead of junk food fads and (undeniably well-marketed) IP-licensing generators? Did all boats rise with that tide? Did other books begin flying off the shelves the second that Potter fans ran out of Rowling tomes and needed a new literary fix? Or did the fad just sort of run out of steam, destined to become a look back in shame nostalgic embarrassment, like Pokemon card collecting...?

"Hey, remember libraries? That's where you went to argue about whether goblins or werewolves were cooler..."

@ I feel sorry for kids today-- As a matter of fact, Harry Potter is a gateway to further reading. I don't know if you noticed, but in the wake of HP, sales of the Chronicles of Narnia increased. Lord of the Rings too. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07196/801…) The whole youth oriented fantasy genre received a sales bump - and that's everything from LeGuin to Twilight (and, yes, Twilight is terrible). Not bad for "gateway" literature.

@my whimsey, okay, I concede that I may be wrong about kids going on to read other books after reading Potter and Twilight. I hope that's right; I'd love to believe that there is a resurgence in children reading. I was under the incorrect impression that people in the US were reading less in general.

I'm still skeptical that Potter is any better a book series than Twilight, though I have admittedly only read a couple of chapters of the first books in each series before giving up on them, so I may well be wrong there as well.

@i guess i shouldn't: wow someone changing their mind on the Internet, good on you. ;)

I read most of the authors you listed (L'Engel was one of my favorites in middle school). I heard about Harry Potter in high school after the 3rd book came out. I really do think its a great series... I think people like yourself just get turned off by the "IP machine" and don't give it a proper chance. The characters in HP (at least, the non-villain characters) are legitimately interesting and realistic.

I'm not a teenage girl so I haven't read Twilight. :) That Twilight has such a relatively narrow demographic is a sign that they are fundamentally a different sort of book and franchise.

@I feel sorry for kids today: TV Guide? Latest issue of Batman? I'm 23 and I didn't know TV Guide was still in print (hell, I don't even watch TV anymore).

And using "comic book" as shorthand for "functionally illiterate" is the fastest way to date yourself. Comic books are a medium released by instalment, so judging it as an "issue" is unfair. It'd be like reading just one book of the Iliad.

I don't know what your beef with comic books is, but it's worth challenging. I see you've changed your opinion a bit about kids' fantasy reading, so maybe you can do that about comic books too. Even the biggest chains now carry the most popular comic books and best-known graphic novels. Try one out. Most people suggest "Maus" as a surefire bet.