PDA

View Full Version : Opening a can of worms -- Twilight vs. Harry Potter



Pages : [1] 2

MissK
2009-07-19, 12:09 PM
So...I know this statement will probably open a veritable Pandora's Box of nerdrage, but I see some similarities between Twilight and Harry Potter. Hear me out! Both are very popular YA series that rely more on fans' identification with/love of the characters than on actual craft or writing ability. While I enjoy both series, I see them as summer fluff reading more than anything else.

And now...Defend your series, Harry Potter fans! Let the nerdrage begin!

Llama231
2009-07-19, 12:25 PM
I vote Harry Potter.

Now the thread will die.

MissK
2009-07-19, 01:11 PM
*Shakes fist at heaven* NOOOOO! Curse you, Llama!

Llama231
2009-07-19, 01:19 PM
That was strange, no one posted... Well, I believe that HP is better because it focuses on plot over romance (ignoring the 6th movie).

Haruki-kun
2009-07-19, 01:24 PM
Hear me out! Both are very popular YA series that rely more on fans' identification with/love of the characters than on actual craft or writing ability.

I'm sorry, MissK, but I disagree. Saying they're similar for those reasons is like saying they're similar because they're both written in the same language. Or like saying that Mickey Mouse and Bart Simpson are similar because they're both animated characters. Even Underworld is more similar to Twilight than Harry Potter is. (Although... one could argue that Underworld is more similar to HP than to Twilight. :smalltongue:)

Anyway, I'm voting Harry Potter. The development of the story and the world in which it's set is, in my opinion, superior. Way superior.

Zain
2009-07-19, 01:26 PM
^^

same also HP has more of plot then twilight

better story in my opinion too

Lord_Gareth
2009-07-19, 01:28 PM
I'l defend Harry Potter, but only in the sense that I'd rather be stabbed than shot. Neither series is particularly good, but Rowling accomplishes a few things that Twilight couldn't find with a map and directions, namely:

- Character development. HP has some. Twilight does not.
- Plot. HP has it. Twilight has a cardboard cutout with "plot" written on its forehead.
- Author improvement. You can see Rowling's writing get slowly better as she goes along, and she definitely has potential. If Stephenie Meyer has learned one damn thing from her writing, I'll be amazed. Mostly, this is because all - count them, ALL - emails to her, from haters OR fans, are directed to her brother Seth, who routinely deletes them. Stephenie is shielded from any and all criticism, wheras Rowling listened to hers.

Zencao
2009-07-19, 01:29 PM
Harry Potter doesn't promote abusive relationships.

HP wins by default.

mikeejimbo
2009-07-19, 01:44 PM
I've read all the Harry Potter books, but none of the Twilight books. Of course, IANATG. So I can't really vote because I can't really compare them. But I will say this in defense of Harry Potter. It's got... crap, I know there was something about it I liked...

Oh! You can read it really easily?

Zain
2009-07-19, 01:45 PM
Harry Potter doesn't promote abusive relationships.

HP wins by default.

quoted for the truth

also no reinventing a genre

Flickerdart
2009-07-19, 01:58 PM
Twilight has that MST of it by Ninjamuffin going for it. And that's about it. Harry Potter was decent enough.

EvilDMMk3
2009-07-19, 02:19 PM
I'l defend Harry Potter, but only in the sense that I'd rather be stabbed than shot. Yeah, pretty much this.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-19, 02:24 PM
I like Harry potter.

not a big fan of the sixth book though.

The Blackbird
2009-07-19, 02:28 PM
Harry Potter FTW.


Twilight has all of the skilled writing of a season of power rangers combined with the chemistry of a romance novel written by a seven year old.

I think someone sig'd this once.

Helanna
2009-07-19, 02:47 PM
I like Harry Potter a lot. I'm not going to try and say it's the best series EVER, but I'm just gonna say that it definitely does not deserve to be compared to Twilight. At all.

There's not much I can add that hasn't been said, other than "Think of an aspect. Harry Potter does it better." Like has been said, plot, character realism and development, realism in general, not totally f*cking up vampires, basic anatomy (I don't care how she handwaves it, if female vampires can't have children, males shouldn't be able to either) . . . There are many things that people dislike about Harry Potter, but for every flaw in Harry Potter, there's two in Twilight of a worse magnitude.

littlequietguy
2009-07-19, 03:05 PM
Vampire DO NOT have super speed! THAT IS ALL!

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

kamikasei
2009-07-19, 03:19 PM
Got to agree with Haruki-kun that that's not really a basis for saying they're particularly similar.


Vampire DO NOT have super speed! THAT IS ALL!

:smallconfused: Sure they do, in many sources.

afroakuma
2009-07-19, 03:25 PM
Harry Potter by a mile.

Zeful
2009-07-19, 03:40 PM
The only good thing about Twilight is can be used as an example of everything to avoid in a relationship.

Harry Potter, however, isn't much better, sure the relationships were healthier, the atmosphere and world were more richly detailed. But the ending was so obvious, I was able to guess it correctly, after reading the 6th book. making it lose a lot of points.

Lupy
2009-07-19, 03:40 PM
Harry Potter doesn't promote abusive relationships.

HP wins by default.

QFT.

And Harry Potter has plot, and character development, as was stated above.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-19, 03:43 PM
Harry Potter very much does deserve to be compared to Twilight. It's a series of one-dimensional stereotyped characters who meander their way to often deus ex machina victories through the holes in the plot, fighting against an army of harrowing straw men while addressing such meaningful themes as maybe friendship, sort of, by tangentially touching on very basic, superficial concepts related to them.


realism in general,
I don't know if you can really make the case that teenage wizards are any more realistic than teenage vampires.

bladedSmoke
2009-07-19, 03:46 PM
I don't know if you can really make the case that teenage wizards are any more realistic than teenage vampires.

But said teenage wizards at least conform to the in-universe rules set down at the beginning of the books. Hence, realism.

Gorgondantess
2009-07-19, 03:47 PM
Twilight has that MST of it by Ninjamuffin going for it.

Mmmmmmyep.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-19, 03:53 PM
I don't know if you can really make the case that teenage wizards are any more realistic than teenage vampires.Versmillitude, then.

Ecalsneerg
2009-07-19, 04:04 PM
Vampire DO NOT have super speed! THAT IS ALL!

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

You object to the speed, but not the sparkling?

And I'd say Harry Potter too, despite my belief on how the series steadily got worse after book three.

Jimor
2009-07-19, 04:15 PM
I'm just here to gather some of these loose worms -- goin' fishin' later. :smalltongue:

Athaniar
2009-07-19, 04:23 PM
I like the Harry Potter series. I haven't read or seen Twilight, but from what others say about it, I wouldn't want to waste any amount of my life with it.

Closet_Skeleton
2009-07-19, 05:21 PM
Harry Potter doesn't promote abusive relationships.

Now that I think of it, there are abusive relationships in Harry Potter that aren't promoted.

Lord Seth
2009-07-19, 05:25 PM
I like Harry potter.

not a big fan of the sixth book though.The sixth book to me was pretty much either really good or really bad. The romance stuff was really bad. The other stuff was really good. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rowling cannot write romance. Which is why it's annoying when she tries to put so much of it into her book. It's like what George Lucas tried to do in Star Wars Episode II: Take something he was bad at writing, then put a lot of it into the movie.

Even good writers are going to have some things they simply can't write. Stephen Colbert is an ace comedy writer, that's why he's a comedian. However, I doubt very much he'd be able to write even a half-decent horror story. He could write a PARODY on a horror story, sure, but not a horror story that's good as a horror story. That's why he doesn't write horror stories. Rowling should have realized she's bad at romance and greatly reduced the amount of it in the book. That said, it didn't screw up the book as much as the romance in Episode II screwed up the movie. But make no mistake: It did lower the quality.

Oslecamo
2009-07-19, 06:21 PM
The sixth book to me was pretty much either really good or really bad. The romance stuff was really bad. The other stuff was really good. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rowling cannot write romance. Which is why it's annoying when she tries to put so much of it into her book. It's like what George Lucas tried to do in Star Wars Episode II: Take something he was bad at writing, then put a lot of it into the movie.

Hey, she's a woman and for some time was a single mother. It would be really strange if she didn't try to put some romance in there. :smalltongue:

She may really lack a lot on that deparment, but well, I guess she really wanted to try to make the characters go trough relationships.

kpenguin
2009-07-19, 06:27 PM
I find HP's romances better written than Twilight's...

Although I've only seen the film for Twilight, so my perception might be skewed.

Starscream
2009-07-19, 07:26 PM
I can't say Harry Potter loud enough. I'm not even a huge fan, I just read the books over the summer because my cousin owned them all and I was bored.

But I enjoyed them. I won't be putting on a wizard hat and debating which house I would be in any time soon, but they were entertaining. I have complaints but they are minor.

Whereas I read the first three Twilight books to write a paper about (fourth one wasn't out yet) and wanted to shoot myself. The characters are terrible. The story is terrible. The style is terrible. I've only seen half of the movie, so I can only vouch for it being 50% terrible.

I read a ton, and go the the library almost every week. I've seen a lot of great books that nobody has ever heard of. I've also read some pretty dang bad ones that were inexplicably popular. So I'm used to the idea of junk becoming a success while brilliance goes unnoticed. It happens.

But I'm pretty sure I could point to any random book in the place and truthfully declare that its author deserves money and fame more than Stephanie Meyer. Any given twelve year old fanfiction writer who is currently working on their opus "Ash Ketchum saves the Power Rangers with the help of Goku" is better.

lisiecki
2009-07-19, 07:50 PM
Both are very popular YA series that rely more on fans' identification with/love of the characters than on actual craft or writing ability.

...

Ya...

the Harry Potter books arn't well written?

Smiling Knight
2009-07-19, 07:51 PM
Harry Potter^100 power. Harry at his angstiest is still more likable than Bella or Edward.

Llama231
2009-07-19, 07:57 PM
Ironically, while the OP tell the HP fans to defend their series, they seem to be unanimously in the lead... :smallcool:

The Blackbird
2009-07-19, 08:00 PM
Ironically, while the OP tell the HP fans to defend their series, they seem to be unanimously in the lead... :smallcool:

Actually while it's easily winning a lot of the posts are posting about how it sucks, but not as bad as Twilight. So there's still stuff to defend.

North
2009-07-19, 08:09 PM
I liked Harry Potter for a kids book series it was pretty great.

Twilight. Makes me want to vomit something fierce. It just sounds like really terrible fanfiction with mary sue and her stalker sparkly daytime vamp. And the whole baby romance thing is creepy beyond belief.

XiaoTie
2009-07-19, 09:40 PM
Vampires that can go out on the sun. Huh, okay. I guess.
And then they start sparkling... AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH

No, seriously. HP wins, hands down, even with Harry's teen angst moments.

doliest
2009-07-19, 09:48 PM
There really is no contest between the two either in my opinion or in votes from this forum since the general twilight fan is kept away from this website by the entrance requirements.

TRM
2009-07-19, 09:50 PM
But I'm pretty sure I could point to any random book in the place and truthfully declare that its author deserves money and fame more than Stephanie Meyer. Any given twelve year old fanfiction writer who is currently working on their opus "Ash Ketchum saves the Power Rangers with the help of Goku" is better.
She's not that bad.

But I still have discovered that I ! ing hate it. So much. I never thought I would say this—before I read it I always considered it just pulpy and overpopular but not worth despising. Then I actually read it and discovered how horrifying and disgusting the relationship is between Bella and Edward, starting with when Edward forces her into his car and refuses to let her drive herself home (because she had felt faint from seeing blood earlier that day).

So I vote Harry Potter. It has its problems, but it has a catchy plot, an interesting world, generally likable characters (though Harry gets worse as the series goes on), and no horribly disturbing ! 'd up teenage romances.

Also, is it usual to call the short part before in a fiction book a Preface? I had always thought this was called the Prologue...

(Done before nerdrage can set in and I start to look like an idiot.)

Wizzardman
2009-07-19, 09:51 PM
...

Ya...

the Harry Potter books arn't well written?

Not the best in the world, but good enough, certainly. Although, frankly, I find it somewhat unfortunate that Rowling rapidly became so popular that editors were too afraid of her to edit her properly. Those last three books need some proper editing.

mangosta71
2009-07-19, 10:34 PM
But the ending was so obvious, I was able to guess it correctly, after reading the 6th book. making it lose a lot of points.

Yeah, when I picked up the last book I knew exactly how the duel would end. Even so, the angsty teenagers putzing through their first relationships seemed like a pretty accurate depiction of what real people would go through in that situation, especially considering that the characters were away from home for the first time and so had no supervision or guidance from any trusted adults. Rowling also gave her characters something that Meyer didn't - flaws. It makes them much more interesting and believable than a bunch of "perfect" kids.

I also don't get Bella's obsession with Edward. He's a complete jerk to her from the instant they meet, but she falls in love at first sight because he's so pretty. Seriously, WTF?

lisiecki
2009-07-19, 10:34 PM
Not the best in the world, but good enough, certainly. Although, frankly, I find it somewhat unfortunate that Rowling rapidly became so popular that editors were too afraid of her to edit her properly. Those last three books need some proper editing.


Granted there not the Myth of the Cave, but I've never heard critics or any one who knows more about literature than I do say there not well written.

Actually in my experience the more people know about literature, the more they like the series.

lisiecki
2009-07-19, 10:35 PM
I also don't get Bella's obsession with Edward. He's a complete ******* to her from the instant they meet, but she falls in love at first sight because he's so pretty. Seriously, WTF?

The Instant they meet, he saved her from getting crushed by a truck, how is that him being ******* ?

mangosta71
2009-07-19, 10:37 PM
The Instant they meet, he saved her from getting crushed by a truck, how is that him being ******* ?

I'm referring to his behavior in the classroom. And his treatment of her in the hallway when he can't be moved to another section. (Both of which occurred before the almost-killed incident.)

Faulty
2009-07-19, 10:39 PM
Wizard People (http://illegal-art.org/video/wizard.html) > Harry Potter > Twilight.

lisiecki
2009-07-19, 10:42 PM
And the whole baby romance thing is creepy beyond belief.

Ya, romance with a baby WOULD be creepy beyond belief, what book was that in?


Vampires that can go out on the sun. Huh, okay. I guess.

I know, I thought it was crap when Bram Stoker did it in Dracula

Flickerdart
2009-07-19, 10:44 PM
Wizard People (http://illegal-art.org/video/wizard.html) > Harry Potter > Twilight.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the awesomeness that it Wizard People, Dear Reader.

Faulty
2009-07-19, 10:53 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing against the awesomeness that it Wizard People, Dear Reader.

Brad Neely is responsible for some of the greatest similes in the history of everything.

rankrath
2009-07-19, 10:56 PM
The sixth book to me was pretty much either really good or really bad. The romance stuff was really bad. The other stuff was really good. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rowling cannot write romance. Which is why it's annoying when she tries to put so much of it into her book. It's like what George Lucas tried to do in Star Wars Episode II: Take something he was bad at writing, then put a lot of it into the movie.


I would disagree with the quality of the romance in HP. It's a frighteningly accurate representation of high-school dating, at least in my social group. Of course, said social group is slowly fracturing under the fighting caused by said 'romance', but whatever. I also don't really get all the hate directed at the sixth book. It does a fairly good job displaying that life goes on despite the war, and is a recalls the slice of life story that made up the first three HP books.

As far as the topic goes, HP. Twilight is at best a cheesy romance, while Potter has managed to revolutionize an entire genera. Furthermore, a good case could be made that Twilight only exists because of Harry Potter.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-19, 10:59 PM
Ya, romance with a baby WOULD be creepy beyond belief, what book was that in?3rd, IIRC. The date-rape werewolf falls in love with Bella's demonic vampire baby(which will never be more than 17 years old). And then she leaves the baby with him so she can go hunting. While wearing a cocktail dress. Because the one thing even remotely resembling a flaw she had(clumsiness) vanished when she was infected. So Meyer infected her Mary Sue self-insertion character with her 'turn someone into a Mary Sue' disease in order to eliminate the one thing she claimed was a flaw. The **** overload caused my copy to spontaneously combust. with only a little help from gasoline and a lighter

Haruki-kun
2009-07-19, 11:52 PM
I think the majority of this community feels so-so towards Harry Potter, but still hates Twilight. Somehow it feels like this matter was decided a long time ago.

Lord Seth
2009-07-20, 12:12 AM
Hey, she's a woman and for some time was a single mother. It would be really strange if she didn't try to put some romance in there. :smalltongue:

She may really lack a lot on that deparment, but well, I guess she really wanted to try to make the characters go trough relationships.Except, as I pointed out, J.K. Rowling is very bad at writing romance. It was cringeworthy, drew attention away from the much more interesting parts of the plot, and a few portions were actually painful to read. That should be the rule of any writer: If you're bad at writing something, don't write it. If what you're bad at writing is absolutely necessary to your story, either get someone else to write those parts for you (admittedly, this is probably harder to do in a book than in a movie) or minimize them as much as possible. Instead of doing that, we pretty much get "Attack of the Clones lite".

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-20, 12:15 AM
I have not even considered reading Twilight (I am not exactly the target audience; 36yr old male, as I am). However I recognize the rage against it from my days as LKH reader (when the suddenly took a 90 degree turn and started writing vampire pr0n in the middle of the series).
Of course that was worse because she had built a fan base that liked the Vampire Noir, and exchanged it for the grown up version of the twilight fan base (same abusive relationships, but with no plot, only sex).

Mystic Muse
2009-07-20, 12:16 AM
t "Attack of the Clones lite".

bleh. tastes like cough syrup mixed with fish oil.:smallbiggrin:

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-20, 12:31 AM
I have to say though that in my experience high school dating is just that awkward.

littlequietguy
2009-07-20, 12:39 AM
:smallconfused: Sure they do, in many sources.

What? I have never seen any besides twilight.
And besides it just seems like adding a template of increased physical powers which is lazy.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-20, 12:45 AM
What? I have never seen any besides twilight.Ann Rice is one.

The problem I have with Twilight's Vampirism(besides the sparkles) is that there is no drawback. You become physically perfect, incredibly strong, fast, heightened senses, can walk in the sun, and your position in society improves. Sure, you go through life wanting to kill everyone, but that's pretty standard in my experience. It's the Mary Sue of vampirism.

averagejoe
2009-07-20, 02:13 AM
Ann Rice is one.

Buffyverse was another, though this wasn't always clear or consistent.

Drascin
2009-07-20, 02:31 AM
What? I have never seen any besides twilight.


Vampires having greater speed and dexterity is really common. Buffy, for one. Then you have the RPG Vampire, where Celerity is an actual skillset you can take to be really friggin' fast. And Nasu works, where vampires being exceedingly strong and fast is standard.

Those are the first that come to my mind. I've never really liked vampires, so I don't pay attention to them. I find most of them annoying, to be honest.

And yes, I realize I say this while having an avatar who is, technically, a vampire, which could be said to be pretty ironic. But Remilia and Arcueid are the only two vampires I've liked in ages, so exceptions and all that.

_Zoot_
2009-07-20, 05:35 AM
Ann Rice is one.

The problem I have with Twilight's Vampirism(besides the sparkles) is that there is no drawback. You become physically perfect, incredibly strong, fast, heightened senses, can walk in the sun, and your position in society improves. Sure, you go through life wanting to kill everyone, but that's pretty standard in my experience. It's the Mary Sue of vampirism.

If wanting to kill every one is the only "drawback" you can sign me up for that! :smalltongue:

Killer Angel
2009-07-20, 05:49 AM
But I'm pretty sure I could point to any random book in the place and truthfully declare that its author deserves money and fame more than Stephanie Meyer. Any given twelve year old fanfiction writer who is currently working on their opus "Ash Ketchum saves the Power Rangers with the help of Goku" is better.

Are you sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon)?

(it's a real question. Haven't read Twilight, so I wonder if it's really more awful)

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-07-20, 06:57 AM
So...I know this statement will probably open a veritable Pandora's Box of nerdrage, but I see some similarities between Twilight and Harry Potter. Hear me out! Both are very popular YA series that rely more on fans' identification with/love of the characters than on actual craft or writing ability.

While I haven´t read Twilight, and probably won´t bother, I find my liking of HP is more to do with JKR´s worldbuilding. Yes, the whole "wizards keeping muggles in the dark" is pretty ridiculous, but Rowling is quite good at putting in little details, that just get mentioned in passing but really add to the colour of the world.

Not that I´m saying HP is a pinnacle of modern literature. Not by a long shot. It does have occasional plotholes, loves Chekov´s Guns waaaaay too much and the teenage angst in book 6 was argleramgle graaarrrblee. Sorry lost myself a second there... *Ahem* Still a highly entertaining read, which is exactly what it should be.

Plus, Rowling gave us Fred and George Weasley. And for that we should be grateful. Even if she killed one of em <:(

Moonshadow
2009-07-20, 07:32 AM
Harry Potter, even though the series started sucking after Prisoner of Azkaban, IMO.

*grumbles about JK killing al his favourite characters*

Prime32
2009-07-20, 07:35 AM
Are you sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon)?

(it's a real question. Haven't read Twilight, so I wonder if it's really more awful)Inheritance fans hate Twilight too. I know someone who enjoyed Eragon and Eldest but starts foaming at the mouth ranting about how bad Twilight is.

I liked the first two books of Inheritance myself, but the third was just awkward. I don't really mind deluded protagonists, so that might have something to do with it (I also had no problem with Shinn Asuka in Gundam SEED Destiny). It also helps if you see it as a "tribute" to older works.

rubakhin
2009-07-20, 07:58 AM
Ya, romance with a baby WOULD be creepy beyond belief, what book was that in?


The last one. Werewolves have this thing where the first time they see their soulmate they automatically imprint on her, which in essence means they involuntarily fall in love with her forever and ever. Regardless of how old the imprintee is at the time. So the werewolf Jacob imprints on Bella's newborn child when they meet.

There's also another werewolf named Quil, who imprinted on his adopted daughter, a two-year-old named Claire.

(That CANNOT be unintentional. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Quilty))

I guess it's kind of romantic in theory that you have your destined true love watching over you from day one, but in the practice it's deeply spooky. The werewolves first provide for the ones they imprint on as a brother/protector/uncle/father/whatever until they grow up, but it's pretty much guaranteed that when she hits adulthood she'll fall in love with whoever imprinted on her and doesn't have much choice in the matter. It's socially expected of her. It's child grooming. The imprinter cares for the child and take an active role in her upbringing, and the girl is raised with the understanding that she's going to be this man's lover someday, so it's basically grow-your-own-romantic-partner. The whole situation is just unbelievably creepy.

There's a particularly gross scene where Quil is playing peek-a-boo or something with little Claire (who's two, and his adopted daughter) and Jacob wanders by and cracks a joke about how the poor guy's going to have to wait another fourteen years before he can get some. *gag*

Moglorosh
2009-07-20, 07:59 AM
Are you sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon)?

(it's a real question. Haven't read Twilight, so I wonder if it's really more awful)Oh come on, Eragon was awesome.... in the 70's... when it was called Star Wars.

As far as Harry Potter having a plot goes, I pretty much likened it to a bedtime story that was just improvised night after night.

I know she said that she already had an ending in mind, but beyond "Harry wins", it was obviously a lie. Some of the books have needless fluff plots that aren't even necessary (I'm looking at you, Goblet of Fire). The death toll for the last book was ridiculous, and basically just a list of names with no rhyme or reason behind them at all.

That being said: Twilight isn't even in the same league as HP.

kamikasei
2009-07-20, 08:05 AM
Werewolves have this thing where the first time they see their soulmate they automatically imprint on her, which in essence means they involuntarily fall in love with her forever and ever. Regardless of how old the imprintee is at the time.

Wow. I wasn't under the impression anyone had been clamouring for the whole "destined soulmate" notion to be made more creepy and harmful.

Lamech
2009-07-20, 09:23 AM
<snip> The death toll for the last book was ridiculous, and basically just a list of names with no rhyme or reason behind them at all.

<snip>I thought that was the whole point of the deaths in the last one. There was a heck of a lot of people trying to kill each other, so a heck of a lot of people got killed. No they were not all bad people, being a bad person does not magically make you less competent than the heroes; especially when the heroes are not trained soilders.

Would have after the final battle "Hey Harry we lost 1/4 of our people, but no one you ever heard of." been more realistic? You may not agree with it, but thats what I got from it.

Mr. Scaly
2009-07-20, 09:28 AM
Harry Potter spawns more interesting fan based things. For example... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1XIm6q4r4)

Helanna
2009-07-20, 10:59 AM
I have to say though that in my experience high school dating is just that awkward.

No kidding. Whenever somebody complains about the romance or angst, I introduce them to my sister, if possible. If you think Harry was angsty, then you probably don't WANT to meet my sister, who doesn't even have an excuse for being angsty. So although the series probably could have used less of both, it's not like it was super unrealistic . . .

And see, there's an interesting debate (ie, one that's not a foregone conclusion.) Which is worse, Twilight or Eragon?

I would say in terms of the books alone, Eragon, since it has most of the same flaws Twilight does, plus being totally derivative, and worst of all, it takes itself completely seriously as an epic fantasy.

In terms of fanbases and effects, though, nothing is worse than Twilight fangirls. The abusive relationships in Twilight were creepy enough, but it's even worse now that a whole generation of fangirls are using it as a model for their own relationships . . .

mangosta71
2009-07-20, 11:03 AM
Some of the books have needless fluff plots that aren't even necessary (I'm looking at you, Goblet of Fire).

Yeah, I hated SPEW too.


The death toll for the last book was ridiculous, and basically just a list of names with no rhyme or reason behind them at all.

Well, it was a war. People die in war. Sometimes they're people you like. Sometimes they're people you don't like. There's not always a reason. I thought the body count was effective at conveying the idea that some seriously bad **** was going on. It adds an element of danger and urgency.

TheSummoner
2009-07-20, 11:09 AM
Heh, three pages and not a single Twi-tard defending it, hilarious and awesome.

Eh... as for the death toll in book 7, it really set a mood of "anyone can die." I doubt there was a single person who thought Harry, Ron, or the girl with the weird name's plot armor would fail them (Harry got better), but it was something. Would've been better if it had been spread out a bit better over the later books (one major character from 5 and 6, then a bunch... not all major... in 7... what?).

Hmm... Eragon or Twilight... which is worse... Twilight...

As said before, Star Wars kicked ass!

Lord Seth
2009-07-20, 11:23 AM
No kidding. Whenever somebody complains about the romance or angst, I introduce them to my sister, if possible. If you think Harry was angsty, then you probably don't WANT to meet my sister, who doesn't even have an excuse for being angsty. So although the series probably could have used less of both, it's not like it was super unrealistic . . .Just because something is "realistic" doesn't mean it should be in a book. It's "realistic" that people have to go to the bathroom, but who would be interested in having a book mention every single time someone had to go to the bathroom? Being interesting trumps being realistic. If being realistic is as bland, boring, and uninteresting as the romance stuff in book 6 was, then I don't want it. Some parts--like Harry and Ginny--were almost painful to read, because of how utterly forced they were.


And see, there's an interesting debate (ie, one that's not a foregone conclusion.) Which is worse, Twilight or Eragon? I really should read Twilight sometime just so I can compare the two. All I know is that my sister's a big Twilight fan and she really disliked Eragon.

Shadowbane
2009-07-20, 11:25 AM
I actually have a problem with the people who say that the romance is bad. It's high school romance to a T. At least, my high school's romance. Not mine, since I have startling stable relationships, but still.

It's frighteningly accurate, because reality is really just that awkward. Ron's responses to DeanxGinny are normal, and I have to say the way she nailed Lavender Brown and the way Romilda Vane behaves is just excellent. Particularly the latter.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-20, 12:08 PM
Yeah, I hated SPEW too.

.

it's S.P.E.W. not SPEW!:smallfurious::smalltongue:

Lord Seth
2009-07-20, 12:16 PM
Harry Potter spawns more interesting fan based things. For example... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1XIm6q4r4)Why did I expect Potter Puppet Pals before I clicked? But yeah, Potter Puppet Pals is great. "I'm feeling cranky and prepubescent today! I'm going to go take it out on people I like!" (from the Wizard Angst episode)

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-20, 12:38 PM
What? I have never seen any besides twilight.

Trueblood.
The Harry Dresden books

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-20, 12:46 PM
Twilight is far worse than Eragon IMHO. Eragon has no redeeming features, is massively derivative, Marty Stu, and is used by the author as a soapbox, but at least it's not actively promoting abusive relationships, rape, pedophilia, and horribly written.

Demons_eye
2009-07-20, 01:06 PM
I hate to break it to people but from what I have read about vampires in MYTH (not fiction), they were like zombies. They would get up in the middle of the night bite some people and go back. They were hard to kill but what was not back in then? All this "Super power Vampire" stuff is BS.

If you get to fiction like Dracula and Ann Rice I just groan.

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 01:09 PM
Heh, three pages and not a single Twi-tard defending it, hilarious and awesome.
!

I wasn't aware that this was a "defend" any thing thread.

I guess im a "Twi-tard"?
I enjoy the books, I haven't gotten o book three though.
Still there's ALOT of people that seem to read 1,500 pages of books they really hate.

Of corse unlike the other recent twilight thread there isnt any one making up facts yet...

I really like the one where Bella is 16 in the books

Zeful
2009-07-20, 01:12 PM
I hate to break it to people but from what I have read about vampires in MYTH (not fiction), they were like zombies. They would get up in the middle of the night bite some people and go back. They were hard to kill but what was not back in then? All this "Super power Vampire" stuff is BS.

If you get to fiction like Dracula and Ann Rice I just groan.

Fiction may be based on myth, but there is no reason to be chained by it.

kamikasei
2009-07-20, 01:31 PM
I hate to break it to people but from what I have read about vampires in MYTH (not fiction), they were like zombies. They would get up in the middle of the night bite some people and go back.

That doesn't particularly sound like a zombie to me - never mind that zombies as they're being discussed here are not the zombies "of myth", either, but those from zombie movies from the 20th century.


If you get to fiction like Dracula and Ann Rice I just groan.

...Why? They're a very large (probably larger than the original myths) part of the popular image of "vampire" today.

You are quite free to start a thread comparing the mythological roots of vampires and zombies, but this is not that thread.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-20, 01:33 PM
I guess I'm a "Twi-tard"?
I enjoy the books, I haven't gotten to book three though.
Still there's ALOT of people that seem to read 1,500 pages of books they really hate. I read the first because I was going to spend 12 hours on planes and in airports and had finished all of the books I brought with me. There's only so much available in airport bookstores.
Of corse unlike the other recent twilight thread there isnt any one making up facts yet...

I really like the one where Bella is 16 in the booksSomeone was off by a year, big deal. It's still a 109-year old vampire dating someone below the age of consent and watching her while she sleeps.

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 01:53 PM
It's still a 109-year old vampire dating someone below the age of consent and watching her while she sleeps.

Ummm

No, Bella is over the age of consent at all points in the book

AetherFox
2009-07-20, 01:57 PM
Voting for HP, if only because of my deepseated hatred for Twilight, and all of it's mindless followers. (Take note: I say mindless because most of the fans are, but not all, I know.)

If you want to know why I don't like twilight, well, Arzim in my sig says it all.

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 01:58 PM
Voting for HP, if only because of my deepseated hatred for Twilight, and all of it's mindless followers. (Take note: I say mindless because most of the fans are, but not all, I know.)


Drat, am I one of the mindless ones?

Zeful
2009-07-20, 02:01 PM
Ummm

No, Bella is over the age of consent at all points in the book

So she's 18 then? Because the Age of consent is dependent on individual state rulings in the US. In MN the Age of consent is 16, while in other states it anywhere from 14-18. What's the age of consent for Washington was it?

The Glyphstone
2009-07-20, 02:04 PM
So she's 18 then? Because the Age of consent is dependent on individual state rulings in the US. In MN the Age of consent is 16, while in other states it anywhere from 14-18. What's the age of consent for Washington was it?

Consent in Washington State is, apparently, 16. But it's still illegal if the other party is more than 60 months older than the younger party....which 100+ years outstrips by a long shot.

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 02:05 PM
So she's 18 then? Because the Age of consent is dependent on individual state rulings in the US. In MN the Age of consent is 16, while in other states it anywhere from 14-18. What's the age of consent for Washington was it?

according to a 30 second Google search, its 16 in Wash.

So... ya...

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 02:06 PM
Consent in Washington State is, apparently, 16. But it's still illegal if the other party is more than 60 months older than the younger party....

Lucky for Edward that Bella isnt 16 huh?


which 100+ years outstrips by a long shot.
[/QUOTE]

And that hes not 100+ years older than her

Thats what i love about twilight, its hated by people, who havent read it

averagejoe
2009-07-20, 02:07 PM
*snip*

Oh my god. I'm laughing right now, but in the way that's really close to crying. How could anybody think that this would be a good idea?

Zeful
2009-07-20, 02:17 PM
according to a 30 second Google search, its 16 in Alaska.

So... ya...

Thats what i love about twilight, its hated by people, who havent read it

I never said I hated it, it's a decent example of really bad relationships than no human should ever even consider short of "this is the last man on earth" and even then should give a second thought to dooming mankind. But that's all based on the trailers for the movie, if the book's even half as bad I'd be tempted to get a red inkpen, highlight every mistake in the books and send it to the author, with a sidebar explaining how proofreading helps an author from making stupid mistakes.

Perenelle
2009-07-20, 02:19 PM
Harry Potter. Defiantly. Twilight has the general vocabulary of a third grader with the exception of the rather disturbing topics it often went into. Stephanie Meyer sounds like more of a crazed, sick minded 3rd grader that needs to get a life and stop fantasizing about Vampire romances. I mean come on, thats just weird. Harry Potter on the other hand has a more complex plot than Twilight does, and it also doesn't make you want to set the book on fire like Twilight does. Then again Harry Potter used to be just as popular as twilight and it gradually died out when the series was over.
The characters in HP are more complex, original and more interesting than those of the Twilight series. they're personalities also remian more true to themselves throughout the HP series, and though you could see changes in their maturing personalities, there was nothing that was unnaturally drastic. whereas in Twilight, Bella started out as a quiet, defensless, shy teenage girl; and ended up to seem like a backstabbing, needy, nonindependent, sex crazed lunatic in what seemed to me like an abusive relationship with Edward. Edward was controlling, and people fail to realize that Stephanie Meyer painted a picture of a guy that is not as great as she acted like he was.
so ending this, Harry Potter had a better plot, better characters, made more sense, and each squeal wasn't just a drawn out continuation of the previous book. In my opinion, Twilight will never measure up to the literary quality of Harry Potter. I'm with J.K. Rowling, Stephanie Meyer can get a life.

Tamburlaine
2009-07-20, 02:19 PM
It's a difficult question, really. I personally find both series to be more popular than they deserve, and not well written. Twilight is, by quite a margin, the worse written, but I enjoyed reading it more...
So, I guess I vote Twilight.

Also:

reinventing a genre
Not quite sure I understand what you mean there...

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 02:20 PM
I never said I hated it, it's a decent example of really bad relationships than no human should ever even consider short of "this is the last man on earth" and even then should give a second thought to dooming mankind. But that's all based on the trailers for the movie, if the book's even half as bad I'd be tempted to get a red inkpen, highlight every mistake in the books and send it to the author, with a sidebar explaining how proofreading helps an author from making stupid mistakes.

Ohhhh its all biased on the trailers for the movie.
Ok i got you, I can only imagine how much you must hate Dune. Since were only taking in to account movies. The movie of Dune was crap.

bladedSmoke
2009-07-20, 02:27 PM
Ohhhh its all biased on the trailers for the movie.
Ok i got you, I can only imagine how much you must hate Dune. Since were only taking in to account movies. The movie of Dune was crap.

Did you... Did you just insinuate that the book of Twilight is similar in quality to the book of Dune?

:smalleek:

I think I'm going to be sick.

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 02:30 PM
Did you... Did you just insinuate that the book of Twilight is similar in quality to the book of Dune?

:smalleek:

I think I'm going to be sick.

Zeful directly said that his/her opinion of Twilight was directly baised on the movie.

If Twilight the novel is bad, and we are basing this on the movie.
Then if we base the quality of the nove Dune on the quality of the Movie Dune, then the quality of the Novel Dune must be even worse than Twilight.

mangosta71
2009-07-20, 02:41 PM
The difference is, by all accounts that I have heard/read, the movie version of Twilight is better than the book. Yes, every attempt to turn Dune into a movie has resulted in crap, but all accounts acknowledge that the book is far superior.

Also, even if Bella is 17, she's still in the territory that makes dating someone that's a lot older than she is questionable legally in that state (and unquestionably statutory rape in most other states). As I recall, Edward was going to die during the Spanish flu outbreak after WWI. I do not recall how old he was at the time. So he's about 110, give or take a year or two, breaking into a 17 year-old girl's bedroom while she sleeps. And you're saying that you don't see anything wrong with that. You would rather point out trivial inaccuracies in the arguments against it than address the issue.

Closet_Skeleton
2009-07-20, 02:47 PM
I also don't get Bella's obsession with Edward. He's a complete jerk to her from the instant they meet, but she falls in love at first sight because he's so pretty. Seriously, WTF?

Love at first sight is like that. It sucks in real life too. The Harry Potter series realises this and presents a realistic but poorly realised depiction of it. The Twilight just pretends such problems don't exist and lies to itself and its readers.


I hate to break it to people but from what I have read about vampires in MYTH (not fiction), they were like zombies. They would get up in the middle of the night bite some people and go back. They were hard to kill but what was not back in then? All this "Super power Vampire" stuff is BS.

If you get to fiction like Dracula and Ann Rice I just groan.

Have you actually read Dracula? Because apart from 1 scene where Dracula pwns the protagonists and runs away, it's exactly like that.


they were like zombies

Not really. The parts were you actually described things were acurate enough but your random comparison is way out.

mangosta71
2009-07-20, 02:50 PM
Love at first sight is like that. It sucks in real life too. The Harry Potter series realises this and presents a realistic but poorly realised depiction of it. The Twilight just pretends such problems don't exist and lies to itself and its readers.

Well, maybe part of my issue with the whole thing is that I don't believe in love at first sight. But that's another issue for another thread.

Closet_Skeleton
2009-07-20, 03:03 PM
Well, maybe part of my issue with the whole thing is that I don't believe in love at first sight. But that's another issue for another thread.

What? How can you not believe in people making stupid decisions based on minimal information? Next you'll say you don't believe in the government.

TheSummoner
2009-07-20, 03:16 PM
I don't believe in love at first sight either... I believe in lust at first sight, but I simply don't think its possible to develop feelings that can be called love... real love... just by looking at someone.

I also believe that there are far too many idiots out there that confuse love and lust and believe they fell in love at first sight... Partially attributed to hormones in teenagers. People are plenty capable of making idiot choices based on minimal information, I agree with you there.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-20, 03:21 PM
But said teenage wizards at least conform to the in-universe rules set down at the beginning of the books. Hence, realism.

I would argue that that is verisimilitude, rather than realism, but that it's a moot point since they really don't follow any real set of in-universe laws any more consistently than Twilight characters seem to.


Granted there not the Myth of the Cave, but I've never heard critics or any one who knows more about literature than I do say there not well written.

They're not well-written.

MissK
2009-07-20, 03:32 PM
Ohhhh its all biased on the trailers for the movie.
Ok i got you, I can only imagine how much you must hate Dune. Since were only taking in to account movies. The movie of Dune was crap.

What did you not like about the Dune movie? Sting in the blue vinyl codpiece? Or that weird thing with the cat?

Mordar
2009-07-20, 04:01 PM
Stephanie Meyer sounds like more of a crazed, sick minded 3rd grader that needs to get a life and stop fantasizing about Vampire romances. I mean come on, thats just weird.

In my opinion, Twilight will never measure up to the literary quality of Harry Potter. I'm with J.K. Rowling, Stephanie Meyer can get a life.

Okay, so I snipped a bunch of your quote, but these are the important bits for what I have to say.

From the outset I want to say that I agree with ranking HP above Twilight. I liked the HP books quite a bit more that Twilight, and I never rooted against the protagonists in HP as I did on occassion while reading Twilight.

However, I can't quite imagine being in a place where I would be justified telling a multi-bijillion-copy selling author who had their books optioned for movies to "get a life". It's a safe bet she could buy several of ours and not notice the debit to her checking account. Sure, having oodles of money and adoring fans doesn't mean she has won life...but it does mean that if she is losing she's doing a darn fine job of it!

That being said...I soundly advocate both series to anyone who is considering reading them. Both have captured the attention of a *HUGE* number of people who might well otherwise limit their reading to the box of their video game or the most recent issue of Seventeen magazine. This is a significant improvement.

The literati would be well served, in my opinion, to bash them both a little less and instead use the opportunity to draw readers to additional authors. It's much better, again in my opinion, to say "Oh, you read and liked Twilight? Great! Here's TITLE by AUTHOR. I think you'll really like this as well. It a) takes a different view on the topic; b) is by a favorite author of mine; c) it was something I remember really enjoying," than "Twilight is for morons. Try reading a real book, doofus." The sandbox is big enough for everyone to play in, and if more and more people continue to play, the sandbox will continue to be a dynamic and important place.

- M

PS: Okay, one more tiny editorial. I recently read a movie critic on Yahoo talking about the "waning popularity of Harry Potter" and implying that WB moved the open of Half-Blood to summer because they were afraid of being eclipsed by the Twilight movie. I recall that WB said they actually wanted to be in the bigger summer movie market instead of just ruling the holiday market. Total worldwide gross for Twilight: ~$380M. After 5 whole days of release, Half-Blood has racked up ~$395M. Yup, I bet WB was quaking in their Quidditch booties in fear of the Twlight meance :)

PPS: Yes, I know, Half-Blood is getting great reviews, Twilight got blasted. But seriously...do you think the target audience of either film was even a tiny bit swayed by critical reviews?

littlequietguy
2009-07-20, 04:26 PM
Ann Rice is one.

The problem I have with Twilight's Vampirism(besides the sparkles) is that there is no drawback. You become physically perfect, incredibly strong, fast, heightened senses, can walk in the sun, and your position in society improves. Sure, you go through life wanting to kill everyone, but that's pretty standard in my experience. It's the Mary Sue of vampirism.

It isn't a curse it's a freaking super power!

Demons_eye
2009-07-20, 05:20 PM
Fiction may be based on myth, but there is no reason to be chained by it.

Agreed but when it gets to the point that its: "I like the idea but lets change this. Hmmm maybe this too? Oh this needs to be changed."

Dracula was not bad, I take that back. But rice? Meyer? No they went to far, at lest for me.


In myth vampires came out of there grave and feed then went back. One of the only ways of finding out they were vampires was to run a white horse over the graves and when the horse stopped you got a vampire. Wolf men really changed during the full moon nor was it only "Wolfs". You would apply an ointment or were a wolf skin witch you were to have gotten from the devil or other evil spirits it was even a curse in some stories. No biting no silver. If they only changed a few things in Hollywood I would be find but the just change to much.


As to the topic: HP. Writing was better (if I had to read her describe ed one more time I would throw up). Plot was better (Spoiler: NO END FIGHT FOR TWILIGHT? even HP had one even as lame as it was.) And Writer is better (OMG some read released my draft? I am going to go cry for 3 days and not write any more. Tho I have to give here props for trying to write some thing else then the thing that made her big.)

Closet_Skeleton
2009-07-20, 05:27 PM
It isn't a curse it's a freaking super power!

Tell that to Imhotep. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome)

magellan
2009-07-20, 05:34 PM
Lucky for Edward that Bella isnt 16 huh?




And that hes not 100+ years older than her

Thats what i love about twilight, its hated by people, who havent read it[/QUOTE]

Meh.
Buffy was 16, angel was 250. And he watched her sleeping too.... once (season 2, passions)

Sequinox
2009-07-20, 06:34 PM
Lucky for Edward that Bella isnt 16 huh?

And that hes not 100+ years older than her

Thats what i love about twilight, its hated by people, who havent read it

I read the whole series, and I've decided that I'm not a fan. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't jaw-droppingly horrible, but I really just thought it wasn't worth half the praise.

Other than Edward. I hate that guy.

As to Harry Potter, it got me into reading when I was 4. My dad read it out loud to me. Then I went and got plenty of Dr. Seuss stuff. (Go Dog Go was so hard to read...)

But I love the Harry Potter books, with a major exception in the second. It had everything I hated: People getting blamed for stuff they didn't do (that was pretty much the theme of the book) and spiders. Disgusting.

Harry Potter has character development, personality, and humor. Twilight... Has abusive relationships, convinces people that that's the ideal relationship (ask a teenage girl. 4 out of 5 chance you'll get a yes.) and has dead flat characters (other than Jacob, but he doesn't really develop at all. Sad face.)

So, final verdict: Harry Potter by a longshot. JK Rowling is much better a writer than Stephanie Meyer, and she has great characters. 'Nuff said.

EDIT: Good god, Lisiecki! Spelling!

Lord Seth
2009-07-20, 06:58 PM
Meh.
Buffy was 16, angel was 250. And he watched her sleeping too.... once (season 2, passions)Y'know, to be fair...this is an excellent point.

EDIT: Though I should point out that "Passion" was after Angel had turned back into Angelus (his evil, soulless form), so his watching her sleep was portrayed as bad in that case.

Weirdlet
2009-07-20, 07:01 PM
There's a very interesting video remixing Buffy and Twilight together here-

http://blip.tv/file/2261825/

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 07:05 PM
please excuse my splling, im dysgraic


I read the whole series, and I've decided that I'm not a fan. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't jaw-droppingly horrible, but I really just thought it wasn't worth half the praise.

Other than Edward. I hate that guy.

As to Harry Potter, it got me into reading when I was 4. My dad read it out loud to me. Then I went and got plenty of Dr. Seuss stuff. (Go Dog Go was so hard to read...)

But I love the Harry Potter books, with a major exception in the second. It had everything I hated: People getting blamed for stuff they didn't do (that was pretty much the theme of the book) and spiders. Disgusting.

Harry Potter has character development, personality, and humor. Twilight... Has abusive relationships, convinces people that that's the ideal relationship (ask a teenage girl. 4 out of 5 chance you'll get a yes.) and has dead flat characters (other than Jacob, but he doesn't really develop at all. Sad face.)

So, final verdict: Harry Potter by a longshot. JK Rowling is much better a writer than Stephanie Meyer, and she has great characters. 'Nuff said.

EDIT: Good god, Lisiecki! Spelling!

Flickerdart
2009-07-20, 07:07 PM
and has dead flat characters (other than Jacob, but he doesn't really develop at all. Sad face.)
Are you kidding? What about Charlie the half-bear one-armed bacon-powered police chief?

Helanna
2009-07-20, 07:07 PM
Harry Potter has character development, personality, and humor. Twilight... Has abusive relationships, convinces people that that's the ideal relationship (ask a teenage girl. 4 out of 5 chance you'll get a yes.) and has dead flat characters (other than Jacob, but he doesn't really develop at all. Sad face.)

I take such pride in being that sane fifth girl.

See, I have to say, I enjoyed Twilight while I read it. When I first read it, it was just a simple fluff piece that kept me entertained for an hour. No big deal.

But then nobody would shut up about it. All over my school, girls were wearing T-shirts and bags with Edward on them. People were constantly quoting it and swearing that it was the GREATEST book ever. Leading me to the question - "HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY OTHER BOOK???"

So yeah, I hate hearing it so much as mentioned now. It's so irritating that so many people think that Twilight is such a great book when it doesn't deserve any of its praise.

Edit:



Are you kidding? What about Charlie the half-bear one-armed bacon-powered police chief?

Who can read minds and controls an army of intelligence-gathering robots.

Lord Seth
2009-07-20, 07:12 PM
Death Dragon, you messed up in your quoting. I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. Did you accidentally quote me as saying something I quoted from someone else?

EDIT: Okay, it was Equinox who actually said that. Can you fix your message to reflect that? I hate being misquoted. (not that I necessarily disagree with what was said, I just don't like it when I'm quoted as saying something someone else said)

rubakhin
2009-07-20, 07:31 PM
It's probably just me, but I think the age aspect would have been less creepy if Edward was a bit older. 109 isn't really a very supernatural age. There are people kicking around the real world who are older than he is.

This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_Patch.jpg) is sneaking into your house at night to watch your teenage daughter sleep.

Actually that part of it never really bothered me much (ymmv, of course). Edward's been socialized as a teenager his entire afterlife and is still mentally, emotionally, and socially seventeen. It would be one thing if he actually thought, acted, and lived as an older adult, but I think we can all agree that he's pretty much eternally an emo teen.

lisiecki
2009-07-20, 09:02 PM
They're not well-written.

And the rest of that post remains true

Shosuro Ishii
2009-07-20, 09:03 PM
Buffy was 16, angel was 250. And he watched her sleeping too.... once (season 2, passions)

Angel wasn't the over idealized, examplar of a relationship that Edward is. You'll note that when Angel watched Buffy sleep, she pointed out how ****ing creepy it was.

Helanna
2009-07-20, 09:23 PM
Death Dragon, you messed up in your quoting. I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. Did you accidentally quote me as saying something I quoted from someone else?

EDIT: Okay, it was Equinox who actually said that. Can you fix your message to reflect that? I hate being misquoted. (not that I necessarily disagree with what was said, I just don't like it when I'm quoted as saying something someone else said)

Oops, sorry! I fixed it.

Leon
2009-07-20, 10:11 PM
Potterverse gets torn apart by glittery vampires and both sink into obscurity

The Glyphstone
2009-07-20, 10:27 PM
Repellus Vampiris Sparkilus?

Moglorosh
2009-07-20, 10:28 PM
I think you guys misunderstood my comment about the death toll in the last HP book. I didn't mean "ridiculous" as in "omg I wish those people hadn't died". I meant it in the sense that she pretty much just strung a bunch of names together at the end for what amounted to pure shock value. This isn't an opinion I formed just from the book btw, but from my interpretation of the woman as well.

Also, rereading my post, I realized it was a mistake to accuse one author I was discussing of plagiarism while letting the other, just-as-guilty author off scott-free. So for that, I apologize.

Flickerdart
2009-07-20, 11:11 PM
Yeah, the off-screen or one-line dying in book 7 was ridiculous, you could tell Rowling was trying to up the stakes but it was almost comical instead. Not "oh wow, this is horrible, they're dying" but more "ah, another name I don't have to keep track of, thanks for trimming the cast!"

Kroy
2009-07-20, 11:15 PM
Consent in Washington State is, apparently, 16. But it's still illegal if the other party is more than 60 months older than the younger party....which 100+ years outstrips by a long shot.

I feel shame for living in the same state that an insanely popular/horrible series takes place.

Edit: "Morbo says Forks doesn't work that way!"

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-20, 11:20 PM
And the rest of that post remains true

I don't really know any literary arts, comp lit, or English majors who are particularly enamored with it, either. The fact that you referred to The Allegory of the Cave as the Myth of the Cave doesn't help the case of arguing you know more about literature than they, or I, do. This isn't to say there is anything wrong with liking Harry Potter, only that I would disagree with your argument to authority.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-20, 11:33 PM
only that I would disagree with your argument to authority.

Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy anyway, so it's a moot point.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-21, 12:42 AM
109/2+7=61. That puts Sparkles/Mary about 44 years outside the standard creepiness minimum.

Also, Angel was called creepy, several times. His relationship with her was rough, and there was a lot of problems that they were called on in-universe. Twilight tries to pass off it's relationships as not only normal, but the ideal. And people believe them. :smallfrown:

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-21, 01:11 AM
I hate to break it to people but from what I have read about vampires in MYTH (not fiction), they were like zombies. They would get up in the middle of the night bite some people and go back. They were hard to kill but what was not back in then? All this "Super power Vampire" stuff is BS.

If you get to fiction like Dracula and Ann Rice I just groan.

First of all, you are mixing myth and fiction. Dracula is the first popular fictional vampire. That you don't like how his powers are described is one thing, but claim that Stoker was BS-ing when he in fact defined a genre is a little much.
Anne Rice... no comments.

Second of all... What myths are you referring to? There are tons of vampire myths from a lot of different countries and times. Be more specific.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-21, 01:17 AM
I feel shame for living in the same state that an insanely popular/horrible series takes place.

What, Frasier? :smallwink:

Lord of Rapture
2009-07-21, 04:41 AM
Those are the first that come to my mind. I've never really liked vampires, so I don't pay attention to them. I find most of them annoying, to be honest.

And yes, I realize I say this while having an avatar who is, technically, a vampire, which could be said to be pretty ironic. But Remilia and Arcueid are the only two vampires I've liked in ages, so exceptions and all that.

Oh god, we finally agree perfectly on something for once!

Except for Remilia, since I have no idea who she is. Could you please tell me?

EDIT: I'm in no position to say, since I've never read Twilight, but judging from the comments and the reception I've seen online, I'm going with Harry Potter, since it's not great, but at least it's enjoyable.

magellan
2009-07-21, 05:19 AM
109/2+7=61. That puts Sparkles/Mary about 44 years outside the standard creepiness minimum.

Also, Angel was called creepy, several times. His relationship with her was rough, and there was a lot of problems that they were called on in-universe. Twilight tries to pass off it's relationships as not only normal, but the ideal. And people believe them. :smallfrown:

Of course i ddn't point out that the episode where he watches her sleep is also the one where he "leaves a gag gift in giles bed", gets his de-invite and does a lot of other fun stuff :)

Lord Loss
2009-07-21, 05:44 AM
I VOTE POTTER!

Seriously, Though Harry Potter is a much more interesting series. It has a magic feel that's hard to find anywhere else. There's an actual plot (Vampires going love me, love me not does not count as a plot), the characters have a good developement, are concrete, different and fun. Even though you barely see some characters, they really add fun to the scene (Like , say, Collin Creevy, Padma Patil, Seamus Finnigan, etc.) and make it seem real. Also, they made a movie of twillight and not Cirque Du Freak. Grumbles.

Drascin
2009-07-21, 06:13 AM
Oh god, we finally agree perfectly on something for once!

Except for Remilia, since I have no idea who she is. Could you please tell me?


Remilia Scarlet, from Touhou. Bit of a jackass, and despite her usual civilizedness and sociability she probably pings in a Detect Evil. Acts like a little bored kid usually (as she seems to be about ten years old physically and, well, prior to arriving to the game's setting she WAS monumentally bored. And the habits of three hundred years are hard to remove), but, much like Arc, can get scarily perceptive and smart when the situation calls for it. Has a sister that can only be called an apocalypse on legs, tries to keep her under wraps and inside the house. Her thematic power is a loosely defined "power over Fate", which is generally taken to mean she has a limited ability to predict and nudge the future. Loves drinking tea, and actually *likes* cross imagery instead of being repelled by it, to the likely surprise of any vampire hunters she met in the past. Manages to go around in sunlight, though she's weakened and needs to carry a parasol, but apart from that seems to have most of the classic vampire weakness (was a point in one game that while there was a crisis it was raining at random, and due to the vampires' weakness to running water she couldn't go out - so she was annoyed and bored as all get out).

Lord of Rapture
2009-07-21, 07:11 AM
*snip* Touhou *huuuge wall of text*

Err... okay.

Despite the fact you obviously put a lot of effort into writing and informing me, which I greatly appreciate.. well...

Thanks, I guess...

*yes, I don't like Touhou, does it surprise you anymore?

Drascin
2009-07-21, 08:06 AM
Err... okay.

Despite the fact you obviously put a lot of effort into writing and informing me, which I greatly appreciate.. well...

Thanks, I guess...

*yes, I don't like Touhou, does it surprise you anymore?

Huge wall of text? That was barely a brick. You obviously haven't seen me actually bother with something :smalltongue:.

And no, not particularly. I pretty much guessed. After all, Touhou is an aggressively nonserious and relaxed setting. Very much not your cup of tea. Weirdo :smalltongue:.

Mr. Scaly
2009-07-21, 08:57 AM
Hey, does anybody remember anything about what Potterverse vampires were like? I seem to remember girls giggling after the one in book six...

Lord_Gareth
2009-07-21, 09:21 AM
I hate to break it to people but from what I have read about vampires in MYTH (not fiction), they were like zombies. They would get up in the middle of the night bite some people and go back. They were hard to kill but what was not back in then? All this "Super power Vampire" stuff is BS.

If you get to fiction like Dracula and Ann Rice I just groan.

Hate to break it to you man, but vampire myth is utterly inconsistent. There are so many sources of it that you can more or less attribute nearly anything to vampires. Hell, the vampire myth started with what we now call succubi and incubi!

As for vampires being super-strong and/or super-fast, those myths originated in Western Europe. Your statement (quoted, above) is part of Eastern European myth.

pita
2009-07-21, 11:08 AM
Eh... as for the death toll in book 7, it really set a mood of "anyone can die." I doubt there was a single person who thought Harry, Ron, or the girl with the weird name's plot armor would fail them (Harry got better), but it was something. Would've been better if it had been spread out a bit better over the later books (one major character from 5 and 6, then a bunch... not all major... in 7... what?).

This is a point I absolutely HATE when it comes to HP books. There wasn't a mood of "Everyone can die". If there were, then maybe Harry would have gotten killed off. If not him, then Hermione or Ron. Or maybe someone would get traumatized a little bit. Plot Armor is probably the trope I hate the most, even more than a George Lucas Relationship. And referring to book 7 as "Anyone can die" is something that I can't criticize in my own way for fear of overstepping the clear boundaries set by The Giant.
Also, Harry is a big time Marty Stu. He's an idiot with overdone angst. Everyone respects him way more than they should. The kindest person in my class would probably hate him, and yet he's still everyone's favorite (Or if you're Evil, least favorite) student. There's no morality in the books beyond Black & White morality. I have no problem with there being a Super Evil Dark Lord. It pisses me off when none of his followers are slightly good (Even Narcissa, the most gray case, is pure evil and betrays him just because Voldemort is trying to get her family killed). I have no problem with there being a perfect good person, but some of his followers should have deplorable methods or something like that. Also, the seventh book's reveal that Dumbledore wasn't that good? It was bulldookie. It's completely and utterly unbelievable. Only after a person (A paragon of good, mind you, with no vices at all, and amazing publicity) dies that the secrets come out about how evil he used to be. If some of this had come out in the fifth book, when his reputation was being smeared all over the floor, it would have made some sense. But Harry finds out about it, almost alone, (unlike whatever amoral news writers might exist in the HP verse but Rita Skeeter) easily, after his death. Even though while he was alive he never had a hint of regret. And the reveal that JK made that he was gay? She couldn't have mentioned it in a line in the book? She had to say it specifically in an interview? It felt like a bad publicity stunt. The entire Dumbledore situation in the seventh book was completely unbelievable and pissed me off. Even Snape's Allegiance was better done.
I haven't read much Twilight, but it appears to be unremarkably bad, with shocking prose and some ideas about love that may not be accepted in countries that aren't in the third world. Not to offend the third world, but it's kinda... primitive... I guess.
Sorry about this post HP fans, but this has been brewing up since the abortion that was HP7, especially after I moved to much much better books after HP6 and realized that HP isn't that good. The literary community may like it, but that's because the literary community doesn't read fantasy, and doesn't realize that the genre has had some amazing leaps the past decade or two. The literary community is sorta saying comics are for kids, even after Maus, Sandman, and Watchmen all came out in the 80s. Some comics are for kids, just like some fantasy sucks. I don't think Harry Potter sucks, I think it's just completely overhyped, and that the seventh book is the worst last book I've ever seen. If you want to know how good YA fantasy/scifi should be done, read Animorphs. It wasn't a Kill Em All ending, but it was just as dark as one, and it didn't claim to be one.
The can of worms has been open, and now that it's been cleaned out, it's time to read some Twilight and fill it up again.
EDIT- Holy block of text, Batman! It looks like it's night here! Oh wait, Israel, 19:16, it IS night!

lisiecki
2009-07-21, 11:22 AM
I don't really know any literary arts, comp lit, or English majors who are particularly enamored with it, either.

Thats great I'm happy for you


The fact that you referred to The Allegory of the Cave as the Myth of the Cave doesn't help the case of arguing you know more about literature than they, or I, do.

At no point did I say i know any thing about literature, much less that i know more about it than you do


This isn't to say there is anything wrong with liking Harry Potter, only that I would disagree with your argument to authority.

I never made an argument that i am an authority. I made an argument that people whos opinions matter to me, that are, well not authoritys, but FAR more knowlable on the subject than I am, feel that there well written.
I ENJOY the Harry Potter novels. People who's opinions i trust tell me there well written.

Hmmm did i go over everything i wanted to say here?

I enjoy the novels, check
I at no point, at all, ever said I'm an authority on literature, check
:smallconfused:

Texas_Ben
2009-07-21, 11:39 AM
I never made an argument that i am an authority. I made an argument that people whos opinions matter to me, that are, well not authoritys, but FAR more knowlable on the subject than I am, feel that there well written.

And argument from authority is not claiming that you are an authority, but saying "hey see that guy over there, he is the pope, and that means he is right!". It's a logical fallacy, and saying that X is true because Y is an expert has no place in any discussion of anything.

lisiecki
2009-07-21, 11:42 AM
And argument from authority is not claiming that you are an authority, but saying "hey see that guy over there, he is the pope, and that means he is right!". It's a logical fallacy, and saying that X is true because Y is an expert has no place in any discussion of anything.

See, because I'm not an authority I didn't know that.

Although even the way you wrote it, that doesn't change the fact I never said that these people i know ARE right, just that I trust them to be right.

"Hey, look at that guy over there, hes the pope, so when he tells me things about Catholicism, i bleleve him"

Prime32
2009-07-21, 11:59 AM
Also, Harry is a big time Marty Stu. He's an idiot with overdone angst.Most of the angst was in one book.


I have no problem with there being a Super Evil Dark Lord. It pisses me off when none of his followers are slightly good (Even Narcissa, the most gray case, is pure evil and betrays him just because Voldemort is trying to get her family killed).Let me list some Death Eaters who were at least slightly good: Draco Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Severus Snape, R.A.B.


I have no problem with there being a perfect good person, but some of his followers should have deplorable methods or something like that.There were plenty of corrupt/extremist Aurors running around casting Unforgivable Curses at the drop of a hat.

I should also point out that Sirius Black ended up wanting to commit the murder he had been imprisoned for.

Mordar
2009-07-21, 12:36 PM
And argument from authority is not claiming that you are an authority, but saying "hey see that guy over there, he is the pope, and that means he is right!". It's a logical fallacy, and saying that X is true because Y is an expert has no place in any discussion of anything.

Other than, say, being the complete basis of expert testimony in US Courts of Law...medical practice as relates to billing and procedures allowed under policy...consultation with a mechanic or two on a major car repair...that sort of thing.

Oh, wait.

All are examples of situations wrought with evil! Okay, I'll fix your line:

It's a logical fallacy, and saying that X is true because Y is an expert has no place in any discussion of anything not intrinsicly linked to evil!

:smallwink:

Faulty
2009-07-21, 12:43 PM
Appeals to Authory can be logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html). They aren't necessarily however, but even a good appeal to authority is only inductive and still not particularly strong.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-21, 12:55 PM
At no point did I say i know any thing about literature, much less that i know more about it than you do
You implied that you did; I said it wasn't well-written, and you stated the rest of the post was still true, which I took to mean that my opinion that it wasn't well-written was discarded because I was put in a group of those who knew less about literature than you did. If I incorrectly inferred this meaning, then you have my apologies.



I never made an argument that i am an authority.
You made the statement that people who know a lot about literature, an authority, claim they were well-written instead of just stating that you liked them. In this, you are using their opinions as a supposed basis for an argument that the novels are well-written. Since most of the people I know who know a lot about literature think they're rather poorly written, I felt I should point out the apparent error in your seeming over-generalization.

EDIT: I also don't see why Myth would get somehow superior or "more correct" status than fictional vampires. It's not as though the mythical vampires are the real vampires, or anything.

mangosta71
2009-07-21, 01:49 PM
EDIT: I also don't see why Myth would get somehow superior or "more correct" status than fictional vampires. It's not as though the mythical vampires are the real vampires, or anything.

Yeah, I don't really get the point of that little side argument either. None of them are real. So why should one lie be preferred to another? Because, in one area, it was the first one? *shrug*

lisiecki
2009-07-21, 01:58 PM
There are no vampires, what so ever in the Myth of the Cave.

There are also no vampires in the post i made referencing the Myth of the Cave.

What I said, is that while Harry Potter may not be as historically important a story as the Myth of the Cave, I still enjoy it

mangosta71
2009-07-21, 02:10 PM
There are no vampires, what so ever in the Myth of the Cave.

There are also no vampires in the post i made referencing the Myth of the Cave.

What I said, is that while Harry Potter may not be as historically important a story as the Myth of the Cave, I still enjoy it

We're talking about someone else's objection (I forget who, and am too lazy to go through the thread to find out) that all of the vampire stories are crap because they don't follow the original eastern European myth that they were basically zombies that rose once a night to feed.

lisiecki
2009-07-21, 02:12 PM
We're talking about someone else's objection (I forget who, and am too lazy to go through the thread to find out) that all of the vampire stories are crap because they don't follow the original eastern European myth that they were basically zombies that rose once a night to feed.

Oh, well I can aggre with you on that one.

Its like saying that Zombie movies are crap, just because Zombies in "living dead" style movies have nothing to do with the zombies of Voodoo

Then we would would have no "World War Z" one of the best pieces of monster fiction ive ever encountered

pita
2009-07-21, 02:14 PM
Most of the angst was in one book.
Actually, while book 5 was unbelievably angsty, the rest of the series isn't great either. But if it's important, I'll let go of the Angst


Let me list some Death Eaters who were at least slightly good: Draco Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Severus Snape, R.A.B.
Let's see:
Draco: Complete Monster territory, but can't kill someone, can only brag about it. Since I like pathetic characters I'll let this one slide.
Peter Pettigrew: Pure evil until he does something completely defying everything we know about the person. The guy got one of his best childhood friends killed, knowingly. He then continued to work for the villain, until he betrays him for an idiotic reason.
Snape: I'll let this one go because it's more of a "Good is not nice" thing. He stops following Voldemort WAAAY before the story starts, and in fact does nothing evil throughout the plot, and one thing before the plot, which is tell his master something he heard about him. I actually like him, because he sees Harry for what he is: a brat who acts like he's spoiled despite having no reason to be.
R.A.B.: You mean the guy who saw what Voldemort did and then helped defeat him? Yeah, major evil guy there. He may have been a Death Eater, but I don't see him as evil. Pretty much the same fare as Snape, as far as good/evil goes. He's on the anti-Voldemort side, and he's never stated as doing something immoral.


There were plenty of corrupt/extremist Aurors running around casting Unforgivable Curses at the drop of a hat.
Note the corrupt part. Harry Potter book 7 is good vs evil and stupid. stupid=MoM at that point, which joins evil as one side at a certain point. The corrupt and extremist aurors are with the MoM. They're on the evil(Voldemort) side, not the good(Harry) side.


I should also point out that Sirius Black ended up wanting to commit the murder he had been imprisoned for.
Yesterday I saw something I really wanted. I wanted to steal it. I didn't. It doesn't make me a thief, because he may have wanted to do the action but at the end of the day he didn't. That doesn't put a single blotch on his reputation.
Moral ambiguity is an excellent thing. In Animorphs, we have a villain side whose nature it is to be villainous, and yet still there is still a debate about whether the characters are right or wrong, with no clear answer. By the end of the last book, the protagonists have commited genocide twice, stolen and destroyed an incredible amount of property, and killed many members of the races they didn't commit genocide against. They arranged matters so that a person they were against (Who they knew was a good person) was never born. At the end of the day, these are heroes and villains, but at least there's some ambiguity. I'm deliberately citing Animorphs here, as I started reading Animorphs when I was 5, compared to Harry Potter when I was 9. And at the end of the day, the series of books that I stopped reading at 13 is more intelligent and thought provoking, as well as emotionally touching and well written, than the series I saw through to the end. The relationships in Animorphs are well written. The angst is there, but it's nowhere near as bad as Harry Potter, and in Animorphs, it makes sense. Now I realize this may be setting the bar too high, but can't a series considered as good has Harry Potter, with reading audiences from ages 6 to 100, have at least half the intellectual and emotional value that a series intended for middle schoolers has? Or at least be slightly ambiguous? Today's world is one where each issue has a hundred sides per person involved. I'm annoyed that today's popular literature isn't showing that at all. My friends all agree with me that HP isn't morally ambiguous at all, in any part. They all disagree about its importance. They're huge fans.
Gah, I'm ranting again.


About Twilight's vampires: I don't care if you call them vampires, superheroes, or whatever. A Vampire could just be a tall pale thin kid. The fact is, if the story is unrealistic it's unrealistic. If the prose is bad the prose is bad. And if "relationship" means abuse, "relationship" means abuse. Those are the things I've understood about Twilight. I haven't read it that much, so I wouldn't know much, but from the 5 chapters I have read, it appears dreadful.

mangosta71
2009-07-21, 02:24 PM
Yesterday I saw something I really wanted. I wanted to steal it. I didn't. It doesn't make me a thief, because he may have wanted to do the action but at the end of the day he didn't. That doesn't put a single blotch on his reputation.

He was going to, and the only reason he didn't commit the murder was that someone that didn't want him to do it overpowered him and forced him to stop. And even then the only reason he agreed was that they were going to hand the guy over to a worse fate. You have a point about the black and white nature of morality in most of the story, though. It's always pretty clear which decision is good and which is evil.

Overall, I enjoyed the series because of the twists. Which is why the ending of the last book disappointed me.

pita
2009-07-21, 02:53 PM
I didn't remember the scene very well. I'll accept that I was wrong about that scene, be that as it may. But if that's the best evidence of shades of gray in the story, something is clearly wrong.
The last book, in my opinion, was a major disappointment. However, it would have been nearly impossible for her not to write one.

averagejoe
2009-07-21, 03:16 PM
Other than, say, being the complete basis of expert testimony in US Courts of Law...medical practice as relates to billing and procedures allowed under policy...consultation with a mechanic or two on a major car repair...that sort of thing.

I'm by no means an expert, but I believe it's common practice to have the expert explain to you what's going on. You call in an expert because they can explain it, but the basis of court testimony isn't establishing a person as an expert and then simply asking them which side they agree with. It's my understanding that they have to explain the why to the jury/judge. If you accept that something is true "Because Albert Einstein (or whoever) says so," then you're probably getting suckered or mislead somehow. You don't know, for example, if the person relating to you AE's opinion on the matter is misinterpreting it, whether AE really did say such a thing, or whether AE was just plain lying. While it's fine to go to an expert for advice and knowledge about their field, it's illogical to accept what they say without reason simply because they are the experts.

lisiecki
2009-07-21, 03:40 PM
I'm by no means an expert, but I believe it's common practice to have the expert explain to you what's going on.

Your comparing a message board
To a court of law

Words fail me

Prime32
2009-07-21, 03:47 PM
There were plenty of corrupt/extremist Aurors running around casting Unforgivable Curses at the drop of a hat. Note the corrupt part. Harry Potter book 7 is good vs evil and stupid. stupid=MoM at that point, which joins evil as one side at a certain point. The corrupt and extremist aurors are with the MoM. They're on the evil(Voldemort) side, not the good(Harry) side.Before the Ministry was compromised they were fighting Voldemort. There's a line which goes something like "a situation like that can bring out the best in people... or the worst."

What about Slughorn? A Slytherin who is an okay guy (selfish sure, but he helped defend Hogwarts).

As for all Death Eaters being either Card Carrying Villains or traitors... there wasn't much middle ground. If one so much as hesitated in killing a Muggle he'd probably be zapped in the forehead by the others.

pita
2009-07-21, 03:51 PM
I never said Slytherin is evil. I said Voldemort is evil, and all of those who are following him are evil. All of those who are following Dumbledore are good. The Ministry is against both, until Voldemort gains control of it. The ministry is the "stupid" side.

Lord_Gareth
2009-07-21, 04:36 PM
Personally, I don't think either book is any great shakes as a morality tale. My issue with Twilight begins at the bit where millions of people are celebrating shoddy writing, travels through the various godawful messages it's promoting, and ends at sparkling vampires. My issues with Harry Potter begin at the bit where it's kinda generic, travel through fluctuating writing quality and growing Marty Stuism, and end at the tired, black-and-white morality in the books.

Incidentally, I'd like to address this specific point to lisiecki, as helpful advice - if you want anyone to take you seriously, you've got to get your act together. Your arguments are jumping up and down the board, make no cohesive sense, and focus on semantics instead of the actual issues at hand. You're not doing yourself or your viewpoint any credit here, and I'm not even clear as to what your viewpoint even is. Wanting to participate in discussion is wonderful, but I'd really reccommend that you consider your stance first, formulate an actual argument, and be prepared to defend it.

That is all.

Mordar
2009-07-21, 05:09 PM
I'm by no means an expert, but I believe it's common practice to have the expert explain to you what's going on. [SNIP] If you accept that something is true "Because Albert Einstein (or whoever) says so," then you're probably getting suckered or mislead somehow. You don't know, for example, if the person relating to you AE's opinion on the matter is misinterpreting it, whether AE really did say such a thing, or whether AE was just plain lying. While it's fine to go to an expert for advice and knowledge about their field, it's illogical to accept what they say without reason simply because they are the experts.

DERAIL: Well it was mostly a joke (since the fallacy of appeal to authority is predicated on the person not actually being an authority on the specific topic or being misinterpreted, and the three groups of people that get popular hate - lawyers, insurance companies and mechanics), I think it's neat that you used Albert Einstein in your example. I hatehatehate that we are always bombarded with his commentary regarding preparing for and preventing war...I get that the boy was "wikkid smaht", particularly in regards to math and physics...but basing national defense decisions on his expert commentary lacks logic :smallsmile:

Back on topic:

I continue to hold that just because Harry Potter might well be beginner's fantasy "literature" and that its not up to [insert favorite Master's name here] standards doesn't mean that you couldn't go back and look at specific works by those masters and see several of the same flaws people report in the HP novels. Black and white, one-dimensional characters abound. Heavy-handed messages aplenty. Mechanisms that have inspired many clever tvtropes catch-phrases in spades.

I'm always disappointed when I see Mary Sue/Marty Stu tossed around whenever a book/show/movie has a single lead character (you know, like the one the book is named after)...The dang books are named "Harry Potter and the XXXX" for a reason. He is the most important, most central character in the stories. Beyond that, however, he does need *tons* of help from the supporting cast. Without Hermione and Ron he doesn't make it past book 1. Time and time again he needs (and often asks) for the help of others. Just because someone gets the most screen time doesn't automatically mean they're MS! For heaven's sake, he's not nearly as MS as that other Harry in popular fiction...Chicago-based Wizard for hire, I'm looking at you!

Okay, sorry. Done ranting about MSism. Just as long as I don't get started on cries of "author wish fulfillment".

- M

lisiecki
2009-07-21, 05:14 PM
Incidentally, I'd like to address this specific point to lisiecki, as helpful advice - if you want anyone to take you seriously, you've got to get your act together. Your arguments are jumping up and down the board, make no cohesive sense, and focus on semantics instead of the actual issues at hand. You're not doing yourself or your viewpoint any credit here, and I'm not even clear as to what your viewpoint even is. Wanting to participate in discussion is wonderful, but I'd really reccommend that you consider your stance first, formulate an actual argument, and be prepared to defend it.
That is all.

Fair enough:

I believe the Harry Potter books to be far better stories than the Twilight books. I still find the Twilight books to be fun to read.

bladedSmoke
2009-07-21, 05:47 PM
For heaven's sake, he's not nearly as MS as that other Harry in popular fiction...Chicago-based Wizard for hire, I'm looking at you!

What? Harry Dresden? A Marty Stu?

No wait, what?

Um.

How? :smallconfused: I'm genuinely at a loss to see where you're coming from.

Seriously, what?

kpenguin
2009-07-21, 05:52 PM
And another can is opened. Yaaaay!

averagejoe
2009-07-21, 05:56 PM
Your comparing a message board
To a court of law

Words fail me

:smallconfused: Where did I do that. I didn't even mention message boards. I was talking about logic.


DERAIL: Well it was mostly a joke (since the fallacy of appeal to authority is predicated on the person not actually being an authority on the specific topic or being misinterpreted, and the three groups of people that get popular hate - lawyers, insurance companies and mechanics), I think it's neat that you used Albert Einstein in your example. I hatehatehate that we are always bombarded with his commentary regarding preparing for and preventing war...I get that the boy was "wikkid smaht", particularly in regards to math and physics...but basing national defense decisions on his expert commentary lacks logic :smallsmile:

Ah, I misunderstood you then, fair enough.

I figured that Einstein is probably the guy who gets the most respect when it comes to his opinions on things. Interestingly enough, that is something Leon Lederman (contemporary Nobel Prize winning physicist) said about winning the Nobel Prize. It's an awesome prize to win because no matter what you say, everyone basically treats it as gold. He, a physicist who admits to having little knowledge of sociology or related fields, can talk about, say, the state of education, and that prize means everyone listens. :smallbiggrin:


Without Hermione and Ron he doesn't make it past book 1.

Let's face it, Hermie is the one who got stuff done. Ron played a chess game and that was, like, his contribution to the group ever. Just saying, he's more of a (silver age) Robin than a Samwise Gamgee in terms of contribution.

In defense of Harry Potter:

It isn't the best writing in the world, but they're hardly badly written, as such things are measured. They're above average, at least; I've bestsellers to be written much, much worse. The characterization falters in places, and sometimes the world building tries to push itself beyond what it was originally meant for, with limited success, but all in all there was little that was actually "bad" about it. They're the sorts of books that change your life when you're a kid, but which we cynically look at as adults and find wanting, forgetting the magic felt when we first read them. Because they are children's books and, while that doesn't excuse bad writing, it means that they have a slightly different goal than other books.

I'm to old to have grown up with Harry Potter (and, really, so are most people who've had to wait for the sequels to come out. It's only fairly recently that anyone can be said to have "grown up on" those books.) The books I did grow up on were The Chronicles of Narnia. Levy what criticism you might against those books, I've heard them all. However, the fact that remains is this: those books changed my life. They made me feel love and loss for people I regarded like friends, and who were as real to me as anyone. They taught me how to live (no, I'm not religious, I didn't even understand that aspect of the books until long after I'd read them umpteen-million times) and what pitfalls life holds that can change a person into something less than he is-lessons that my adult mind still holds true, for the most part, building on my naive, childlike understanding rather than disregarding it. Such books are the best books one can ever read (and this is from someone who generally agrees with the academics as far as what literature should be considered "good," though maybe for different reasons.) They're the best books to read because, years later, you can still look back and feel the same love and sadness that you felt all those years ago. It's like looking at childhood photos, remembering things long past and friends long gone. Despite the fact that it's a moronic slogan, some books really are your friends, but mostly those books come from a time in one's life when one is still young enough to know what that means.

So, ya, more to say, but ended up being longer than I meant, so I'm gonna stop there.

kpenguin
2009-07-21, 06:13 PM
Clap

Clap

Clap


Clap-clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

*whistle*

clap clap clap clap (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlowClap)

Lord of Rapture
2009-07-21, 07:48 PM
Huge wall of text? That was barely a brick. You obviously haven't seen me actually bother with something :smalltongue:.

And no, not particularly. I pretty much guessed. After all, Touhou is an aggressively nonserious and relaxed setting. Very much not your cup of tea. Weirdo :smalltongue:.

*sigh* Oh boy. I'm scared.

And no, it's not that I can't enjoy relaxed settings. It's just I don't like them if they come from Japan for some reason.

Why? I don't know. They just can't make them like the West.

Lord Seth
2009-07-21, 08:16 PM
Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy anyway, so it's a moot point.No, isn't necessarily a logical fallacy. It depends on how it's used; a big part, of course, is who or what the authority actually is.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-21, 08:18 PM
There are no vampires, what so ever in the Myth of the Cave.

There are also no vampires in the post i made referencing the Myth of the Cave.

What I said, is that while Harry Potter may not be as historically important a story as the Myth of the Cave, I still enjoy it

Again, Plato's piece is entitled The Allegory of the Cave, for future reference.


It isn't the best writing in the world, but they're hardly badly written, as such things are measured. They're above average, at least; I've bestsellers to be written much, much worse. The characterization falters in places, and sometimes the world building tries to push itself beyond what it was originally meant for, with limited success, but all in all there was little that was actually "bad" about it. They're the sorts of books that change your life when you're a kid, but which we cynically look at as adults and find wanting, forgetting the magic felt when we first read them. Because they are children's books and, while that doesn't excuse bad writing, it means that they have a slightly different goal than other books.
I didn't find them particularly likable as a child. Their great failings are a mix of disinteresting narrative populated by shallow characters following a stereotypical and largely thematically bankrupt, black-and-white plot. I felt this way when I was ten and I feel it still.

Corvus
2009-07-21, 09:12 PM
Not a fan of either, but I give it to Harry Potter by a mile.

Just looking at Twilight is cause for SAN loss. It makes the Necronomicon look like a pleasant light read by comparison. Twilight just has to be a plot by The Great Old Ones to reduce us all to gibbering insanity.

Faulty
2009-07-21, 09:21 PM
When they were talking about "The Myth in the Cave" I thought they were talking about a fantasy series I'd never heard of.

I'd just like to say to Mordar, that there's a difference between, say, a certain book, or early works, or later works, of a particular author having bad things about them, and a piece of literature consistently having that.

Jade_Tarem
2009-07-21, 10:11 PM
For heaven's sake, he's not nearly as MS as that other Harry in popular fiction...Chicago-based Wizard for hire, I'm looking at you!

- M

I find it both hilarious and a little sad that you confuse being awesome with being a Marty Stu, immediately after a long rant about how people are not using the term correctly.

To clarify:


Mary Sue, sometimes shortened simply to Sue, is a pejorative term used to describe a fictional character who plays a major role in the plot and is particularly characterized by overly idealized and clichéd mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as wish-fulfillment fantasies for their authors.

So tell me, is Harry Dresden overly idealized, cliched, flawless, or a wish-fulfillment fantasy?

He's not idealized - he is never presented as any kind of ideal that others should aspire to.

He's not really cliched - while probably not the first detective/wizard out there, I don't really think there's enough of them to make Dresden a cliche.

He's not flawless - Harry doesn't just win the day with no effort. He's frequently making mistakes based on his being shortsighted or unwilling to attack female opponents. At one point he develops a severe racial hatred for ghouls, to the point of scaring children. He gets nervous and jumpy, and occasionally gives in to temptation. He gets his girlfriend vampirized (hey, back on topic! :smalltongue:) by dismissing her findings, and Molly nearly gets killed more than once because he screws up.

And wish fulfillment? Read Turn Coat, Blood Rites, or Summer Knight, and tell me that Jim Butcher wants to live Harry's life with a straight face.

Harry Potter, on the other hand... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0253.html)

Sorry, but Dresden Files is sort of like Harry Potter, but with better plots, more complex characters, and less stupid. Dresden does occasionally beat bad guys with more skill and experience, but there's usually better reasoning behind it. I don't think you've got a case for making Dresden a Marty Stu at all, let alone a bigger one than Harry "I can resurrect myself" Potter.

averagejoe
2009-07-21, 11:08 PM
I didn't find them particularly likable as a child. Their great failings are a mix of disinteresting narrative populated by shallow characters following a stereotypical and largely thematically bankrupt, black-and-white plot. I felt this way when I was ten and I feel it still.

Those statements are highly subjective. It's hardly commentary on writing quality. Heck, I don't see how some of them, like the morality being black and white, are even necessarily statements of quality.

Also, I never claimed that all children would like them. In fact, I would hardly expect that. Heck, I couldn't even get my friends into Animorphs as a kid, and that was probably the most accessible thing I liked to read.

Serpentine
2009-07-21, 11:39 PM
Again, Plato's piece is entitled The Allegory of the Cave, for future reference... Their great failings are a mix of disinteresting narrative...Only bringing this up because you were yourself being all picky in this post... The word you're looking for is "uninteresting". "Disinterested" is something quite different :smallwink:

<.<

I approve of this talk of Animorphs.

kpenguin
2009-07-21, 11:42 PM
Again, Plato's piece is entitled The Allegory of the Cave, for future reference.

No, Plato's piece titled The Republic. I don't believe the allegory itself has an title given by Plato, although its been referred to as the Allegory of the Cave, the Myth of the Cave, the Metaphor of the Cave, Plato's Cave, the Cave, etc.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-22, 12:19 AM
Those statements are highly subjective. It's hardly commentary on writing quality. Heck, I don't see how some of them, like the morality being black and white, are even necessarily statements of quality.
I didn't mean to imply they adversely affected the quality, merely that they adversely affected my enjoyment of the books.


Also, I never claimed that all children would like them. In fact, I would hardly expect that. Heck, I couldn't even get my friends into Animorphs as a kid, and that was probably the most accessible thing I liked to read.
I was just arguing against the notion that one's life would be changed by them, while an adult would cynically see the weaker points, since I saw the weaker points when I was younger.


Only bringing this up because you were yourself being all picky in this post... The word you're looking for is "uninteresting". "Disinterested" is something quite different :smallwink:

Disinterested means "not having the mind or feelings engaged; not interested." Similarly, the verb disinterest means "to cause to regard something with no interest or concern", which also fits in the context. I assume you were thinking of the other definition of disinterested, "unbiased, free from selfish motive or interest," and considering it as the only meaning of the word. "Uninterested" and "disinterested" actually have an ironically interesting etymological history.

Rutskarn
2009-07-22, 12:37 AM
Sorry, but Dresden Files is sort of like Harry Potter, but with better plots, more complex characters, and less stupid. Dresden does occasionally beat bad guys with more skill and experience, but there's usually better reasoning behind it. I don't think you've got a case for making Dresden a Marty Stu at all, let alone a bigger one than Harry "I can resurrect myself" Potter.

I like Harry Potter, and I agree with everything quoted here.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 12:44 AM
The only thing I like about Harry Potter is its potential for amusing parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87B7FfSiDe0) but Twilight barely has even any of that. It's hard to make it more laughable than it already is when it has sparkling emo vampires that cry about being shiny immortal super beings.

Coidzor
2009-07-22, 02:06 AM
Meh. They're both pretty much happy-time fluff. Just different happy-times if you know what I mean. *Wink Wink Nudge Nudge Say no more Say no more.*

TL;DRHarry Potter's principle advantage is that you enjoy the world rather than the relationship between any two characters, even if said relationship is the point of the story at the moment or in its entirety.

Plus, I hate romance novels. I've tried reading them and they just grate on me. They always need MORE DAKKA. More badassery. and again, MORE DAKKA.

Then again, so does Harry Potter. My main complaint with that series is that there were not enough crowning moments of awesome/badass/badasswome.

My main complaint with Twilight is the whole "I want a sexualized perversion of religious symbology performed upon me unto death by a fictional character" which is the open face of the fandom rather than the sleazy backalley fanfiction part of the fandom.

Yes. I have had friends who like Twilight make declarations of that kind of sexually deviant nature. I did not enjoy this, and I repeatedly inquired as to why they felt the need to tell me this, considering the fact that they weren't even on my list as "bangable" or "want to seduce" or "I should ask her out" in the first place. Ok, so a couple of them were on "bangable" before said embarrassingly long and pointless and, above all, annoying admissions of sexual deviance.

So yeah. I guess my biggest problem with both fandoms is the whole sexual deviance angle and the fact that Twilight seems to be much more at peace/open/flaunting of the sexual deviance of its fandom.

Again, this is my grievance towards a fandom due to the actions of its members that I have had interactions with.

In regards to Dresden Files and Rutskarn: Yes. Oh God. Yes.

kamikasei
2009-07-22, 02:26 AM
...the fallacy of appeal to authority is predicated on the person not actually being an authority on the specific topic or being misinterpreted...

No, it's not. It's simply that (excepting cases where the authority defines the thing in question) something is not true or false because an authority says so. If you don't have time to go through all the arguments and evidence yourself, it makes sense to let an authority's opinion guide you, but at no time can you prove a proposition simply by saying "well, X says it's so", no matter how accurately you represent X or how relevant X's expertise may be.

Serpentine
2009-07-22, 03:34 AM
Disinterested means "not having the mind or feelings engaged; not interested." Similarly, the verb disinterest means "to cause to regard something with no interest or concern", which also fits in the context. I assume you were thinking of the other definition of disinterested, "unbiased, free from selfish motive or interest," and considering it as the only meaning of the word. "Uninterested" and "disinterested" actually have an ironically interesting etymological history.My dictionary (which admittedly isn't great) has the "uninterest/ed" definition as "non-standard", which I believe is another way of saying "wrong, but a lot of people are using it that way".

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 08:12 AM
Harry Potter's principle advantage is that you enjoy the world rather than the relationship between any two characters
How can you enjoy a world with annoying magic users where no one has the common sense to blow them away with a trusty handgun or a punch to the face?:smallwink:

DragonSlayerDan
2009-07-22, 08:16 AM
How can you enjoy a world with annoying magic users where no one has the common sense to blow them away with a trusty handgun or a punch to the face?:smallwink:

They don't understand handguns. More or less how they don't understand plugs in walls or rubber ducks. And people do get punched in the face. Quite often.

kamikasei
2009-07-22, 08:29 AM
How can you enjoy a world with annoying magic users where no one has the common sense to blow them away with a trusty handgun or a punch to the face?:smallwink:

Quite easily, as it turns out.

Zeful
2009-07-22, 08:33 AM
How can you enjoy a world with annoying magic users where no one has the common sense to blow them away with a trusty handgun or a punch to the face?:smallwink:

England doesn't have handguns. Harry Potter is based in England, where there are no handguns. Using a gun is impossible within the story.

Oslecamo
2009-07-22, 08:57 AM
How can you enjoy a world with annoying magic users where no one has the common sense to blow them away with a trusty handgun or a punch to the face?:smallwink:

People get punched/bitten/clawed on the series all the time if they don't keep their distance.

As for handguns, first most wizards can't understand even the simplest mechanism, second killing people is very taboo among them. Casting a killing spell is enough to warrant you a lifetime sentence on nightmare prison after all.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 09:14 AM
England doesn't have handguns. Harry Potter is based in England, where there are no handguns.
All countries have handguns one way or another. If you have magic powers procuring one shouldn't be a problem.


As for handguns, first most wizards can't understand even the simplest mechanism
How do they open doors and use toilets?

Casting a killing spell is enough to warrant you a lifetime sentence on nightmare prison after all.
They could at least kneecap evildoers.

Oslecamo
2009-07-22, 11:37 AM
All countries have handguns one way or another. If you have magic powers procuring one shouldn't be a problem.

And then what do you do with it? Spend several years learning how to shoot properly when you can, oh, I don't know, learn how to become invisible and mind control people to do your bidding?



How do they open doors and use toilets?

In case you weren't paying atention, most doors and toilets in the wizardry world are indeed "automatized" by magic. Just say the word and it worcks.

Heck, the ministry of magic had elevators wich would take you to the floor you asked them to take you, wich shows wizards have trouble with even simple buttons.



They could at least kneecap evildoers.

Actually, kneecaping someone at a distance is anything but easy. Not only is that part of the body relatively small, there's normally cover on the way, like chairs/tables/stairs.

You're much better shooting disable spell Nº56 if you want to catch your target alive.

Anyway, I must remind you, as per the second book, your average wizard can kill 50 people with a single spell. That's for what Sirius went to prison. I challenge you to attaing this level of destruction with a weapon the size and weight of a stick of wood.

Prime32
2009-07-22, 11:40 AM
Anyway, I must remind you, as per the second book, your average wizard can kill 50 people with a single spell. That's for what Sirius went to prison. I challenge you to attaing this level of destruction with a weapon the size and weight of a stick of wood.An antimatter rod? :smalltongue:

Drascin
2009-07-22, 12:17 PM
And then what do you do with it? Spend several years learning how to shoot properly when you can, oh, I don't know, learn how to become invisible and mind control people to do your bidding?


Still, some aurors should probably have some firearms training. Rowling herself said that in a 1-on-1, a wizard and a muggle with a shotgun, the odds were greatly slanted in favor of the man with the shotgun, which shows that guns do have advantages in wizard combat.

Prime32
2009-07-22, 12:27 PM
Still, some aurors should probably have some firearms training. Rowling herself said that in a 1-on-1, a wizard and a muggle with a shotgun, the odds were greatly slanted in favor of the man with the shotgun, which shows that guns do have advantages in wizard combat.Mainly, no-one wants a dark wizard to figure out how useful guns are and start enchanting them.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-22, 01:47 PM
My dictionary (which admittedly isn't great) has the "uninterest/ed" definition as "non-standard", which I believe is another way of saying "wrong, but a lot of people are using it that way".

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

usage
Disinterested and uninterested have a tangled history. Uninterested originally meant impartial, but this sense fell into disuse during the 18th century. About the same time the original sense of disinterested also disappeared, with uninterested developing a new sense—the present meaning—to take its place. The original sense of uninterested is still out of use, but the original sense of disinterested revived in the early 20th century. The revival has since been under frequent attack as an illiteracy and a blurring or loss of a useful distinction. Actual usage shows otherwise. Sense 2 of disinterested is still its most frequent sense, especially in edited prose; it shows no sign of vanishing. A careful writer may choose sense 1a of disinterested in preference to uninterested for emphasis <teaching the letters of the alphabet to her wiggling and supremely disinterested little daughter — C. L. Sulzberger>. Further, disinterested has developed a sense (1b), perhaps influenced by sense 1 of the prefix dis-, that contrasts with uninterested <when I grow tired or disinterested in anything, I experience a disgust — Jack London (letter, 1914)>. Still, use of senses 1a and 1b will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.

(English is so wonky. So wonky.)

mangosta71
2009-07-22, 02:01 PM
(English is so wonky. So wonky.)

That's what Spanish is for. :smalltongue:

It seems that "disinterest" is kind of an active verb, in that it causes you to lose interest. "Uninterest" would be more passive, as something that fails to catch your interest in the first place. At least, that's how I use them, though I'd never consciously thought about it before.

snoopy13a
2009-07-22, 02:03 PM
England doesn't have handguns. Harry Potter is based in England, where there are no handguns. Using a gun is impossible within the story.

There's a big difference between handguns being illegal and having absolutely no handguns at all. England has handguns; they are just very rare and are limited to the authorities (I believe that most police officers don't carry guns though) and criminals.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-07-22, 02:29 PM
Seriously, has no-one ever watched a Guy Ritchie movie? :smalltongue:

averagejoe
2009-07-22, 03:27 PM
I didn't mean to imply they adversely affected the quality, merely that they adversely affected my enjoyment of the books.

:smallconfused: Then I fail to see what about anything you said had to do with my post. I never disbelieved that you didn't enjoy them, and one person's opinion is entirely beside the point; see my point about how, as a child, I was the only person my age I knew who enjoyed the books I did. Universal popularity among any demographic would be a remarkable achievement indeed.

Mordar
2009-07-22, 03:34 PM
I find it both hilarious and a little sad that you confuse being awesome with being a Marty Stu, immediately after a long rant about how people are not using the term correctly.

I didn't mean it to be a critique of how to use the term (and I don't think it was a particularly long rant either) but I understand your point. I meant it more of a general dislike of the label altogether, that to expect the HP books not to have the main character as the most important character in the world is an unfair expectation, and that other beloved characters share many of the same traits that people like to tag with the MS label.

It is my "new" (and probably many peoples "old") thought that the difference between a character being "awesome" and an MS is simply this - if you like the character/book, they're awesome, and if you don't, they're MS.

For disclosure's sake, I *like* the Dresden Files quite a bit. I've read all the paperbacks and am usually very excited when I get to sit down to read them. In fact, I probably like them more than any other series in recent memory and will at some point pick up his fantasy series, particularly if I hear any endorsements of it from people I know.

I made the comparison between the two characters on the scale of MSedness not as a way of taking a shot at Dresden/Butcher but with the intent of presenting my opinion on the MS criticism of Potter/Rowling.

All of that being said...

The tvtropes "definition (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu)" includes the following:

"Marty Stu is devastatingly handsome (or if not, possessed of a strange, saturnine magnetism) and desired by all significant women, yes, but romance is not likely to be the main dish. He's an unstoppable fighter, a rogue agent, a fearless freedom fighter, a master of disguise. However, as times have changed, just as Mary's acquired a bratty temper, Marty's had the occasional opportunity to show his softer side."

It further mentions that the male MS is often an application of the "Rule of Cool" - the character gets to do the things he does, even if they defy logic or convention, because he is so awesome.

My views, particularly as relates to the above, are included with your comments below. PLEASE keep in mind that I like the books, I like the character and I like the author.


So tell me, is Harry Dresden overly idealized, cliched, flawless, or a wish-fulfillment fantasy?

He's not idealized - he is never presented as any kind of ideal that others should aspire to.

He's the gunslinger that stands up to everyone and anyone that is looking to take advantage of the little guy. He holds tight to his code of honor and chivalry (no matter how sexist) and rails against the establishment when it doesn't do right. He will sacrifice himself in a heartbeat if that's the only way to save the people he feels deserves saving. Oh, and he always tips well. Sounds like a pretty good ideal for a lot of people.


He's not really cliched - while probably not the first detective/wizard out there, I don't really think there's enough of them to make Dresden a cliche.

The wizard detective trappings are certainly pretty new and shiny, and I think that a lot of people like him because he's not a cliche action hero, so complete agreement here. The knight-errant side of things, though, one could argue about.


He's not flawless - Harry doesn't just win the day with no effort. He's frequently making mistakes based on his being shortsighted or unwilling to attack female opponents. At one point he develops a severe racial hatred for ghouls, to the point of scaring children. He gets nervous and jumpy, and occasionally gives in to temptation. He gets his girlfriend vampirized (hey, back on topic! :smalltongue:) by dismissing her findings, and Molly nearly gets killed more than once because he screws up.

In fact, his flaw (which is presented as a redeeming and idealizable trait) gets him in trouble...but his usually flawless preparation, decision making, amazing perception and intuition all come together to make his biggest flaw an asset.

[ASIDE]My recollection had his girlfriend becoming vampirized because he couldn't keep her from showing up where she'd be a hinderance and a danger...in fact, it was at that point that I decided I really disliked her. Murphey knows when she's out of her depth, and if she has to make a stand she'll call in all the cavalry she can...the vamp-to-be, not so much.


And wish fulfillment? Read Turn Coat, Blood Rites, or Summer Knight, and tell me that Jim Butcher wants to live Harry's life with a straight face.

Of course he can be viewed as a wish fulfillment character. Just because Butcher puts him through physical and emotional wringers doesn't mean that Dresden couldn't be viewed as somewhat wish-fulfilly. In fact, the way a character faces the challenges might well be the trait that an author most wishes they shared with their character. Let's see:

a) Guy with the "courage" to stand up to every authority figure he comes across, often telling them off and flaunting his utter contempt for their power/authority and gets away with it - and sometimes its on a whim; [I understand that there are often consequences, but to date he's antagonized pretty much every more powerful being/organization that exists and hasn't been turned to paste]
b) Scores (or very nearly so...in the stuff I've read to date he and Murphey still aren't together) the hot chicks (including the power-chicks like wizards, vampires/vampires-to-be and bad ass MMA copchicks with big guns) - the number one listed Marty Stu trait;
c) Mastery of the ultimate gamergeek wish fulfillment power - magic;
d) A badass magical sword (for a while, at least), mad juijitsu skills, a ghost familiar, the coolest cat-and-dog pair ever, and in addition to all of this, he's in excellent physical condition;
e) A farie-based cleaning service;
f) No matter what life throws at him, he always manages to come out on top.

I've got to say, those are all pretty high on the wish fulfillment scale for the average gamer nee author. Sure, the whole cycle of tragedy and war puts a damper on it, but at his core, Dresden is, I think, a strong contender for every gamergeeks "Boy, I wish I was like XXXX".

Going back to the tvtropes definition, Dresden is the dauntless freedom fighter and the ultimate rogue agent. He's utterly deadly when he gets his "mad" on, and he takes crap from no one. He can be dark and edgy, has the same kind of tragic past thing going on that HP does (including bad relatives taking him in). He's lean, mean and streamlined and has that rough and rugged exterior that make women want him and men want to be like him. And I like him for all those reasons too :smallsmile:


Sorry, but Dresden Files is sort of like Harry Potter, but with better plots, more complex characters, and less stupid. Dresden does occasionally beat bad guys with more skill and experience, but there's usually better reasoning behind it. I don't think you've got a case for making Dresden a Marty Stu at all, let alone a bigger one than Harry "I can resurrect myself" Potter.

I'm not really sure of the complexity of the characters...once you get a little in the know, I think they're pretty straight-forward. In fact, that's why a couple of them are so easily manipulated. Less stupid? Well, from one perspective, sure...but consider from the "If he would just shut his mouth and not *say* that stupid thing it would all go so much easier" viewpoint. Still, I understand what you're saying, even if I don't agree with that part.

Like I said before, please understand that I like the Dresden Files. I'd admit that I liked the TV show too (accepting the limitations of TV adaptations) except that too many people would beat me with mallets for saying so. Lastly, in a fight between the Harry's, its clear that Dresden wins the day...not only do hockey sticks trump twigs, he's got a freaking gun.

- M

PS: I bet Twilight's werewolves will look better than Lupin from HP. That makes this whole post back on the original topic...right? :smallredface:

mangosta71
2009-07-22, 03:56 PM
PS: I bet Twilight's werewolves will look better than Lupin from HP. That makes this whole post back on the original topic...right? :smallredface:

I challenge you to name someone from the Twilight universe that doesn't look better than their counterparts in any other work of fiction.

pita
2009-07-22, 04:07 PM
In my opinion, a Mary Sue is a character who does very little to deserve what the author and other characters think about him or her.
Anyway, there are as many ways to view a Mary Sue as there are people viewing them. The only character who has never been named a Mary Sue is Thomas Covenant.

kpenguin
2009-07-22, 04:21 PM
Thomas Covenant is a Mary Sue.

Happy?:smallamused:

Faulty
2009-07-22, 05:08 PM
In my opinion, a Mary Sue is a character who does very little to deserve what the author and other characters think about him or her.
Anyway, there are as many ways to view a Mary Sue as there are people viewing them. The only character who has never been named a Mary Sue is Thomas Covenant.

Well another important aspect about Mary Sues is being super awesome with no or only informed weaknesses.

Prime32
2009-07-22, 05:25 PM
Well another important aspect about Mary Sues is being super awesome with no or only informed weaknesses.
I'm just going to link the TVTropes article (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) kthxbai

Demons_eye
2009-07-22, 05:58 PM
First of all, you are mixing myth and fiction. Dracula is the first popular fictional vampire. That you don't like how his powers are described is one thing, but claim that Stoker was BS-ing when he in fact defined a genre is a little much.
Anne Rice... no comments.

Clearly You did not see my other post retracing what I said about Dracula



Second of all... What myths are you referring to? There are tons of vampire myths from a lot of different countries and times. Be more specific.

I am talking about the classic vampire from Europe. The "Movie Vampire"


Hate to break it to you man, but vampire myth is utterly inconsistent. There are so many sources of it that you can more or less attribute nearly anything to vampires. Hell, the vampire myth started with what we now call succubi and incubi!

True but a lot of source's agreed on many things such as appearance and habits. Again this is only true for Europe vampires. These are the only ones I have read about as much as I have. I don't try to talk about things I don't know but I am not saying I am right. I have read into the "lore" but thats not saying my source is wrong.




As for vampires being super-strong and/or super-fast, those myths originated in Western Europe. Your statement (quoted, above) is part of Eastern European myth.

Again from what I have read I have never seen that, granted I stopped about the time vampire magically got hurt by crosses and holy water all of the sudden.

pita
2009-07-22, 06:02 PM
Well another important aspect about Mary Sues is being super awesome with no or only informed weaknesses.
That too, but there's a problem with that.
Dr. Manhattan has no flaws and is easily the most powerful character in Watchmen. His opponents plan especially with him in mind. He's basically god. He's not a Mary Sue. Not anywhere near a Mary Sue. Calling him a Mary Sue is a bad joke.
Nothing to say about vampire mythos, actually. I think the only mythical creature who has been consistently portrayed the same way is the werewolf, the only difference being whether a person controls the wolf or not. I may be wrong.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 06:05 PM
And then what do you do with it? Spend several years learning how to shoot properly when you can, oh, I don't know, learn how to become invisible and mind control people to do your bidding?


In case you weren't paying atention, most doors and toilets in the wizardry world are indeed "automatized" by magic. Just say the word and it worcks.

Heck, the ministry of magic had elevators wich would take you to the floor you asked them to take you, wich shows wizards have trouble with even simple buttons.



Actually, kneecaping someone at a distance is anything but easy. Not only is that part of the body relatively small, there's normally cover on the way, like chairs/tables/stairs.

You're much better shooting disable spell Nº56 if you want to catch your target alive.

Anyway, I must remind you, as per the second book, your average wizard can kill 50 people with a single spell. That's for what Sirius went to prison. I challenge you to attaing this level of destruction with a weapon the size and weight of a stick of wood.
You don't need several years to learn how to use a gun well. I'd trade in magic powers for common sense and firearms expertise anyday if I want to reliably defend myself. Also a gun can be fired way faster than a silly wand can be pointed and a terribly mutilated version of latin can be spoken. Guns can't be counterspelled either. You either have some defense against bullets already or just about activated or you're gone. Dodging a wand attack should be pretty easy as well. Even if the spell homes in on you I bet a bullet is a wee bit faster.

The idea that wizards don't know how to do simple things is simply stupid. I guess Voldemort's muggle hatred stems from the fact that he once got locked in a nonmagical closet when he was a little kid and almost died of starvation since he couldn't figure out how to open the door.

As for your challenge; dynamite, anthrax, etc. LOL.

Xondoure
2009-07-22, 06:33 PM
You don't need several years to learn how to use a gun well. I'd trade in magic powers for common sense and firearms expertise anyday if I want to reliably defend myself. Also a gun can be fired way faster than a silly wand can be pointed and a terribly mutilated version of latin can be spoken. Guns can't be counterspelled either. You either have some defense against bullets already or just about activated or you're gone. Dodging a wand attack should be pretty easy as well. Even if the spell homes in on you I bet a bullet is a wee bit faster.

The idea that wizards don't know how to do simple things is simply stupid. I guess Voldemort's muggle hatred stems from the fact that he once got locked in a nonmagical closet when he was a little kid and almost died of starvation since he couldn't figure out how to open the door.

As for your challenge; dynamite, anthrax, etc. LOL.

No muggle is going to be able to stand against a powerful wizard. They can do anything except bring back the dead. End of story.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 07:06 PM
No muggle is going to be able to stand against a powerful wizard. They can do anything except bring back the dead. End of story.
Lol wut? Sniper rifle/biological warfare/timed explosives/etc says otherwise.

I also call shenanigans on an average wizard killing 50 people per spell. Sirius Black isn't an average wizard.

bladedSmoke
2009-07-22, 07:13 PM
Nothingclever: Picker of nits.

Yes, you're right. Guns probably would beat wizards. Does this fact affect the in-universe story? Nope. So therefore nobody really cares. It's not a point worth making, really. I might as well say that the Stormtroopers would have been able to hit the protagonists easily in Star Wars. That's true. But does anyone care? Nuh-uh. Because that wouldn't be a good story.

tribble
2009-07-22, 07:16 PM
:smallconfused: Then I fail to see what about anything you said had to do with my post. I never disbelieved that you didn't enjoy them, and one person's opinion is entirely beside the point; see my point about how, as a child, I was the only person my age I knew who enjoyed the books I did. Universal popularity among any demographic would be a remarkable achievement indeed.

Dr. Seuss. That is all.

EDIT: Holy Thread Derailment Batman!

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 07:17 PM
Nothingclever: Picker of nits.

Yes, you're right. Guns probably would beat wizards. Does this fact affect the in-universe story? Nope. So therefore nobody really cares. It's not a point worth making, really. I might as well say that the Stormtroopers would have been able to hit the protagonists easily in Star Wars. That's true. But does anyone care? Nuh-uh. Because that wouldn't be a good story.
Apparently I kind of care for the sake of this argument and last time I checked I'm someone. The stupidity of the characters has already been admitted to be worse than just an issue of them not being bright enough to use guns by people defending the story. Characters have trouble operating extremely simple mechanisms. One wonders how they can even write their names, make paper, make books, make bookshelves and conduct any magical study involving reagents that need to be prepared a certain way when they can't operate simple devices since these other things are at least as complicated. How can they play Quidditch and other sports while lacking the mental capacity to turn a television on and off? Boy, it isn't even a teeny bit hard for me to suspend my disbelief.

Sparkling vampires vs Supposedly ridiculously powerful wizards that don't know how to flush without magic... I'm starting to wonder which is worse.

kpenguin
2009-07-22, 07:21 PM
The whole simple tasks thing is an exaggeration. Sure, they have plenty of things on auto-pilot and voice command, but more because its convenient than because they cannot do them themselves.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 07:25 PM
The whole simple tasks thing is an exaggeration. Sure, they have plenty of things on auto-pilot and voice command, but more because its convenient than because they cannot do them themselves.
Why did people need to so desperately try to contrive a nonsensical reason to defend the lack of machinery usage? They could've just admitted that the extreme mechanical disinterest of wizards is unrealistic even in a fantasy setting.

Zeful
2009-07-22, 07:39 PM
Why did people need to so desperately try to contrive a nonsensical reason to defend the lack of machinery usage? They could've just admitted that the extreme mechanical disinterest of wizards is unrealistic even in a fantasy setting.

Why?

No seriously, why is the mechanical disinterest unrealistic? They have abilities that routinely violate the laws that those machines work on. Further they have their own laws for how their abilities work, which they study exclusively for seven or more years of their life, which grant them powerful teleportation, telekinetic, and transmutative abilities. What good does a casual investigation of mundane technology do them? It doesn't make their medicine better, or their weapons, or their preferred method of transit, or an understanding of their powers. The only thing they could gain from it is that their spells are too slow... everything else is covered by their superior methods. Mundane technology would be a quaint or eccentric hobby collected by people fascinated at the mundane toys of their flailing nonmagical cousins.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 08:43 PM
Why isn't it?

No seriously, why is the mechanical disinterest realistic? As I already said before:

One wonders how they can even write their names, make paper, make books, make bookshelves and conduct any magical study involving reagents that need to be prepared a certain way when they can't operate simple devices since these other things are at least as complicated. How can they play Quidditch and other sports while lacking the mental capacity to turn a television on and off? Boy, it isn't even a teeny bit hard for me to suspend my disbelief.
You're telling me they're going to make everything using magic practically from the moment they come out of the womb? I'm sure at some point it is easier for a kid to learn how to use a microwave to heat his food to the exact temperature he wants than it is for him to learn how to heat it so precisely with magic flame. You're underestimating our own technology. Do I really have to explain to you and summarize all of humanity's technological achievements so you can realize magic isn't that great or always practical? I have to explain to you how your computer and this message board together are a much more easy to use method of communication than mastering long range telepathy or sending magic telegrams? Seriously? Which is easier, magicking my waste into another dimension or levitating it away somewhere with my mind or using a toilet? If magic requires any energy and can exhaust people the validity of my point is even more clear. It's like wasting lots of mental energy trying to solve a complex math equation when I can just use a calculator. Here's a thought, make regular machines that run on or are enchanted with magic. You have the best of both worlds that way.

Muz
2009-07-22, 08:53 PM
Getting (kinda) back to the original debate, at least Harry Potter doesn't look like a mentat:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Edwardcullen.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/PiterDeVries-Brad_Dourif.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Hawat-1984.jpg


Those eyebrows, man, they're disturbing.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 08:56 PM
Twilight would be way better if Edward looked like this but everything else stayed the same:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/nothingclever/nosferatu.jpg
Keep the love at first sight and sparkles. I wouldn't mind. At least it'd become a decent comedy.

DragonSlayerDan
2009-07-22, 09:08 PM
Why isn't it?

No seriously, why is the mechanical disinterest realistic? As I already said before:

You're telling me they're going to make everything using magic practically from the moment they come out of the womb? I'm sure at some point it is easier for a kid to learn how to use a microwave to heat his food to the exact temperature he wants than it is for him to learn how to heat it so precisely with magic flame. You're underestimating our own technology. Do I really have to explain to you and summarize all of humanity's technological achievements so you can realize magic isn't that great or always practical? I have to explain to you how your computer and this message board together are a much more easy to use method of communication than mastering long range telepathy or sending magic telegrams? Seriously? Which is easier, magicking my waste into another dimension or levitating it away somewhere with my mind or using a toilet? If magic requires any energy and can exhaust people the validity of my point is even more clear. It's like wasting lots of mental energy trying to solve a complex math equation when I can just use a calculator. Here's a thought, make regular machines that run on or are enchanted with magic. You have the best of both worlds that way.

You DO understand that the majority of wizards (I.E, non-Muggleborns) don't have any clue of how to do things without magic. Lets put you in a room with a television and a microwave and ask you to survive if you never saw the thing before. Now, I understand you would eventually come to a "trial and error" method of figuring out how they work, but wizards don't have all that time. Because those machines don't exist in their world.

Zeful
2009-07-22, 09:44 PM
Why isn't it?

No seriously, why is the mechanical disinterest realistic? As I already said before:

You're telling me they're going to make everything using magic practically from the moment they come out of the womb? I'm sure at some point it is easier for a kid to learn how to use a microwave to heat his food to the exact temperature he wants than it is for him to learn how to heat it so precisely with magic flame. How many kids younger than eleven actually use a microwave? Most of the time the parent will be doing much of that still.

You're underestimating our own technology. Do I really have to explain to you and summarize all of humanity's technological achievements so you can realize magic isn't that great or always practical? I have to explain to you how your computer and this message board together are a much more easy to use method of communication than mastering long range telepathy or sending magic telegrams?Telepathy in fiction works like an IRC client, except it's always there, waiting for you to want to communicate with someone. And it's instantaneous, and there can be no margin for error in interpreting the message. Mastering Telepathy in any form is simply superior to all mundane forms of communication ever.

Seriously? Which is easier, magicking my waste into another dimension or levitating it away somewhere with my mind or using a toilet? If magic requires any energy and can exhaust people the validity of my point is even more clear. That depends on the universe, Harry potter's universe seems to act as if magic is infinite, if exceedingly complex and precise.

It's like wasting lots of mental energy trying to solve a complex math equation when I can just use a calculator. Here's a thought, make regular machines that run on or are enchanted with magic. You have the best of both worlds that way.
Ahh, magictech, the least viable form of combination between two vastly different power sources.
Quick quiz. You want to enchant a motorcycle to go faster. How do you do so? How do you make a gun more powerful?

Your making several assumptions about a system that was never detailed very intricately. You assume that casting fatigues, I don't remember anyone even mentioning such a limit. You assume that magic takes more energy than the mundane counterpart, which can make sense if there was some detailed "I can only cast this much per day" limit, which is also never mentioned. Further you assume that our technology doesn't use power, or take mastery time into account. I could probably use a microwave to cook my food rather than heat it with magic, but I could also create my cooked food with magic, bypassing both the microwave and the grocery store. And if I've never seen a microwave before, and have resources I'm familiar with at hand, why bother experimenting?

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 10:18 PM
stuff
You assume a lot. I also said if, so no, I wasn't assuming. I highly doubt much of what you've even said is in the books. I doubt Harry and his friends are effortlessly instant messaging each other with their minds and using magic to tie their shoes and dress themselves because it's limitless. Why does anyone send Harry a letter or magic telegram or whatever when they can beam the message into his mind from anywhere? Why do people study from books and demonstrations when information can be easily beamed into the minds of students? Why don't kids teleport everywhere? Why don't kids magic up their lunches instead of having them prepared by someone else? Why aren't mages solving world hunger, creating infinite building materials or destroying the planet singlehandedly with infinite energy build up? Because magic doesn't work that way. I can ask a million questions and each one will support the theory that magic is not limitless because you won't have any other practical answer. It doesn't solve everything unless you're super duper powerful or something which the average wizard isn't. Also buying a house and some appliances is a lot easier than using magic everyday for routine tasks.


You DO understand that the majority of wizards (I.E, non-Muggleborns) don't have any clue of how to do things without magic. Lets put you in a room with a television and a microwave and ask you to survive if you never saw the thing before. Now, I understand you would eventually come to a "trial and error" method of figuring out how they work, but wizards don't have all that time. Because those machines don't exist in their world.
If they can solve all their problems with limitless magic why don't they have time to learn basic muggle skills?

rubakhin
2009-07-22, 10:20 PM
Twilight would be way better if Edward looked like this but everything else stayed the same:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/nothingclever/nosferatu.jpg
Keep the love at first sight and sparkles. I wouldn't mind. At least it'd become a decent comedy.

Oh, man, I just saw the Twilight film this morning for some ungodly reason, and it would totally have been good if Kinski had played Edward. He'd have some actual danger and pathos to his character. Instead we get RPattz shuffling around like a wax statue with a neo-surrealist sculpture gelled to his scalp.

REMAKE!

Zeful
2009-07-22, 10:28 PM
You assume a lot. I also said if, so no, I wasn't assuming. I highly doubt much of what you've even said is in the books. I doubt Harry and his friends are effortlessly instant messaging each other with their minds and using magic to tie their shoes and dress themselves because it's limitless. Why does anyone send Harry a letter or magic telegram or whatever when they can beam the message into his mind from anywhere? Why do people study from books and demonstrations when information can be easily beamed into the minds of students? Because magic doesn't work that way. It doesn't solve everything unless you're super duper powerful or something which the average wizard isn't.

Telepathy doesn't even show up in Harry potter. You brought it up, I pointed out why telepathy as shown in fiction is superior to all forms of human communication.

As for the rest, my post makes two assumptions 1.)Parents, even magical ones, will be taking care their child's meals, doubly so when their young. 2.)How fictional telepathy works. The rest is merely pointing out your assumptions.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 10:30 PM
Assumptions I didn't make and which aren't much like assumptions since if magic energy was infinite some crazy wizard would've destroyed the world now by creating an infinitely large ball of energy and then using it to nuke the entire planet. Or he would've drilled to the Earth's core and set off some tectonic chain reactions of doom or some other cheese. Or a good wizard would end world hunger. Case closed.

Lord of Rapture
2009-07-22, 10:32 PM
Twilight would be way better if Edward looked like this but everything else stayed the same:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/nothingclever/nosferatu.jpg
Keep the love at first sight and sparkles. I wouldn't mind. At least it'd become a decent comedy.

Decent? My boy, it would be hilarious.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-22, 10:53 PM
Here's a thought, make regular machines that run on or are enchanted with magic. You have the best of both worlds that way.
Of which there are many.
Flying invisible cars, self-drawing carriages, and a ton of other stuff like that.

I don't want to get sucked into this debate, just sayin'.

[edit]--read the rest of the thread and decided you were wrong.



If they can solve all their problems with limitless magic why don't they have time to learn basic muggle skills?
You clearly have a lot of free time since you care this much about something you apparently don't like, why aren't you learning basic skills needed to survive in the rainforest?

Oh that's right, because you don't live in the rainforest and you don't need to know those things. Why should wizards be obligated to learn skills they will never ever need?

And tell me this, which is easier, grabbin some food stuffin it in the microwave pushing a few buttons waiting a few minutes finding out the food is still not hot enough and pushing more buttons and waiting longer then eating, or waving a stick around, the food dishes itself onto a plate, you wave your stick again, and it is hot.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 11:04 PM
And tell me this, which is easier, grabbin some food stuffin it in the microwave pushing a few buttons waiting a few minutes finding out the food is still not hot enough and pushing more buttons and waiting longer then eating, or waving a stick around, the food dishes itself onto a plate, you wave your stick again, and it is hot.
I can just as easily say you will accidentally not heat your food well enough by using magic since when you fail to heat something properly using a microwave you're the one miscalculating, not the machine.



You clearly have a lot of free time since you care this much about something you apparently don't like, why aren't you learning basic skills needed to survive in the rainforest?

Oh that's right, because you don't live in the rainforest and you don't need to know those things. Why should wizards be obligated to learn skills they will never ever need?

Because wizards could learn to incorporate technology into their daily lives and be even more efficient.



[edit]--read the rest of the thread and decided you were wrong.

And I've decided you are wrong. Funny how that works.



You clearly have a lot of free time since you care this much about something you apparently don't like,
Supposedly having a lot of free time means I care a lot?
I'm just killing time posting in between doing other things. I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore because I've already made my points clear. The counterarguments are basically just misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. Such as, if magic was limitless the world would fall apart. There's no real arguing that. You either grasp that point or misinterpret it somehow.

Zeful
2009-07-22, 11:12 PM
Assumptions I didn't make
Really?

You're telling me they're going to make everything using magic practically from the moment they come out of the womb? I'm sure at some point it is easier for a kid to learn how to use a microwave to heat his food to the exact temperature he wants [b]than it is for him to learn how to heat it so precisely with magic flame.
Assumption:Young children know how to operate microwaves.
Assumption:Magic creates fire by which to create heat.


I have to explain to you how your computer and this message board together are a much more easy to use method of communication than mastering long range telepathy or sending magic telegrams?
Assumption:Technological means, restricted to the speed of manual dexterity, are easier to communicate with over the instant transmission of limited only by the speed of thought.


Seriously? Which is easier, magicking my waste into another dimension or levitating it away somewhere with my mind or using a toilet? If magic requires any energy and can exhaust people the validity of my point is even more clear.
These are the only two points which make no assumptions, and in fact need no assumptions to prove their point.


It's like wasting lots of mental energy trying to solve a complex math equation when I can just use a calculator. Here's a thought, make regular machines that run on or are enchanted with magic. You have the best of both worlds that way.
Assumption:Magic is always inefficient, better methods exist.
Assumption:Magic is unilateral in effect, even if the drive systems are nothing alike.
Assumption:Magic may co-exist with technology.


and which aren't much like assumptions since if magic energy was infinite some crazy wizard would've destroyed the world now by creating an infinitely large ball of energy and then using it to nuke the entire planet. Or he would've drilled to the Earth's core and set off some tectonic chain reactions of doom or some other cheese. Or a good wizard would end world hunger. Case closed.
And there's the crux of the dilemma, "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science." You equate infinite power with infinite destruction, after all a nuclear weapon with infinite power, creates and explosion with infinite yield, right? An atom accelerated to an infinite speed would gain infinite mass collapsing the entire universe, correct?
This is an unknown factor within the Harry Potter universe. They treat magic as if it were infinite, but that does not mean it is. Has Harry, or any wizard needed to stop to "recharge his mana"? No fight scene has lasted more than a few hours in universe (or for that matter, an hour, if my understanding of the seventh book is correct), so this unspecified limit may have simply never been reached, rather than not existing. But if such a limit did exist, I would find it important to assert within the books, teaching both the students, and the audience how the system of magic works. Yet such a scene never occurs, so what ever limit there may be on magic, it is certainly not worth mentioning.
Further even if the source of mana and the wizard's ability to channel it is infinite, that does not mean that they are capable of anything you suggested. The spells themselves could have an upper limit of how much energy can be used to cast them, the rest wasted, which of course assumes that a wizard can channel magic independent of casting spells, which may or may not be the case, as it too is an unknown.


Because wizards could learn to incorporate technology into their daily lives and be even more efficient.I'm sorry that's hilarious. Can you please name three pieces of modern technology that would make a wizard's daily life more efficient? And work in areas of importance that are unmappable, where electronic devices don't work? Like Hogwarts.

kpenguin
2009-07-22, 11:15 PM
Pencils and paper instead of quills.

Paper instead of parchment.

Giving Hagrid some sort of gun instead of a crossbow.

Zeful
2009-07-22, 11:21 PM
Pencils and paper instead of quills.

Paper instead of parchment.

Giving Hagrid some sort of gun instead of a crossbow.

How are you going to write with paper?

And giving Hagrid a gun won't make a wizard's life easier as Hagrid himself, admits that he isn't a wizard. Two out of three though.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 11:21 PM
Really?

Assumption:Young children know how to operate microwaves.
Assumption:Magic creates fire by which to create heat.


Assumption:Technological means, restricted to the speed of manual dexterity, are easier to communicate with over the instant transmission of limited only by the speed of thought.


These are the only two points which make no assumptions, and in fact need no assumptions to prove their point.


Assumption:Magic is always inefficient, better methods exist.
Assumption:Magic is unilateral in effect, even if the drive systems are nothing alike.
Assumption:Magic may co-exist with technology.


And there's the crux of the dilemma, "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science." You equate infinite power with infinite destruction, after all a nuclear weapon with infinite power, creates and explosion with infinite yield, right? An atom accelerated to an infinite speed would gain infinite mass collapsing the entire universe, correct?
This is an unknown factor within the Harry Potter universe. They treat magic as if it were infinite, but that does not mean it is. Has Harry, or any wizard needed to stop to "recharge his mana"? No fight scene has lasted more than a few hours in universe (or for that matter, an hour, if my understanding of the seventh book is correct), so this unspecified limit may have simply never been reached, rather than not existing. But if such a limit did exist, I would find it important to assert within the books, teaching both the students, and the audience how the system of magic works. Yet such a scene never occurs, so what ever limit there may be on magic, it is certainly not worth mentioning.
Further even if the source of mana and the wizard's ability to channel it is infinite, that does not mean that they are capable of anything you suggested. The spells themselves could have an upper limit of how much energy can be used to cast them, the rest wasted, which of course assumes that a wizard can channel magic independent of casting spells, which may or may not be the case, as it too is an unknown.

I'm sorry that's hilarious. Can you please name three pieces of modern technology that would make a wizard's daily life more efficient? And work in areas of importance that are unmappable, where electronic devices don't work? Like Hogwarts.
If telepathy was easy it'd be used but it isn't and telegrams are used instead. Telegram by owl and other stuff vs computer. Computer/cell phone/etc win. Not an assumption.

Heating food stuff isn't really much of an assumption. I'm trying to make an example of what might be easier to learn to do with technology than magic. You'd have to do some thinking to figure out the exact temperature you need to heat something with magic while you can just follow a recipe and use the same heat setting on a machine you normally use.

I didn't say magic is always inefficient. I'm saying a machine can be turned on and then you don't need to do any thinking. You don't think mentally washing your clothes takes more concentration than putting them in a machine and pressing a few buttons? That's not an assumption. It's common sense. Magic has coexisted with technology in the books.

You're reaching buddy. Seriously reaching. I'm not going to refute all your points. Have fun being needlessly obstinate towards common sense. That's what it looks like you're doing to me at least. This is the silliest debate I've ever had.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/nothingclever/reaching-for-star-big.jpg

Here's a really easy example of technology beating magic, can a wizard beat a supercomputer in number crunching? Probably not. I don't care if it's an assumption because you don't see it happen and I doubt the author intends everything to be perfectly solved by magic. You're assuming that if something hasn't been explicitly restricted it isn't. I'm also pretty darn sure Harry feels some fatigue from casting a spell even in the first book making your effortless magic highly questionable.

Zeful
2009-07-22, 11:31 PM
If telepathy was easy it'd be used but it isn't and telegrams are used instead. Not an assumption. Again, telepathy doesn't exist within the universe we are discussing. Therefore I'm not restricted to the in-universe explanation.


Heating food stuff isn't really much of an assumption. I'm trying to make an example of what might be easier to learn to do with technology than magic. You'd have to do some thinking to figure out the exact temperature you need to heat something with magic while you can just follow a recipe and use the same heat setting on a machine you normally use.The recipe can also all be automated by spells, meaning you don't need to do anything but turn it on. From anywhere in the house, and it will do everything save feed you.


I didn't say magic is always inefficient. I'm saying a machine can be turned on and then you don't need to do any thinking. You don't think mentally washing your clothes takes more concentration than putting them in a machine and pressing a few buttons? That's not an assumption. It's common sense. Magic has coexisted with technology in the books.If I can mentally wash my clothes, I do not need to look around the house to find enough clothes to justify putting them in the machine, I don't have to think about how much soap to use, or what temperature to wash things at, because I'll have set things up, so that I don't need to expend any energy other than wanting my clothes clean, and they will be. But that's falling into the realm of the psionic rather than the magical. If I could magically wash clothes, I wouldn't need to take them off to do so, meaning I can bypass fretting over which machine to purchase entirely.


You're reaching buddy. Seriously reaching. I'm not going to refute all your points. Have fun being needlessly obstinate towards common sense. That's what it looks like you're doing to me at least.
How am I being obstinate towards common sense? You have yet to prove beyond "I say so" that it is common sense. "I say so" does not make a compelling argument.

Wizard vs. Computer: No a wizard cannot beat a in number crunching. But that's apples to oranges. Could magic beat a super comupter at number crunching? Or maybe a wizard vs. the robots that built the super computer, who can build a number cruncher the fastest?


You're assuming that if something hasn't been explicitly restricted it isn't. I'm also pretty darn sure Harry feels some fatigue from casting a spell even in the first book making your effortless magic highly questionable.I'm assuming that anything that has been explicitly restricted is unknowable, because it is. I make assertions and suppositions based on what is knowable to attempt to explain the unknowable, but they are unprovable theories. I do not present them as fact.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 11:50 PM
Everything you say is also "I say so." Difference is I have evidence, you don't. "If I used magic it wouldn't require any concentration/effort because I'd concentrate on making use of it take zero effort/concentration." That's basically what you said.

Maybe you can't. Wizards start out having trouble emitting little balls of light from their wands. Maybe just maybe accessing the internet, photocopying, making a movie, becoming a highly advanced human calculator, mimicking a dvd player, cell phone, computer etc takes considerably more effort to master and do in general. You're assuming its effortless, I assume it takes effort. Hmmm, which is more likely? It takes effort to learn magic and people aren't solving world hunger by making limitless food and doing other super things effortlessly so yeah, I think magic takes effort. Do I really have to keep going? You assume pressing buttons and watching a TV show or two before taking your clothes out of a washer/dryer takes more effort than using your magic to make them dry/take out all the wrinkles/etc using your mind. You assume magic takes no thought. I doubt a wizard juggles a zillion tasks in his mind without a problem.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-22, 11:53 PM
I didn't say magic is always inefficient. I'm saying a machine can be turned on and then you don't need to do any thinking. You don't think mentally washing your clothes takes more concentration than putting them in a machine and pressing a few buttons? That's not an assumption. It's common sense. Magic has coexisted with technology in the books.
Mechanical:
Hey I should wash my clothes! *rummage around, gather clothes*
*Stuff them in the machine* *Set the Machine* *Wait about an hour*
*Stuff clothes in the dryer* *wait about an hour* Oh my clothes are now clean!

Magical:
Hey I should wash my clothes! *waves stick* *clothes fly over to washtub and proceed to wash themselves**Waves stick* *clothes are dry*

Your call, but I would certainly call the latter more efficient. You keep saying the mundane way of doing things is better, but really with magical means everything boils down to "wave stick, it gets done", so unless you can boil down a task to something equal to or less than that in complexity, doing things the mundane way is harder.

nothingclever
2009-07-22, 11:57 PM
How is waiting less efficient? You don't have to stand around and do nothing during that time. This is pointless. You guys are just going to keep posting the same flawed and heavily skewed views.

Machines can do more complicated things than drying clothes for you and you don't know that you can instantly clean without effort or access the internet effortlessly with your mind either or whatever. I'm not going to explain why 1+1=2 forever. Have the last word.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-23, 12:00 AM
Maybe you can't. Wizards start out having trouble emitting little balls of light from their wands. Maybe just maybe accessing the internet, photocopying, making a movie, becoming a highly advanced human calculator, mimicking a dvd player, cell phone, computer etc takes considerably more effort to master and do in general. You're assuming its effortless, I assume it takes effort.
And real people start out having trouble driving a car down the street, sending text messages, using a computer, cooking, doing math, reading, etc. What is your point? Of course it takes effort to learn, everything does. But the point is that in the books people are shown taking care of most everday mundane tasks with magic, and don't seem to be exerting any more effort than you would sticking toast in a toaster.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-23, 12:03 AM
How is waiting less efficient? You don't have to stand around and do nothing during that time. This is pointless. You guys are just going to keep posting the same flawed and heavily skewed views.

You spend as much time waving your stick around and completing the task totally as you do simply preparing to begin doing it mechanically (I can wave a stick twice in the amount of time it takes you to gather up a bunch of clothes, stick them in a machine, and set the machine, and then I am done. You then have to pull them out of the machine and put them in another machine, and then put them away again)

Your argument is basically "I want to be right really hard so I am". Argument fail. Try again.

oops didnt mean to double post

Zeful
2009-07-23, 12:06 AM
Everything you say is also "I say so." Difference is I have evidence, you don't. "If I used magic it wouldn't require any concentration/effort because I'd concentrate on making use of it take zero effort/concentration." That's basically what you said.Heh, no. It would take effort, just a different kind, and less of it. Besides you used me as an example, I'm pretty lazy, if I can spend two hours now, so I only have to spend seconds later, I will. Also can you point out one thing I say that is "I say so" that isn't qualified, by me admitting that I'm just guessing?


You're assuming its effortless, I assume it takes effort. Hmmm, which is more likely? It takes effort to learn magic and people aren't solving world hunger by making limitless food and doing other super things effortlessly so yeah, I think magic takes effort. Do I really have to keep going?

Where am I saying it's effortless? I do make multiple references to infinity, but that does not imply effortlessness. In order to do anything you need to expend effort, this is something I don't need to point out. However I am pointing out that making magic to work is far less effort than most mundane solutions. If I want to wash my clothes magically I need to simply learn the spell and cast it. If I want to wash my clothes using the machine, I need to choose which machine to by, how to pay, when to have it delivered, where it should be placed, and connect it, gather a load, and then operate the machine. Sure this is done over a greater period of time (start looking about a month in advance), but it's still more effort to do that then learn and cast the spell (which in Harry Potter is learning what to say while moving a stick around in a very precise fashion).

Xondoure
2009-07-23, 12:06 AM
If they can solve all their problems with limitless magic why don't they have time to learn basic muggle skills?

Because they don't have to! Yes a microwave is easier to for an eleven year old to use in comparison to magic, but who is going to invent a microwave when there is already a magic substitute? Wizards don't gain anything from investing their brain power in technology. As to why don't they steal muggle tech, they do. I seem to remember a certain train... (and bus, and car, and motorcycle, and elevators)
I have a feeling that a simple charm would probably be enough to deal with fire arms. I recall some wizards even calling such weapons barbaric (third book, early chapters).
The only thing that bothers me about the wizarding world, is there method of communication. Sure, some people are clever enough to use those mirrors that Harry and Serius intended to use, but most of them are foolish enough to wait for owls. And they have been proven to be dangerous means of communication as they can easily be intercepted. I mean, if you can teleport yourself, why on earth can't you manage to set up a magical telephone line, or at least some form of texting?

kpenguin
2009-07-23, 12:08 AM
Personally, I think the people of the Wizarding World are inefficient. But not because they lack common sense, but because they're so caught up in tradition and bigotry. Tradition is obvious. Much of their culture fails to have caught up with the 20th century. Bigotry is equally so. Muggles are outright discriminated against and even those sympathetic to Muggles think of them as curiosities or children at best, seeing no harm in modifying their memories for their own good. If Muggles came up with some nonmagical piece of equipment, how in heavens are wizards supposed to trust it? They're Muggles, for God's sake!:smalltongue:

Now, one might say that being wrapped up in such tradition and bigotry is lacking in common sense, but seeing how easily they wrap up people in real life, well, I'd say that sense is more common than not.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-23, 12:09 AM
why on earth can't you manage to set up a magical telephone line, or at least some form of texting?

They do have texting. Via owl :P

kpenguin
2009-07-23, 12:11 AM
Yeah, the post is bothersome as well. Why don't they send letters by floo powder?

Texas_Ben
2009-07-23, 12:15 AM
Yeah, the post is bothersome as well. Why don't they send letters by floo powder?
I'm assuming communications infrastructure isn't a huge priority for them. I mean when you can teleport it's easier to just speak face to face I imagine, and let the owls handle the non-urgent stuff.

That or maybe Rowling just didn't think anything like that fit into the setting.
That or maybe Rowling just didn't think of anything like that.

Xondoure
2009-07-23, 12:20 AM
Here's a really easy example of technology beating magic, can a wizard beat a supercomputer in number crunching? Probably not. I don't care if it's an assumption because you don't see it happen and I doubt the author intends everything to be perfectly solved by magic. You're assuming that if something hasn't been explicitly restricted it isn't. I'm also pretty darn sure Harry feels some fatigue from casting a spell even in the first book making your effortless magic highly questionable.

Arithmancy. :smalltongue:

Magic as an energy source, has been shown to be unlimited. Using that energy, and making it have the needed result, takes effort, intelligence, and stamina. However, the more intelligent you are, and the better you know the spell, the less you need effort or stamina.

Edit: As to Harry and his friends using cell phones and emails... try to remember the story takes place in the nineties. Cell phones and email were only just emerging. Although I agree that the wizards should have had something very much like it using magic and simply didn't.

Drascin
2009-07-23, 01:01 AM
Assumption:Young children know how to operate microwaves.
Assumption:Magic creates fire by which to create heat.

Now, I'm not going to enter the debate - but here nothingclever's assumptions are right. Small kids do know how to operate a microwave. My own sister knows that a microwave is just "put food in, turn timer wheel, wait" since she was what, four? Okay, so it took her a few attempts to not put way too much time on the timer and boil the breakfast, but she got it.

Really, technology is easier and, for many tasks, more efficient as of late. But...


Personally, I think the people of the Wizarding World are inefficient. But not because they lack common sense, but because they're so caught up in tradition and bigotry. Tradition is obvious. Much of their culture fails to have caught up with the 20th century. Bigotry is equally so. Muggles are outright discriminated against and even those sympathetic to Muggles think of them as curiosities or children at best, seeing no harm in modifying their memories for their own good. If Muggles came up with some nonmagical piece of equipment, how in heavens are wizards supposed to trust it? They're Muggles, for God's sake!:smalltongue:

Now, one might say that being wrapped up in such tradition and bigotry is lacking in common sense, but seeing how easily they wrap up people in real life, well, I'd say that sense is more common than not.

...yeah, what kpenguin said. They're not even going to bother researching muggle devices, not because they have a perfect solution to everything by magic, but because muggle devices are made by muggles, and wizards are proud.

Texas_Ben
2009-07-23, 01:42 AM
Now, I'm not going to enter the debate - but here nothingclever's assumptions are right. Small kids do know how to operate a microwave. My own sister knows that a microwave is just "put food in, turn timer wheel, wait" since she was what, four? Okay, so it took her a few attempts to not put way too much time on the timer and boil the breakfast, but she got it.
It can be said that small kids in the potterverse know how to use magic as well... Harry, while not a child (but definitely untrained), managed to remove the glass from the snake pen, and a few small children were able to make a slug swell up when they took their parents' wand when they weren't looking. Tom Riddle managed to exert quite a bit of control over his magical abilities when he was a child, but he was an extraordinary case.

kpenguin
2009-07-23, 01:58 AM
One might say that Harry is an extraordinary case as well, though he's not quite the prodigy that Tommy was.

(Me and my friends insist on calling Voldemort "Tom", "Tommy", "Tommy Boy", etc.)

averagejoe
2009-07-23, 02:01 AM
Here's a really easy example of technology beating magic, can a wizard beat a supercomputer in number crunching? Probably not. I don't care if it's an assumption because you don't see it happen and I doubt the author intends everything to be perfectly solved by magic. You're assuming that if something hasn't been explicitly restricted it isn't. I'm also pretty darn sure Harry feels some fatigue from casting a spell even in the first book making your effortless magic highly questionable.

Actually, I'm pretty sure most wizards can't do math; the most mathematically advanced wizards would be the muggle borns, and they'd only have the education of eleven-year-olds.

Heck, most wizards can't even do logic. A choice of several potions with an attached logic puzzle was considered an equal obstacle to a giant dog that would eat you unless you happened to know its specific Achilles' heel.

At the risk of taking sides: I do like Harry Potter. However, I also love making fun of it. Fact is, there are things about the setting that weren't completely thought out, and such inconsistencies are enough to turn people off to the novels.

To stray back on topic, I don't find Twilight to be anywhere near as enjoyable to make fun of.

Xondoure
2009-07-23, 02:15 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure most wizards can't do math; the most mathematically advanced wizards would be the muggle borns, and they'd only have the education of eleven-year-olds.

Heck, most wizards can't even do logic. A choice of several potions with an attached logic puzzle was considered an equal obstacle to a giant dog that would eat you unless you happened to know its specific Achilles' heel.

At the risk of taking sides: I do like Harry Potter. However, I also love making fun of it. Fact is, there are things about the setting that weren't completely thought out, and such inconsistencies are enough to turn people off to the novels.

To stray back on topic, I don't find Twilight to be anywhere near as enjoyable to make fun of.

ARITHMANCY!

Fri
2009-07-23, 02:19 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmancy
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/hogwarts/classes/arithmancy.html

sure can't beat calculus

kpenguin
2009-07-23, 02:20 AM
Errr... I'm not exactly sure that Arithmancy would help in the computation of large numbers as much as a computer. I mean, you have to memorize large number charts, but the purpose is to predict the future via numbers.

Jayngfet
2009-07-23, 03:28 AM
I think people are discounting one major factor with pottererse magic, difficulty. It's explicitly stated you need to get pronounciation EXACTLY right and wave the wand JUST SO. Getting it wrong is explicitly stated to be deadly in particularly bad cases.

Whoracle
2009-07-23, 04:55 AM
Just one thing about the whole microwave argument:

Go ahead, buy one and put it on your table. Put food in and wait. Nothing'll happen because you have to plug it in first. Which requires you to have access to the electric grid. Which in turn requires a whole bunch of people working hard and knowing quite a lot to keep it running.

As a HP wizard, all you need is a stick, someone who tells you how to do the spell, someone who invents the spell, and some practise.

Our technology is only usable with ease because a whole lot of others prepped the ground for us, because we work as a collective. HPzards aren't so much a collective as a scattered and reclusive bunch. Yes, they keep in touch, but they don't have the numbers to rely on each other for their basic day-to-day needs.