J.K. Rowling or Stephenie Meyer? Who do you choose?

[Xenocide]

Stereotypes then, huh?

Well Anne Rice is also a shitty, talentless, and obnoxious hack that writes horrible bits of glorified fanfiction known as 'The Vampire Chronicles' which is incredibly sad because that means it's so immeasurably shitty to be considered pulp.

The film was only made tolerable by the great acting of Brad Pitt and devout Scientologist, Tom Cruise.

The sexy Latino accent of Antonio Bandaras also greatly contributed, seducing every soccer mom and their kitten out of their panties in a record 0.5 seconds.

European scholars have considered the work an alternate universe where Dracula had a spiffy homosexual son with some French hooker, but fled to evade the Van Helsing Child Support Agency.

American scholars didn't bother reading it because anything with the word 'French' in its name immediately reduces to complete shit. Proven F4X ppl.

The fanbase consists majorily of morbidly obese teenage girls who could never find a man desperate enough to bone them, even when they gave the tempting offer of pretending to be Moby Dick while their partner violently probed her vageroo with a veiny throbbing harpoon (not so witty metaphor for a penis) as Captain Ahab;

seeing as they completely failed at every facet of life and would never be deserving of the love of another human (even nonhumans shouldn't have to endure such torture), they retreated into the realm of fiction where they spend the rest of their days masturbating to mediocre fanfics on fanfiction.net,

mostly containing Louis and Lestat homolust because fangirls have the twisted desire to distort all fictional works and see their characters have disgusting, trashy, and completely out of character anal sex (preferably rape).

Lestat fans are distinguished by their vulgar and offensive stench that consist of fast food, body odor radiating from unwashed merch tees, stale mastubatory fluids, fruit scented lube, and copious amounts of foaming at the mouth. Insult the series and they would be prepared to duel infidels to the death for their transgressions.

Fear not, overexposure to the glorified fanfictions of Anne Rice have distorted their view of reality -- they are under the impression that they are actual vampires so stakes and crucifixes will do well here.

Notice how the fanbase diss goes either way?

[WordsofWisdom]

Listen to this logic:

First of all, I choose Stephanie Meyer. And from what I've read of this forum (which is only a few pages here and there, because I cannot be fucked to read 5 pages of repeated arguments, though well thought out and valid, and was simply tl;dr) I'm the only one who does.

Now, there is a very good point someone made earlier in that both writers are very basic in style, but Rowling is more 'iconic' and she was better at grabbing an audience.

Where's the justification in that? Sure, there wasn't exactly the Harry Potter fanbase that followed the Twilight series, but Twilight has reached a very specific audience, namely pre-teen to teenage girls that are into romance and sparkly vampires. While I agree that vampires are firmly in the realm of evil marauding parasites that are horror stories and are not romantic, I have to give props to Meyer for capturing an entire audience, no matter how sue-ish her main character seems to be.

Has anyone read Meyer's other book, Host? I just finished it, and it's a very good read. The story is not completely original, but has a certain original twist to it that captured my attention completely. If you want to compare authors, you need to look at the entire spectrum. Rowling has not written anything other than Harry Potter to my knowledge (but I'm not sure, I don't stalk the woman) and that, in my books, loses points for overall diversity as an author. Meyer actually branched out and wrote something completely seperate from her launch pad.

Now I'm not a huge fan of Meyer or Rowling, but I'm more fed up with this giant war that's suddenly struck out against Stephanie Meyer. She wrote books at the right time, marketed them in the right way, and they were engaging enough to capture an audience and capture them AGAIN on the big screen. So give the woman some credit.

[AngelicAsylum]

Yea I give her credit! She knew how to market a bad story that made tons of money and fans. But that's what it is: A very bad, poorly written series. That's not to say Host is bad - I haven't read it - but the Twilight series, at least to me *prepares herself for an onslaught of angry fans* reads more like glorified fanfiction and was extremely dull and sexist. That's not to say I prefer Harry Potter. That series doesn't interest me either, it just doesn't fly me into a rage the way Twilight does.


ETA: Actually strike that. If I had to choose between the two I'd definitely choose HP even though I have no interest in the series.

[zerotech57]

I literally grew up WITH Harry Potter (Not joking, I was 10 when I read the book, and I was 16 when I finished reading the last one). However, around the age of 14, I noticed a very steep decline in the quality of the books. That could be because I was learning to absorb what I was reading, instead of just kind of processing the words, or because there was a HUGE drop in quality. Then I went back and read the first four books (It literally took me one rainy day to finish the first three), and realized that while they were still ALRIGHT, they weren't that great either. It was around book 6, however, that I just felt like she had realized she could write about Harry sitting on a toilet and sell a billion copies as long as there was some kind of guarantee that at some point during the story, Voldermort would show up and fight somebody.

I had to read the first Twilight book once, in Grade 9, for Summer School. At first, it seemed kind of lame, but I didn't see where all the hatred was coming from. Then, Edward began to sparkle, and explain how he liked to watch Bella sleep. It was around the time that she actually began to eat this up that I realized just how messed up the inside of Stephanie Meyer's brain must be, and swore off of any other Twilight book, or movie. Forever.

As for Interview with a Vampire... I've read the book, and I've seen the movie. Not my cup of tea. Why does literally EVERY vampire have to be bisexual, or gay?
I don't have a problem with gays, or bisexuals, but what are the odds of literally EVERY one being bisexual? I even tried to overlook the part where Louis falls in love with a 10-year-old girl, but I ultimately just couldn't stomach that book. The writing style was OKAY, I guess. Better then Stephanie Meyer. Still though, the first and last true vampire was definitely Dracula.

[Bia]

Listen to this logic:

First of all, I choose Stephanie Meyer. And from what I've read of this forum (which is only a few pages here and there, because I cannot be fucked to read 5 pages of repeated arguments, though well thought out and valid, and was simply tl;dr) I'm the only one who does.

Now, there is a very good point someone made earlier in that both writers are very basic in style, but Rowling is more 'iconic' and she was better at grabbing an audience.

Where's the justification in that? Sure, there wasn't exactly the Harry Potter fanbase that followed the Twilight series, but Twilight has reached a very specific audience, namely pre-teen to teenage girls that are into romance and sparkly vampires. While I agree that vampires are firmly in the realm of evil marauding parasites that are horror stories and are not romantic, I have to give props to Meyer for capturing an entire audience, no matter how sue-ish her main character seems to be.

Has anyone read Meyer's other book, Host? I just finished it, and it's a very good read. The story is not completely original, but has a certain original twist to it that captured my attention completely. If you want to compare authors, you need to look at the entire spectrum. Rowling has not written anything other than Harry Potter to my knowledge (but I'm not sure, I don't stalk the woman) and that, in my books, loses points for overall diversity as an author. Meyer actually branched out and wrote something completely seperate from her launch pad.

Now I'm not a huge fan of Meyer or Rowling, but I'm more fed up with this giant war that's suddenly struck out against Stephanie Meyer. She wrote books at the right time, marketed them in the right way, and they were engaging enough to capture an audience and capture them AGAIN on the big screen. So give the woman some credit.

*points*
|
|
V

Aww I'm gonna have to make everyone hate me on this. But you guys are being mean.

While yes, Meyer did base her books off a dream,and yes, she did bring in some rather lame qualities to vampires. She did also write 4+ books that totally made her zillions of money, and a movie deal. So she has to have some things going for her. She can in fact write. (though she does lose creditably in my eyes because I'm convinced she stole most of her story from The Vampire Diaries by L.J.Smith) And I think her other completely different book The Host is rather good.

But that being said, J.K.Rowling wins with originality and writing style.

We're so alike

[Aurelia Courville]

Even though I dislike (not hate exactly, I just won't be reading the series again) S.Meyer did do an original story. Or, at least parts of it. No ones ever done a sparkling bit (and there's a reason for that >>) and I do think the story had some potential. The execution just wasn't there. But I suppose I can excuse her for it since Twilight was her debut novel (at least I think so.) And I will say the writing did get better towards the end (what hindered it from being an average good was the story to begin with. and that Bella character- ><)

But that being said. Meyer and Rowling are on two different levels and you just can't compare the two. Their stories were marketed and written for different people and there aren't that many people who would be in the middle of that ven diagram.

As for Rowling only writing the Harry Potter series:

"Rowling has stated that she plans to continue writing. In an interview with Stephen Fry in 2005, Rowling claimed that she would much prefer to write any subsequent books under a pseudonym; however, she conceded to Jeremy Paxman in 2003 that if she did, the press would probably "find out in seconds." In 2006, Rowling revealed that she had finished writing a few short stories and another children's book (a "political fairy story") about a monster, aimed at a younger audience than Harry Potter readers."

-lifted from Wikipedia.

and besides, she's spent a hell of a lot more time writing seven books in her series than Meyer did writing (Rowling's 30 June 1997 – 21 July 2007 to Meyer's 2005–2008) I think she deserves a bit of a break before jumping into another book. That and, I'm sure she's got enough money and memories from the books and the movies that she doesn't have to write another book if she doesn't want to.

[Shin.Aether]

Though emotions are running high in this debacle. I will say this for both women, they deserve our good intentions for stretching a dream they had. To flame them indirectly what-ever-the-case is simply wrong. Literature has fallen in recent years, plus you should know better. Hollywood is a beat-up horse that is neigh'ing past death. With the glam of an industry going through death itself. Hollywood is more liable to take whatever they can mass market. Now with that thought in mind tell me, would J.K. Rowling and S.Meyer have become as iconic.

With or without the force of Hollywood, doubtful? Just remember, because of Hollywood you've got 30-40 year old milf's; hopping the Edward/Jacob train. Even the food industry signed on. The point is, both women will get their cut-downs and flames. But hollywood will retain the blame for it. I don't think if Hollywood jumped onto either story, that this discussion would exist. Plus there are plenty of other books out there that make laughingstocks of both women. So given the choice you leave me to, I'll probably go with J.K. Rowling. I put S.Meyers book down after chapter 1.

Try H.P. Lovecraft, or Terry Goodkind, those authors are worth the read.

[Redriak]

J.K. Rowling, absolutely. If not because the story of Harry Potter was better, then it's because J.K, wrote HP much, much better than Twilight was written. I read the first Twilight book and it was... Bearable. It was frustrating the way Stephenie wrote, though. I have to say, J.K. matured much more while writing Harry Potter than Stephenie did while writing Twilight, and the writing shows it clearly. Very clearly.

And HP Lovecraft is going to be my next reading victim after Lewis Carroll.

[Razilin]

I've only read Meyer so far, so my opinions are only concerning her. I was far, far less than impressed.

Besides, forget Team Edward and Team Jacob. I'm Team Alucard.

[Panihari]

I will admit that I've read works of Stephenie Meyer and enjoyed it. Stephenie writes in a style that is more of a fast read and a break from books such as J.K. Rowling. To be perfectly honest, I was very upset seeing on the news how Stephenie Meyer was to be the next J.K. Rowling when Rowling has a lot more substance in her work with it comes to the use of literary devices in which makes her work all the more enjoyable to read. Comparing Meyer's work and Rowling's work, I believe Rowling has more of a refine style that is most obviously better respected. When reading Meyer's work, I can still see her childishness within her writing and especially how she'll rush through character development and the main points in her work. Rowling, when it comes to developing her characters and her plot, has much more patience. It gives the reader time to get to know her characters and what they're going through instead of scrambling about as one would with Meyer. It's no doubt that people would feel more comfortable with Rowling as an author.

-Kari