Can someone please tell me why the eff Stephenie Meyer's books keep getting compared to the Harry Potter books?
Because, popularity aside, they are nothing alike.
It's extremely irritating.
« YALSA announces 2007 Teens' Top Ten nominations. | Main | Love, Stargirl -- Jerry spinelli »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345169e469e200e3982409c08833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Okay.:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Probably (a) to boost their search-engine ranking and/or name recognition, or (b) laziness.
Posted by: Electric Landlady | 07 August 2007 at 01:41 PM
On the other hand, do you think Meyers is sitting back and cackling, glad for any comparison that might drive more readers her way? Or do you think she blanches at the comparison as well?
She's coming to town Friday. I may go see her.
Posted by: Brian F. | 07 August 2007 at 01:44 PM
I think it's the Rabid Fans.
I mean, there was a Lexicon within MONTHS of the first book being published. I know, because I TOTALLY checked it out. I learned that I wasn't rabid enough to hang out with those kids. But I'm still going to read Eclipse. Even thought I wasn't in love with New Moon.
Posted by: Jackie | 07 August 2007 at 02:35 PM
I've been wondering that too - personally, I think Harry Potter is much, much better in most ways.
Posted by: Thorn | 07 August 2007 at 07:57 PM
Wait. The vamp books? Huh? What?
Posted by: Chrissy | 07 August 2007 at 10:09 PM
My local independent is having a midnight release party for "Eclipse" .. you know, like that other book.
Posted by: bryn | 07 August 2007 at 11:39 PM
Yup. the rabid fans.
I showed up to a reading because it sounded interesting. No one warned me that it would be a mob of women wearing "I Love Edward" and "Bite Me" tee shirts.
I've read the first two books and, although the storytelling is definitely gripping, Meyers' weak female protagonist worries me. Too many young girls read those books and may well be influenced by the fact that Bella wraps her whole life around a guy (okay, so he's a hot vampire, but he's still a guy), gives up university, goes into depression without him.... ugh. The message seems to be that a girl can't live without a man. I don't like that message.
So in this book she is supposed to choose between the 2 guys who like her. Personally, I'd like to see her tell them they have to share her and that she'll visit them both on alternate weekends from her university while she studies genetics to see what causes people to become vampires and werewolves anyway. And if they pound on each other then neither one gets time with her. That'd be a nice heroine.
But she'll probably mope about and then choose Edward and worry that she'll get old and ugly while he doesn't (every woman's nightmare).
But I'll still buy the book.
Still, I'd rather see a girl emulate Hermione than Bella. And Hermione gets a happy ending to her romance without sacrificing her own identity. now THERE'S a message for a young girl.
Posted by: a Paperback Writer | 08 August 2007 at 01:01 AM
I don't understand all the fuss. Yeah, I liked the book just fine, but it was basically formulaic romance. I can name six other books I've read, just this year, that had the same formula (and included vampires): girl meets grumpy guy, hates him, *something happens* (usually female life gets saved by said grumpy boy), grumpy guy is "misunderstood" or has a secret, they fall madly in love and are "meant for each other". Whatever. I've gotten use to it. It's all the frippery and storytelling that makes the difference between "worth reading" and "wow, that was crap". I guess I'm finding this particular rabid fan base a bit weird because you can pick scads of paranormal romance and get the same basic story. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's why I read them. But it's not new.
Posted by: Chrissy | 08 August 2007 at 11:43 AM
I know there's scads of stuff out there for adults, but is there a lot of YA paranormal romance? The only other series I can think of is that ridiculous (and I mean that in a good way) Wuthering High series.
Posted by: Leila | 08 August 2007 at 01:22 PM
That's actually what I was thinking. I'm not sure there really is a YA paranormal romance sub-genre. But let's take a step back here. Is there much of a romance sub-genre? I can think of first love type stuff, safe sex/abstinence type stuff, and maybe a few others, but is there really a true romance sub-genre. I mean the serious sweep you away almost ridiculous level romance type. I don't know. It never really was never my interest until folks started throwing in more vampires.
Posted by: Chrissy | 08 August 2007 at 04:44 PM
Most everything I can think of is first love type, or romance stories that incorporate other issues (like Sarah Dessen, Deb Caletti, etc.). Lurlene McDaniels? Or does someone always die in those? There's always Samantha and the Cowboy.
Posted by: Leila | 09 August 2007 at 06:59 AM
Romances usually seem to be mixed either with coming-of-age or adventure, don't they? I mean, my favorite "romance" is the Blue Sword. But here are a few off the top of my head:
Daddy Longlegs
Anne of Avonlea (? er, right? The third one?)
Those 4 Ibbotsen reprints (dude, have you READ a Company of Swans yet? Um, so I think it was a little mature and advanced for me.)
I know I'm forgetting tons.
Posted by: cc | 09 August 2007 at 01:09 PM