“We never thought there was going to be another Harry Potter” ~ Samantha Gutierrez, manager of the Children’s and Teen’s Department at Barnes and Noble.
There’s been a lot of buzz around The Twilight Saga, a quartet by Stephanie Meyer about teen vampires which has even been proclaimed “the next Harry Potter.” The fourth and final book, Breaking Dawn, was recently released with Potter-like midnight parties. If you’ve interacted much with Harry Potter fandom outside of this blog, you’ll know that many Potter fans have also become big Twilight fans.
I haven’t read it yet, so I’m in no position to make a judgment call on it. But I’m wondering if any Hog’s Head patrons have read the series and would like to comment. Is it really “the next Harry Potter”? And the real question is: Is it great literature, or is it the first successful marketing campaign to tap into Harry Potter fandom?
Charlie on 
Tom on 
Moe W on 
Steve Morrison on 
Moe W on 
Arabella on 
Red Rocker on 
Loading ...
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve read all but the last book, so I feel somewhat qualified to answer. In my opinion these books have an intriguing if somewhat tired premise but little else. The plot is standard romance fare, with a beautiful leading man saving the day for the helpless girl (it seems to me the main character is in constant need of saving by men). I’m not the target audience, so your miles may vary.
Mike, your assessment is kind of what I gathered, too, from doing some research on the books. Also, my wife is big into reading ‘paranormal’ romance, which includes a lot of vampire stuff, & while she’s heard of the Twilight series, she doesn’t really seem all that interested in reading it. So, that speaks against it a bit in my opinion at least.
While the Twilight series may be popular & even a good read to some extent, I don’t see it becoming a phenomenon like Harry Potter. I can’t see any serious literary discussion coming out of the Twilight series or any longevity to the series.
It is the “next Harry Potter” only in that it is a series that grew popular in the internet generation. The two books are completely incomparable. Twilight is very character driven where as HP is very plot and detail driven (if that is a way to describe it).
Twilight is entertaining and enjoyable but there isn’t a whole lot of substance there. In fact, last week, Mugglecast had the author, Stephanie Meyer on their show and they asked her what the message of the series was. I was hoping for some real revelation from Ms. Meyer; yet she answered, “Message? I don’t know. It is just entertaining.” To me that quashed any and all future comparisons between Potter and Twilight.
“Message? I don’t know. It is just entertaining.”
Oh, sheesh. Nevermind. I should change, “I haven’t read it yet” to “I haven’t read it, and have no plans to.” I think I’d rather spend my time on older and better vampire novels.
Hey, cool, a Twilight guy ! There’s not many of you around
I have read all Twilight books (and am currently reading The Host, Meyer’s first adult novel). Although I enjoy the Twilight Saga immensely, I would not equate them with Potter verse. The books are so wildly different.
Twilight is character-driven with a first-person point of view and Potter is plot-driven with limited omniscience. This makes such a difference and make for such different approaches to the writing and plot.
Twilight, for the most part, has a single plot line with hidden agendas being the exception rather than the rule and apart from some exceptions, Meyer does not use her first-person POV for narrative misdirection like Rowling does her POV.
The Twilight books are written as a romantic quest and Meyer herself also says that she has no other message than entertainment. She does not have the objective to write the intricate mystery adventures or the commentaries that Rowling does.
At some points the first-person POV of Meyer’s series does try to delay the statement of the direction of the plot, but for the most part the attentive reader will not be hugely surprised by plot twists as they are usually set-up earlier in the story. At least I wasn’t…. Potter had me primed for misdirection.
Meyer has on numerous occasions said that she is flattered to be compared to Rowling, but that she does not consider herself of the same caliber. She says that unlike herself, Rowling shows an unparalleled talent by creating a complete self-sufficient realm with all the detail and imaginative precision that it needs to work well.
I do love the series. I must disagree with Mike though. Bella — the female lead and for the most part the narrator of the first-person POV — might in the first book seem like the typical damsel, but as the series progresses, Bella does develop into a strong personality in my opinion. Especially the occurrences in the second novel pushes Bella to rethink her own strengths and she is better for it.
I could see how Bella’s teenage angst, insecurities and ‘fragile’ human state can be perceived as helplessness. I mean let’s be honest, any human being pursued by vampires with super-human strength will be in need of protection !
I like the series for the mesmerising look it yields the reader in the world of atypical, non-canonical vampires. Meyer has done a good job of throwing all vampire stereotypes out the window and starting over. She has proven to be very successful at taking known premise spinning a turn on them and using them surprisingly ‘anew’ in her own story. And be honest… don’t we all like to daydream about sparkling vampires ?
Oh, my post might seem a bit off. I was responding to Mike’s comment, but I have written such a long answer that you guys beat me to the punch…
Hi there,
I’ve been reading the blog here for a while but never commented, but I just finished reading Twilight yesterday (all the hype had me curious) and I wanted to comment.
Mostly I think I agree with Penny; the only real similarity is the books’ popularity. Twilight was a fast, enjoyable and easy read, but there really wasn’t anything to it beyond teen romance and very, very, very pretty vampires.
Victoria, thanks for sharing your perspective! I think my plan will be to approach the series after becoming more familiar with traditional vampire tales.
BTW, I shouldn’t have put quotes around that Stephanie Meyer quote- it wasn’t exact. I was paraphrasing her.
And to get into Bella- I have found her a very disappointing protagonist. Besides the fact that in books 1-3 she is very whiny, I feel like she is a poor female character. She starts off very strong and independent and as the series continues, she loses what makes you like her in the first place. I think she is a horrible role model for females- her message is, if you change yourself enough eventually you’ll be happy. and I have issues with that.
Kat – Hey there ! Good to meet you here and thanks for your view.
Twilight was a fast, enjoyable and easy read, but there really wasn’t anything to it beyond teen romance and very, very, very pretty vampires.
I can agree with you for the most part. What I do like about Meyer’s books is that she is very good at writing character-driven tales. Better than Rowling, Meyer creates a wide array of characters with their own strengths, weaknesses and faults. She has some very good tragic hero’s and some nice nasties.
And she is very good at playing on the likes, dislikes and emotions of her readers. The characters are very well rounded unlike some of Rowling’s characters, especially our own cardboard baddy Voldemort. All Meyer’s readers will be fervently able to name favourite and non-favourite characters in the Twilight Saga…
sorry…. italic and bold commands went wrong !
moderator: I fixed it up!
Penny –
I have not found Bella to be whiny except for the points where she is by intention, maybe that is personal interpretation.
I can see where you might not see Bella as a role-model, but do you not think that is more plot at fault than a purposeful choice of Meyer ? I see Bella as a poorly equipped in the vampire world too, but just because she tries to survive the vampire world human. And as is to be expected, physically she is always too weak and feeble. So to be able to survive and compete, she will in the long run need to change to be equal. To me that is just a premise pothole and doesn’t make Bella any less of a role model.
Victoria- to me, in the beginning of Twilight Bella seems so strong. She is smart, independent, witty, and not swayed by stupid “girly” things. As the series continues to me it seems like she feels the need to adapt more and more in order to make herself feel “worthy” of Edward’s perfectness. I think the happenings in Breaking Dawn illustrate this. Edward only started to appear more “human” to us after Bella was less human (I am trying not to spoil). I think my biggest issue with Bella is the infatuation she had with Edward and her feeling of unworthiness next to him.
Penny –
I guess I’ve just experienced it differently. I have always seen it in the way that Bella thinks that Edward is in-humanly beautiful, strong, gifted and attractive. Which is exactly right, because he is in-human, he is a vampire. And that’s exactly the set of features they are given to prey on humans.
Even before Bella meets Edward she says about herself that she is plain, but never in a way that leads us to believe she is very unhappy about that. Sure, she wonders why she is asked out by boys, but doesn’t mean she thinks extraordinarily negative of herself.
And I don’t think that changes after she meets Edward either, it just gets measured to a whole new standard – the vampire one. I have not had the feeling that Bella wanted to change just because she thinks herself plain or inconsequential next to him. But rather because she doesn’t want to be left out the whole time. Paraphrasing, she doesn’t want to be Lois Lane the whole time and every now and again wants to be Superman too.
I’m not insecure at all, but I would feel the same if I hung out with Twilight vampires the whole time !
I’ve read the first book, and I’m going to agree with a lot of the previous posts. It may be comparable to HP in that it is wildly popular, it’s spawned a film series, some parents/older siblings are reading them with children/younger siblings, etc. (and the film adaptation shares an actor with the HP films, of course). But as a project of myth-making or world-building, and/or as a literary endeavor building on big philosophical ideas and classic moral themes, it’s not in the same league. (To be fair, I don’t think the author ever intended it to be.) Also, I think the fact it focuses so heavily on the romance side of the story eventually may limit its overall appeal in terms of age and gender. I found that the first book grew interesting as it explained the background of the vampires, but when I had completed it, I had little interest in reading the rest of the series or rereading the book. I quite like vampire literature as a whole, but as a matter of personal taste, I find the older material much more compelling. I can imagine scholars teasing out some interesting ideas for exploration in Meyer’s work, especially in terms of the emerging paranormal romance phenomenon and gender, but I’m skeptical that the series will sustain quite the same kind of conversations that the HP series has spawned.
I once heard it called “a teenybopper gothic-lite romance written in purple prose,” and I agree entirely. It’s quite honestly nothing more than a chaste version of the Gossip Girl series, except the author decided to throw in a few sparkling vampires for good measure.
Also, the use she makes of the “mystical Injun” is positively offensive, and it’s no use even discussing the sexual politics of the novel. It would make even the most ultra-conservative woman squirm with indignation.
It’s interesting that you mention the Native aspect of the series, Mariana. It’s definitely gained attention from some Native readers. (See, for example, “White vampire yes, Indian werewolf no” and “Quileutes and Werewolves.”)
i love both series — in Twilight i’m more interested in the vampire characters than Bella — but it does not compare to HP (i don’t know why people continue to compare it — they are nothing alike other than the fact they involve teenagers, some mythical creatures and they’re series)…in regards to Bella, i like her, i truly do, but she is NO hermione granger — to sum it up, if hermione were similar to bella at all — she would have left harry’s arse alone in the woods to follow after ron…
i agree with stephenie — twilight is entertainment — i also read the host and enjoyed it highly — but i wouldn’t call any of the twilight novels or the host literature…that would
the harry potter series creates a new world and i consider it better literature…
just my opinion! (:
I read the first two based off of praise from HP fans. Didn’t like them. The main character was whiny and there was no real pay off for a lot of the build up though I did like some of the more soppier elements if the first book. They were written well.
The fourth book came out a week ago and my sister read it and like a lot of the other fandom, hated the book. If my memory serves we well it was the fourth book in the HP universe that upped the anti on the series and really made the franchise world wide PHENOMENON. There may be movies for these books but it is no where near the enormity of HP. From book four onward there were documentaries about Jo and the series, news reorts weeks in advance about the impending release and records were broken with new book. The Twighlight series has caused a flutter for a lot of the younger female readers that may have wanted Harry and Hermione to hook up but seriously lacks a lot of what HP had, most of that being substance and a heartfelt story.
Oh and the villains make Voldemort look like a complex mastermind of a villain.
If you would like to elaborate I would like to hear more about the things you took offense to in the Quileute plot, Mariana.
Thanks for the links, Amy. I am always particularly interested in commentary and critique, but I must say reading those articles, they rub me the wrong way.
For a first (and they even bluntly state it in the article), it is immediately obvious that the author of the post has not properly read the book(s) as they get their facts wrong. For instance they claim that the Cullens can fly (really ? Did I miss that ? That’s actually one of the things Meyer did away with as compared to Stoker…).
Also the author says that the Native Indian Werewolf is depicted as ‘hairy, snarling, and savage just like a demon’. *cricketsoundsinthenight* I’m sorry, but I’m not even commenting on that. The only thing I’ll say is that Meyer has kept free of overt religion, so the demon comparison is absolutely unfounded.
The second article is particularly bad. After a quote from the book, the only thing it does is offer false information as there is no basis for the comment at all (the Quileute wolves have no non-tribal wolf enemies, don’t know where they got that from…) and ends up with the unreasoned questioning of Meyer’s adaptation of Native Indian lore, which in my opinion she does with verve.
Anyway, not wanting to start Twilight apologetics here, I’ll stop ranting.
I’m not about to defend critics who haven’t read the texts they’re criticizing, Victoria – goodness knows the HP series has drawn enough of that kind of fire!
I simply wanted to point out that in some circles, the Native themes are being questioned and debated.
My sister likes the Twilight books, I’ve not read them. From what I’ve heard of them from her however it doesn’t sound like something I’m interested in.
I only partially agree with Rowling having cardboard characters. I do agree with the notion of her being a plot-first novelist. (Which is a very big factor in the cardboardness.) The reason I partially agree is because she does have several vivid, dimensional characters. Draco Malfoy, Snape, and Dumbledore for example are incredibly deep characters. I would say instead that Rowling’s weakness is with villains. To be gracious however, good villains are far and few between in literature. Usually those can only be achieved by the very best of writers, such as Dickens.
It is in no way, shape, or form the next Harry Potter. Stephenie Meyer does nothing to create any type of fantasy world like JKR has and doesn’t understand her characters – or their manifestations – at all. All she knows is that Bella loves Edward and Edward is perfect. End of story.
i have to disagree that Jo’s villains are weak — Bellatrix LeStrange? Voldemort? i LOVE what she did w/Voldemort — we know his entire history — and Bellatrix is so insane – i thought Jo did an EXCELLENT job creating them…
Amy – I apologise if I reacted too strongly to the articles you linked. I didn’t in any way associate the articles with you personally and hope you didn’t take my rebuttal of them as a personal address, that was not my intention.
Shane – My problem is indeed with the villains. I have to agree with you that creating nuanced, believable baddies is one of the hardest things to do in prose and in my opinion some of Rowling’s just didn’t make the cut. Maybe it’s just the fact that Rowling has created so many characters that some of them don’t get the development and intricacy that they deserved.
I’m definitely not saying anything against Snape or Dumbledore !
Oh, not at all, Victoria! I didn’t think that in any way. I just wanted to clarify in general that I was passing the links along, not necessarily advocating all the positions expressed in them.
Hi, all,
To quote Hermione, “No Way!” There is no comparison. I was interested in they hype and picked them up. I would call them barely entertaining. They need to be trimmed way down, are highly repetitious and actually rather irritating. Bella is a victim, blames herself for everything, and is self-destructive in relationships. Jacob kisses her twice against her will and no one seems to care to comment that that is wrong. It also has some ridiculous points – for example, Bella wakes up in a hospital bed in an evening gown and stiletto heels. It is unfortunate that this series has gotten so much attention. Surely, there is some thing more deserving.
Amy, thank you so much for the links! They were incredibley interesting, even though I found myself disagreeing with the writer on a few points. My reasons for having been offended by Meyer’s treatment of the Native American community differs somewhat from Schmidt’s. Victoria is probably right in thinking that he must not have read the books properly.
What irritated me most about Meyer’s attitude towards Native Americans is the way she perpetrates old stereotypes, stereotypes that are indicative of the general public’s complete ignorance of the reality of the Native American situation. How many books and films have portrayed Indians as wise and peaceful people with mystical powers and and a mysterious connection to the natural world? It irritates many Native Americans to no end, and I feel the same way.
In truth, the Native American situation is a sad one. Many live far below the poverty line, the quality of the education they receive is tragic, and the leading causes of death are generally alcohol related. They are a sad, sad people. Not only do they have to deal with extreme poverty and racism and identity crises of their own, but also with the white community telling them how Indians are supposed to behave. That is why it is such an insult to see all these New Age types assuming “Indian” names, claiming that they inherited “ancient Native American wisdom” and are now one with nature. (Sherman Alexie, a fantastic Native American writer, has a great deal to say on the subject.)
Unlike Schmidt, it really doesn’t bother me that the main character chose her white suitor over the Native American one, as I doubt this decision (while troubling) was based at all on race. What troubles me is how misinformed Meyer seems to be. Perhaps she does know the reality and has chosen to ignore it, which only adds to the offense. In any case, I simply don’t like it.
What is so disappointing for the Twilight series, is that it could have competed with Harry Potter in the great litearture category, but really fell short with the latest installment. Just because a novel has romance as a central theme doesn’t mean that it can’t be great literature (Jane Eyre, anyone?). Meyer’s had set up a strong foundation with some of the same thematic influences of HP, including how choices define our personal character, but scraps everything in the last book just to run amuck with an over-indulgent plot. Penny is right, Meyer did say, this was just about a good story, the problem is, the story wasn’t that good, and once you remove the message, or the “idea,” that there is a message to the book, then what you have is basically a Harlequin Romance competing against Harry Potter and that is really no competition. But fore someone who describes herself as a voracious reader with some very literary types as influences, I find it hard to believe that Meyers didn’t consider what was the message of the books. I guess Jo has just spoiled us with the thought that a novel could be so thoroughly entertaining as a story, and still deliver complex characters and themes. Kind of like having your cake, but getting all of the vitamins of broccoli.
Virginia Mama, very good point: JKR has set the bar really high. Love the last line of description about the cake and broccoli – very well said!
Mariana, Victoria, Amy, Delma, Mike: Thanks especially for your thoughts re: the female characters and Native Americans. Being somewhat of a fan of a critical literacy approach to reading, those issues are always at the top for me. You may have piqued my interest just enough to give it a read – after I’ve familiarized myself better with classic vampire stories.
Shane, Victoria, Michelle, We’ve had some pretty good discussions here in the past about Rowling’s villains, and there’s a lot more to do! I think you’ve inspired me to write out some thoughts on strengths and weaknesses in Rowling’s villains for a forthcoming post. Dave has already done some excellent work, with great follow-up discussion, on Voldemort. Question (for you three, and for all): Who is Rowling’s most effective villain, her least effective, and why?
Has anyone else read The Wolf’s Hour by Robert McCammon?
A Russian werewolf recruited by the British to fight the Nazis in WWII. Just awesome!
Victoria, you seem to be referring primarily to two paragraphs in my posting:
Even Edward’s and Jacob’s symbolism is fitting. Like an angel, Edward the Anglo vampire is pale, immortal, and (if he’s like other vampires) able to fly. That he’s a bloodsucker is beside the point. (Lucifer wasn’t a sweetheart either. Like his Euro-Christian counterparts, he founded a “New World” in Hell where he could rule over the unbelievers.)
Meanwhile, Jacob the Indian werewolf is hairy, snarling, and savage just like a demon. He’s literally a beast-man. So we see the duality Meyer has unwittingly set up. The white character is superhuman and the Indian character is subhuman.
Note the key phrase “if he’s like other vampires.” That addresses your “Cullens can fly” claim. I never said “Twilight’s” vampires could actually fly.
These two paragraphs discuss what vampires and werewolves symbolize to readers IN GENERAL. They do NOT discuss the specifics of Meyer’s vampires and werewolves. For instance, werewolves are “beast-men” by definition: half man, half-beast. There’s no such thing as a werewolf that isn’t at least partly bestial.
Later in the posting, I continue discussing the difference between vampires and werewolves IN GENERAL:
Vampires may be evil, but they’re also larger than life. Among supernatural menaces, they’re the elite. Count Dracula is always more intelligent and sophisticated than Frankenstein’s monster, the Wolfman, or the Mummy.
How many times have dead Indians come back as skeletons, poltergeists, zombies, or demons? A lot. And how many times have they come back as angels, messiahs, superheroes, or vampires? Almost never. (If it isn’t clear, the latter group’s common feature is that they’re superhuman rather than subhuman.)
That was my point. Even among villains, Caucasians get to be beautiful vampires while minorities are ugly monsters. (Blade is the exception that proves the rule.) I bet few authors would be flexible enough to think of Indians as vampires. It’s like thinking of Indians as presidents, billionaires, or Nobel Prize winners–i.e., unthinkable to most people.
Travis –
Good question! LOL — in my opinion, i would say most effective villain Bellatrix ~ she is completely obsessed voldemort and will torture and kill others for sheer amusement — we didn’t even see voldemort do this as much — he killed to accomplish goals and when he got angry (not that he WOULDN’T do it for amusement) but while he was insane and incredibly narcissistic, he was also deeply intelligent — bella on the other hand did very little to display any intelligence or any of her own ideas — she worshipped voldy — she would do absolutely anything, whether its torture or murder, to impress him or further his cause — the torture of the longbottoms, the murder of her cousin (Sirius), the attempted murder of another cousin (Tonks), the torture of hermione — she’s just pure evil — she reminds me a lot of one of those manson murder girls (sadie maybe??) — completely brainwashed but also a complete psychopath…
least effective – eh, i don’t know about that — probaby lucius malfoy — i just didn’t like him – at all — and in the last novel when he was panicking trying to find draco and begging voldy to let him go after harry himself — idk — i didn’t really find that believable — he never showed much fatherly warmth or concern for draco at all in any of the previous books – if anything, he ridiculed him and tried to brainwash him — my two cents!
my favorite villain turned good has to be kreacher or regulas — i was crying while i was reading their story –
Rob – Thank you for this clarification. I am very glad you joined us in the discussion.
Let me first say that after reading you elaboration, I understand your points better. To me it was not obvious that the ‘flying of vampires’ was a comment referring to vampire literature in general as opposed to Twilight specifically. As Meyer has created a series full of vampires, Edward not being able to fly like ‘the other vampires’ made me think you were referring to Twilight specifically and not the vampire in general verse. Maybe you could flesh out the distinction between general points and specific points in future.
Further you say;
Meanwhile, Jacob the Indian werewolf is hairy, snarling, and savage just like a demon. He’s literally a beast-man. So we see the duality Meyer has unwittingly set up. The white character is superhuman and the Indian character is subhuman.
and elaborate by saying that the comment reflects what werewolves symbolise to readers in general. However you bring your point in such a way that I fail to see how this is so. If you will please elaborate some more on your werewolf point so that I will see too.
The way I see it, in your comment you specifically say that Jacob is a beast-man and that Meyer has unwillingly set it up that way. Naturally I could see that people in general have a stereotypical image of werewolves, but when Meyer’s work is read closely, she in fact takes a lot of effort trying to discredit the stereotypical image of the in-humane or subhuman wolf.
For instance as readers we spend more time with human Jacob than wolf Jacob, while at the same time Meyer shows us that Jacob is in wolf form by choice and not because it is beyond his control.
Also, the Quileute lore of the origins of the change of human to wolf is very clearly told and with it we are given a very positive image of the wolves. They are the protectors of their tribes and have only ever done so.
The protagonist Bella even on numerous occasions expresses that Jacob being a werewolf is only another additive dimension to his being and certainly not to the detriment of his humanity. Also, she says;
’ “See,” I explained. “I don’t care who’s a vampire and who’s a werewolf. That’s irrelevant. You are Jacob, and he is Edward, and I am Bella. And nothing else matters.”
His eyes narrowed slightly. “But I am a werewolf,” he said unwillingly. “And he is a vampire,” he added with obvious revulsion.
“And I’m a Virgo!” I shouted, exasperated.
He raised his eyebrows, measuring my expression with curious eyes. Finally, he shrugged. “If you can really see it that way . . .”
“I can. I do.”
“Okay. Just Bella and Jacob. None of those freaky Virgos here.”
Eclipse – Chapter 5: Imprint, page 130 US Paperback
or
”I don’t care who’s a werewolf and who’s a vampire. If Angela turns out to be a witch, she can join the party, too.”
Eclipse – Chapter 6: Switzerland, page 143 US paperback
So even if the general opinion of werewolves is not very positive, Meyer does everything to change that and in my opinion it is therefore not very fair to make Twilight out as another example of a book that reinforces current prejudice against werewolves or Natives for that matter.
Travis – Sorry for the long posts. I will certainly answer your question on Rowling’s characters, but not now…. thesis is waiting to be corrected and submitted
But soon…
“Meanwhile, Jacob the Indian werewolf is hairy, snarling, and savage just like a demon”
that’s not true — i hope to not spoil anything for anyone but the quilutes AREN’T werewolves — they are shape shifters — it is just a coincidence that their form turns to wolves — they could turn to bears, weasels, eagles, anything — this is explained / clarified in Breaking Dawn…
and i completely agree with Victoria’s last post — the tribe aren’t snarling evil beasts — they are the protectors — that is in fact why the are all changing – - due to the large # of vampires in the area, more of them change into wolves to protect more…
How many times have dead Indians come back as skeletons, poltergeists, zombies, or demons? A lot. And how many times have they come back as angels, messiahs, superheroes, or vampires? Almost never.
This is a very good point, Rob. To bring this back to Harry Potter, I think this makes it all the more significant that J.K. Rowling chooses to suggest in Deathly Hallows that Kendra Dumbledore (the mother of Albus Dumbledore, the most powerful wizard of his age and, although fallible, clearly a great heroic character) may well be Native herself.
Have not read the Twilight books, probably will not read the Twilight books (too old for it) but I did read (well, scan) most of the comments above. I came across this review which I thought would hold some interest for those of you who love both Harry Potter and Bella/Edward/Jacob.
Spoiler Alert for those who haven’t read Breaking Dawn :
There are also insights into the real nature of strength. In the fight with the Volturi, Bella learns that she has a super power, after all – not to brawl or kill, but to exercise self-sacrifice and to love deeply. That may not seen like much, but it may yet be enough to stop dozens of attacking vampires and werevolves in their tracks, and sell a couple of million copies in a heartbeat. (John Burns, Canwest News Service)
Sound familiar?
Hmmm… do not quite agree with that, because it’s not self-sacrifice that she exercises, but the ability to extend her shield to protect others with her own powers. But there’s not really a time that she is vulnerable because of it.
Luckily the rest of the article is very accurate.
Here’s the link, for those who want to read the whole article:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=a9fa009d-5f1c-48e7-a113-d7e0fe2e1e03&p=2
{ 3 trackbacks }