Harry Potter, Twilight and the 'It' Factor

[convoyrider]

Hey y'all, long time reader, first time poster. Just wanted to ask what your opinions are on why these two series are so exceptionally popular and what gives them the 'it' factor - that universal appeal, the tag of 'phenomenon?'

First of all, I must qualify, I never managed to get into the Twilight series, I tried, but after the first few pages, terrible, just terrible writing. Potter on the other hand, I totally get the hype. Love it, cherish it.

So what's it about these two series (of recent times) that have done so well both in book form and film and have such dedicated and fanatic followers. What is it that sets them apart from other series of novels. Not just the lowly wannabe novels either, but other novels that have had success in their own right and had film adaptions but never hit the stratosphere like these two have.

I know that when reading Potter, there's just something about it that's so engaging. The rich setting, the characters and even though the story itself isn't entirely new (think Hero with a thousand faces) it's so uniquely its own.

There are other novels that are great and equally engaging that people cherish, but what do you think it is that takes it to that next level? why have these books managed to hit it out of the ball park and then some?

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by convoyrider

Hey y'all, long time reader, first time poster. Just wanted to ask what your opinions are on why these two series are so exceptionally popular and what gives them the 'it' factor - that universal appeal, the tag of 'phenomenon?'

First of all, I must qualify, I never managed to get into the Twilight series, I tried, but after the first few pages, terrible, just terrible writing. Potter on the other hand, I totally get the hype. Love it, cherish it.

So what's it about these two series (of recent times) that have done so well both in book form and film and have such dedicated and fanatic followers. What is it that sets them apart from other series of novels. Not just the lowly wannabe novels either, but other novels that have had success in their own right and had film adaptions but never hit the stratosphere like these two have.

I know that when reading Potter, there's just something about it that's so engaging. The rich setting, the characters and even though the story itself isn't entirely new (think Hero with a thousand faces) it's so uniquely its own.

There are other novels that are great and equally engaging that people cherish, but what do you think it is that takes it to that next level? why have these books managed to hit it out of the ball park and then some?

I think it's something that captures the imagination of readers, and it isn't something that no writer, agent or publisher can plan for.

Not a fan of Harry Potter or Twilight, but I can sympathize with the fan-love. I discovered Rosemary Sutcliff this year. The Eagle of the Ninth has never not been in print since 1954, and has sold 1 million +. I don't know what it is about the book why I love it, just that it caught my imagination . . . and that of a million others.

[Libbie]

In examining these two series in particular, here it is:

Twilight (although I personally do not care for it) captures the feeling of being a teen girl in love, which is a very special kind of craziness. That's why it's so popular with older (as in, not teen) women. Although they are ostensibly not its target audience, they feel serious crazy nostalgia for the very particular, very horrible magic of being a teen girl in love. Also, the first book at least does have some pretty good erotic tension without the sex, and I think that appeals to more conservative types.

Twilight, in my opinion, is well-written in the sense that it nailed two very specific emotional states: nutty teen love and want-to-fuck-but-can't. (In my opinion its many other flaws of craft still keep it sequestered in the "bad writing" category, but that's just me. Obviously lots of people adore it.)

Harry Potter's "It" factor is, I think, far more broad and therefore it's going to have cultural staying power while Twilight seems very likely to fall off the radar a year or so after the final movie leaves theaters. I could be wrong about that, of course. But that's where I see things going.

Harry Potter covers so many more themes that resonate with people on a much deeper level than "teen crush/want to do it but can't." And these themes touch more people than just those who were once teen girls in love AND who desire to re-live that feeling (not all of us do!) Harry Potter explores the conflict between right and wrong (or good/bad if you want to see it that way), and explores the right/wrong dichotomy in several different lights over the course of the entire series. It also explores the trope of one person being "the chosen one," a story that is so much a part of human consciousness that it can be told thousands and thousands of times and we never seem to get sick of it. HP brings in the twist of the hero pushing back against his destiny, though, and trying to tackle his obligations to the universe on his own terms, and that fresh and inspiring twist is very appealing.

I think Harry Potter has far more long-term "It factor" than Twilight, but it's worth looking at a big huge flash in the pan like Twilight to see why and how it generates so much enthusiasm.

[Drachen Jager]

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.” - Stephen King

I think that sums it up.

As for 'it' factor. 99% luck. For both of those books you can point to a hundred others published in the past 20-30 years that are as good or better. They both just struck it lucky.

[Belle_91]

Originally Posted by Drachen Jager

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.” - Stephen King

I think that sums it up.

As for 'it' factor. 99% luck. For both of those books you can point to a hundred others published in the past 20-30 years that are as good or better. They both just struck it lucky.

I agree with what Mr. King said, and I somewhat agree with Drachen.

I personally loath Twilight, but Harry Potter was my childhood.

I tapped into the series when they first came out so I was around nine or ten. For me, you could really lose yourself in JK Rowling's world. She had such rich details from the clothing that they wore, to their funky names, and to how the wizards and witches behaved.

I ate it up and cherished every second I was at Hogwarts.

For me, it seems, that alot of the fans for Harry Potter discovered the books at the right--and young--age. In age where you still somewhat believed in magic, and could just soak it all in.

Even before the movies came out I remember playing Harry Potter with my friends. The swingset on the school playground was where we played Qudditch, and we had a set of rainbow bars that were Haggard's hut...

I know adults love Harry Potter, but I think it's better and really makes an impact on the fans where you can grow up with the character, which is what I did with Harry, Ron, and Harmonie.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Originally Posted by convoyrider

Hey y'all, long time reader, first time poster. Just wanted to ask what your opinions are on why these two series are so exceptionally popular and what gives them the 'it' factor - that universal appeal, the tag of 'phenomenon?'

What gives them the "it" factor is entirely different for each series.

Harry Potter featured a sympathetic character with magical powers set in a fantastical world. The beauty of Potter was that his magic was never more powerful than the problems that beset him.

Twilight featured two hot guys madly in love with a blank stand-in character, so the reader could insert herself in the romantic fantasy.

[LadyA]

As a member of the Harry Potter generation (hey Belle 91!), and someone who spent every birthday watching the films until they started doing them at funny times (they always came out on my birthday week, in the middle of November, and now what do I get? Twilight on my actual birthday! Harsh ) I think the appeal of that was the characters. There were so many, richly drawn characters, that everyone could sympathise with know someone similar to a character. She took the stereotypes - Hermione = insufferable goody-goody, Ron = goofy up-for-a-laugh sidekick, and Harry = ordinary yet uber-special Mary Sue/Gary Stu, and made them three dimensional, and so, so real.

When you compare that to Twilight, where again, the MC was perhaps not the most richly drawn/3D (IMHO), and the only two characters that were remotely 3D (Edward and Jacob) were boring (again, IMO), then you see that Harry Potter is just better. Twilight's strength, as well as the whole teenage angst and sexual frustration, is that it gives you a 'team' - the pale, stalkerish, freakishly old one or the overly muscly, slightly simple/obsessed one with the aversion to shirts - and then you can connect with other fans and read the books just to spend a few moments of joy drooling over Edward's 'liquid topaz eyes' and 'beautiful marble skin' and 'twinkly glitterpeen'.

Okay, I've said enough. I don't like Twilight much, even if the movies make me LOL - overly-CGI'd 'sexy baby', anyone?

[CaroGirl]

I think trying to define the It factor that makes something phenomenally popular is a crazy-making exercise in frustration. Such a combination of qualities is utterly indefinable. Especially when luck and good timing also play their part.

[happywritermom]

I also agree with King, to an extent.
I read the first Twilight book out of simple curiousity about the hype. Yes, the writing was terrible and I have no desire to read the others in the series, but I still couldn't put it down. I was actually a little annoyed with myself for getting so into it.
It's the psychology.
She has it down-pat.
Teenage girls don't just want love. They want exotic, unexpected, mysterious love. They want someone to find the extra-ordinary in their ordinary. Heck, grown-up girls want that. The main character was an ordinary (describes herself as plain, I believe) girl, living with a single father in what she considered a dull environment with no real friends. Then along comes this vampire who chooses her.
HER.
Of all those other girls. What she saw as negative, he found as irresistable and special. And then, Jacob, a werewolf, wants her too. Who could ask for more?
That's the fantasy it fulfills.
Everyone wants to feel special and not many novels hit that perfect combination. Now if the writing itself had been great, the Twilight series might have beome a paranormal romance classic.

Harry Potter plays with some of the same psychology.
Harry is unwanted -- an abused, orphaned, weak, nerdy, misfit, who, it turns out, comes from the equivalent of royalty.
It's like the popper who becomes king.
The story itself is nothing new, but it's her firm grasp on psychology, her incredible imagination and her obvious talent for the craft that elevate it above any novel or series that has even tried to do the same.
Luck is helpful, but even more important is that realization that writing is about more than great plot and words that move the plot along. Psychology and a firm grasp on it is equally important. Both these authors have that.
Meyers is just lacking on the literary end.

[leahzero]

There's been a lot of analysis on what made these two series uber-bestsellers.

Twilight is easier to analyze, IMO. It's a series that draws out the anticipation of a teenage girl having sex with her perfect, gorgeous, rich, powerful vampire boyfriend, while she is sexually desired/pursued by various others. It's pure ego-stroking panty-wetting wish fulfillment, and it was sold to a country that has a conflicted Puritanical-cum-salacious (no pun intended) attitude toward sex.

The MC's most difficult decision is whether to have sex with the hot vampire or the hot werewolf. It's romantic/sexual escapism of the most basic kind. Where Twilight really succeeded, I think, is in defining a genre (paranormal romance) that is essentially a new iteration of category romance without any of the stigma. People who "don't read romance" (meaning category romance) will read Twilight and other paranormal romances.

The success of Harry Potter is less clear, I think. Harry Potter shares classic elements of escapist fiction with Twilight (bland, personality-free orphan is the messianic Chosen One pursued by all). HP also taps into common childhood fantasies, e.g. I am special and there is a secret world out there that recognizes it and will someday call me back. The appeal of a secret world where children have power and importance is at the heart of much children's/MG lit (Narnia, Golden Compass, countless others).

If Twilight is sexual escapism, then Harry Potter is something like growing-up escapism. Kids get to wield power, make decisions, be important, and generally behave like adults, without the downsides of real adults' dreary daily responsibilities.

There is of course more to the two series' popularity than this, but I think these are some of the psychological factors at play.

[The Lonely One]

I don't find either series particularly special, or to have some kind of magical quality that separates these books from others of their genres. Fads are unpredictable.

[gothicangel]

[QUOTE=Drachen Jager;6783810Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.

[/QUOTE]

I think that is incredibly shallow [and says more about how SK views teenage girls, than the actual books.]

If King is right, then I'm either abnormal or an incredibly deep individual!

[gothicangel]

I found an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011.../enduring-love

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

I think that is incredibly shallow [and says more about how SK views teenage girls, than the actual books.]

If King is right, then I'm either abnormal or an incredibly deep individual!

How is it shallow of Stephen King when Stephanie Meyer wrote the books? Do you see some deeper meaning in Twilight (irrespective of whether or not you enjoyed the books)?

[rugcat]

Trying to figure out why one thing catches on where another does not is impossible. It has to do with so many unquantifiable factors, not only about the book, but about the cultural ethos of the time, the timing, and a hundred other things. You can try to analyze it after the fact, but honestly, no one knows. Anyone who could predict such successes would be a billionaire.

Apart from cultural issues, there is the mystery of what is appealing. For example, our Western musical system has twelve notes. If you arrange those notes, along with pauses, you have a pleasing pattern -- a tune.

Why does one series of notes fade from memory, undistinguished, while another combination resonates with such emotional intensity that it lives on forever? Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, for example, or the Irish air Danny Boy.

Why do those particular pattern of notes have such universal appeal? They're not that different than a thousand other mediocre tunes. And I'm a musician. Why can't I come up with one of those?

Let me know if you figure it out.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by Amadan

How is it shallow of Stephen King when Stephanie Meyer wrote the books? Do you see some deeper meaning in Twilight (irrespective of whether or not you enjoyed the books)?

I've never read the books, but as someone with interests in Gothic literature, I have more issue with the way Meyers et al, have 'defanged' the vampire.

Would King say 'all romance fiction is about the importance of having a boyfriend?'

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

I've never read the books, but as someone with interests in Gothic literature, I have more issue with the way Meyers et al, have 'defanged' the vampire.

Would King say 'all romance fiction is about the importance of having a boyfriend?'

I don't know, but he wasn't commenting about a genre, just one series.

[Bubastes]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

Would King say 'all romance fiction is about the importance of having a boyfriend?'

Probably not. He says Nora Roberts is cool.

[AutumnWrite]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

I've never read the books, but as someone with interests in Gothic literature, I have more issue with the way Meyers et al, have 'defanged' the vampire.

My guess, would be that SK has more of an issue with this same aspect, and not romance.

I know I may be alone here, but personally Harry Potter didn't do much for me, couldn't get through the books, though I did see the movies. I can see the appeal of HP to children and parents on so many levels. I think it will stand the test of time much like Wizard of Oz.

Twilight I did read *cough*. While the writing is not good, it does a good job of showing the difficult period of a girl trying to become a woman. No, it doesn't conform to the norm of a vampire, but it appears many are okay with that. I personally don't have an issue with it either - I like to see something from a different angle, and I think Twilight did that. Frankly, I don't think we'll see much more of this series once the last movie hits the theaters.

[Cyia]

Originally Posted by convoyrider

Hey y'all, long time reader, first time poster. Just wanted to ask what your opinions are on why these two series are so exceptionally popular and what gives them the 'it' factor - that universal appeal, the tag of 'phenomenon?'

First of all, I must qualify, I never managed to get into the Twilight series, I tried, but after the first few pages, terrible, just terrible writing. Potter on the other hand, I totally get the hype. Love it, cherish it.

So what's it about these two series (of recent times) that have done so well both in book form and film and have such dedicated and fanatic followers. What is it that sets them apart from other series of novels. Not just the lowly wannabe novels either, but other novels that have had success in their own right and had film adaptions but never hit the stratosphere like these two have.

I know that when reading Potter, there's just something about it that's so engaging. The rich setting, the characters and even though the story itself isn't entirely new (think Hero with a thousand faces) it's so uniquely its own.

There are other novels that are great and equally engaging that people cherish, but what do you think it is that takes it to that next level? why have these books managed to hit it out of the ball park and then some?

You've been a member here over a year, supposedly read the board, and THIS is your first post? After the countless similar threads that have crashed and burned?

Dude... seriously?

[CaroGirl]

I think there's no point in rehashing the debate about which of Twilight or Harry Potter is the best (or the biggest waste of space, depending on your perspective). If we want to discuss the elusive "It" factor, let's do so. But the HP/Twit debate is always so circular it's pointless (see what I did there? round, no point, ha).

[Susan Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Drachen Jager

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.” - Stephen King

I think that sums it up.

As for 'it' factor. 99% luck. For both of those books you can point to a hundred others published in the past 20-30 years that are as good or better. They both just struck it lucky.

No, it's not 99% luck, because if that were true then it means there is no talent or hard work involved. Though I am not into either series, I like what Stephen King said. Confronting fears and finding inner strength is a universal need in audiences attracted to the Potter books. To the teen audience, having a boyfriend is about as good as it gets. These authors used their imagination and just wrote.

Both these authors are talented and that, mixed with some luck, helped them to break into the literary world.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Susan Littlefield

No, it's not 99% luck, because if that were true then it means there is no talent or hard work involved. Though I am not into either series, I like what Stephen King said. Confronting fears and finding inner strength is a universal need in audiences attracted to the Potter books. To the teen audience, having a boyfriend is about as good as it gets. These authors used their imagination and just wrote.

Both these authors are talented and that, mixed with some luck, helped them to break into the literary world.

Yeah, there is certainly some luck involved in tapping into a particular zeitgeist at the right time, but to say it's 99% random chance is not only insulting to every author who does become popular, regardless of how deserving you think they are, but also strikes me as just being bitter: "Oh, my books aren't as popular as Twilight? Stephanie Meyer just got lucky and I didn't."

[Phaeal]

Obligatory disclaimers: HP fan, with major quibbles; "gets" the Twilight thing, but not a fan.

All HP/Twilight-level blockbusters must do one thing: They must hit the right nerves in a large enough core audience for that core audience to start a word-of-mouth tsunami that triggers the literary-lemming phenomenon ("Whoa, everyone else is reading this -- it must be good, and I must read it too! Or at least glance at it.")

With HP and Twilight we have a sub-genre of the mega-blockbuster characterized by deep authorial investment in the story. Whatever you may think about the books, these writers believe what they're writing; sympathetic readers may sense this authenticity and be even more drawn to the stories.

Other mega-blockbuster qualities:

-- The book tells the reader what he wants to believe.

-- The book makes the reader feel in-the-know by revealing big, conspiratorial secrets that are fictional (or ARE THEY????) (See The DaVinci Code, The Celestine Prophecy, etc.)

-- Profluence. What is this? Sheer storytelling ability, that page-turner thing. JKR has this in spades. She had me from Book One, Paragraph One.

Four other factors that reliably create bestsellers but not necessarily the whirlwind HP/Twilight level megablockbusters:

-- Brand name author. (Put "James Patterson" on the cover somewhere, either alone or in company with co-writer in a smaller font.)

-- Celebrity author.

-- Flavor of the month topic.

-- Publicity/marketing blitz by publisher. (This one looks to be a short-term winner, unless the book in question also happens to have the qualities listed above.)

[Mclesh]

Originally Posted by Belle_91

I agree with what Mr. King said, and I somewhat agree with Drachen.

I personally loath Twilight, but Harry Potter was my childhood.

I tapped into the series when they first came out so I was around nine or ten. For me, you could really lose yourself in JK Rowling's world. She had such rich details from the clothing that they wore, to their funky names, and to how the wizards and witches behaved.

I ate it up and cherished every second I was at Hogwarts.

For me, it seems, that alot of the fans for Harry Potter discovered the books at the right--and young--age. In age where you still somewhat believed in magic, and could just soak it all in.

Even before the movies came out I remember playing Harry Potter with my friends. The swingset on the school playground was where we played Qudditch, and we had a set of rainbow bars that were Haggard's hut...

I know adults love Harry Potter, but I think it's better and really makes an impact on the fans where you can grow up with the character, which is what I did with Harry, Ron, and Harmonie.

This. I think Belle 91 gives a good example of why Harry Potter resonated with its fans. I watched my son become immersed in the books, and with the movies coming out yearly, it kept the interest going. (Marketing certainly played a role in the immense popularity, but it was more than that.) And it's not as if her books were completely new territory. Some elements felt like they were borrowed from, or influenced by, the Lord of the Rings and the Narnia series (and probably others out there).

But a generation of kids grew up with Harry Potter, and I envied them. What a gift. J.K. Rowling did a wonderful job of bringing all of these elements -- good vs. evil, mythology, adventure, even romance -- together along with good writing.

My hat's off to her.

(Didn't read Twilight.)