Just Setting the Record Straight

Do you say that bitter gourd ice cream tastes like shit just because you like vanilla ice cream? Do you say that Demi Lovato is a lame, Disney freeloader just because you like Vanessa Hudgens? Do you say that pork isn't good for the body just because you like chicken?

No, you don't. You say that bitter gourd ice cream tastes like shit because IT DOES taste like shit. You say that Demi Lovato is lame because SHE IS lame. You say that pork isn't good for the body because IT ISN'T good for the body.

Just like I say that Twilight is a pathetic excuse for a novel, not because I like Harry Potter, but because IT IS a pathetic excuse for a novel. Do you people get it now? Me liking (or loving) Harry Potter (the series, not the character) has nothing to do with me disliking Twilight.

Scratch that. I do not just dislike Twilight. I abhor it with every particle of my animus. And this is, predictably, because of rabid fangirls who just don't know when to stop, who just can't get it when their brainless comments are not wanted, and who just can't get a clue that their aggravating squeals are doing serious damage to my ears.

Those hellish things, I can endure. But when you say that Harry Potter is, and I quote, "a boring and sucky book COMPARED to Twilight," that's where I would have to draw the line. Heck, that's where most accomplished authors and literary circles who laud Harry Potter would have to draw the line.

You have your own opinions, yes, but nobody said that ludicrous statements such as those cannot be reprobated, no?

First of all, literature is literature because it is decided by certain authorities in the field. One cannot just say that a written work is a piece of literature just because it has a plot, characters, setting, etc. Being a bestseller doesn't cut it either, because what does sales mean when the very people who read the book in question have a lamentable taste and feel for literature? What do figures mean when the fans (most, not all, because I do not want to generalize) are anencephalic, shrieking hounds with little to no literary refinement? Nothing. Literature has to have a cultural impact, a lasting impression that would make that work immortal- alive through the years even after its maker has long been dead. Dickens, Dahl, King- those are just a few examples of what I'm talking about. Harry Potter certainly And Rowling sure had earned her rightful place among that level of genius.

Do you want me to prove to you why your statement IS anomalous and unfounded on all angles?

Here are a few evidences.

I apologize for the incomplete data on the awards and nominations of Harry Potter. It was quite taxing to hunt down each and every award that the series garnered. Thankfully, I couldn't say the same about Twilight.

And as for your laughable allegations that (heaven forbid!) Harry Potter is, I quote, 'boring", I can only think of one feasible justification. Your pitiable ability for apperception (read: your pathetic brain ) wasn't able to handle the presence of a plot, proper character development and lack of unnecessary adjectives, hence, you were bored.

It seems to me that Harry Potter will, and I quote Stephen King, "indeed stand time's test and wind up on a shelf where only the best are kept; I think Harry will take his place with Alice, Huck, Frodo, and Dorothy and this is one series not just for the decade, but for the ages."

With that, I rest my case, Your Honor.

P.S. Did you bimbos know that over 72 million copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows were sold worldwide in just 24 hours? This is according to TIME Almanac. How does that compare to your precious Twilight, hm? I didn't include this in my argument for the purpose of maintaining consistency. Just thought you wanted to know.