The Vampire Diaries is Better Than Twilight, Newspaper Claims

Ding! Ding!

It's about to be on between Twi Hards and Diary Devotees.

A few weeks after New Moon broke box office records, and The Vampire Diaries debuted to strong ratings on The CW, at least one journalist is taking a controversial side: he says the latter franchise is superior to the former.

Why does Ari Karpel of The New York Post prefer Paul Wesley and company to Robert Pattinson and his much-hyped saga? He lists a few reasons:

1. Blood and gore: The Vampire Diaries is "a more traditional vampire horror tale than Twilight," Karpel writes, as the movie series focuses more on romance than murder. After all, he points out, the Cullens don't even have fangs.

The Salvatore brothers, conversely, flash theirs on every episode. Moreover, there's a growing body count in the fictional CW town of Mystic Falls. Gruesome deaths, not longing stares, are around every corner.

2. SEX! Simply put, characters have it on The Vampire Diaries. So far, this isn't the case in the Twilight Saga, as the newspaper accuses that franchise of pushing "falsely neutered innocence."

3. Contrasting heroines: Bella is a blank slate, Karpel says. Fans can project themselves on her, but she has no actual personality. Elena, however "sets an example for young girls as a strong-minded woman." She asks questions and appears truly horrified, as most people would, upon learning Stefan is a vampire.

The Vampire Diaries also came first, of course. While people accuse the show of ripping off the movie, it's actually based on a book series that preceded Stephenie Meyer's collection.

There you have it. Agree? Disagree? Weigh in below with your thoughts on these fang-based franchises: Which do you prefer?