# vampires, who likes them, who doesn't?



## Alex

Ok, so this isn't an "is this cliche" post, I just want to see who likes vampires and who doesn't.  Just so we're clear, I'm not talking the sparkly kind.  If you do like vampires, how would you like to see them portrayed in a medieval european setting?


----------



## Steerpike

I like them fine. I like them to be nasty and brutal.


----------



## Jabrosky

I hated vampires even before _Twilight_. The mere thought of them has always made me literally nauseous for some unfathomable reason. I guess the idea of a cold, clammy corpse sucking my blood repulses me.


----------



## Mindfire

I don't really care for them. Unless they're being killed. Underworld is a rare exception.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

I have never really cared for them too much. I wouldn't say i hate them but they are not my favorite. Interview with a Vampire was really good though, one of my favorite movies ironically.


----------



## ThinkerX

I have to join the chorus here.  I see vampires as being way overdone these days (sorry Ireth). 

Biggest gripeconcerns vampiric feeding, the resulting exponential multiplication of vampries, and keeping all this secret, especially in present day society.  Or if the victims do not rise, there are still a *huge* number of dead bodies, many with living friends and relatives demanding answers.  That sort of thing, even in medivial times, the cops pull out all the stops.  No sane government type, be he present day elected politician or medivial lord, wants that sort of thing piled atop his other problems.  Even really high status wouldn't be enough to forestall some sort of investigation.  The orignal 'Dracula' is a fair example of this.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm fine with vampires in stories.  Just usually not being the central characters.  I don't have any issues with vampires per se, I'm just not that interested in humanized vampires.  I prefer them, as Steerpike said, nasty and brutal.  However, if someone can make an interesting character that just happens to be a vampire, I'm fine with that.  Just for me, I don't suddenly get interested in a story because it's "about vampires."


----------



## Alex

Well, I chose vampires because I wanted to write a war story, something dark and gloomy.  Not hopeless, but...Desperate I guess.  Nasty, brutish, blood-sucking vampires were perfect as an enemy of the other races.


----------



## BWFoster78

I think you'd be better off creating a whole new race.

Vampires right now are way overdone.  I enjoy a decent vampire tale if it's well done, but, at the moment, I tend to avoid anything remotely related to them.


----------



## Alex

BWFoster78 said:
			
		

> I think you'd be better off creating a whole new race.
> 
> Vampires right now are way overdone.  I enjoy a decent vampire tale if it's well done, but, at the moment, I tend to avoid anything remotely related to them.



Thank you for your insight, it's hard not to be original when it's my own race!


----------



## shangrila

I agree with almost everyone else in this thread; they need to be brutal. No Cullen-esque angst, no Victorian-era sycophants, none of that. You could have them as mindless blood drinking demons or even full blown psycopaths (I can't imagine the power to kill at will with no consequences would be healthy for your sanity).


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I think vampires are pretty played out at this point. Ever since _Buffy_ and _Angel_, I haven't really come across any vampire mythos that I find interesting (_True Blood_'s is tolerable, but they've really wasted a lot of potential -- why are we only seeing the inner workings of the Authority in _season five_?). I mean, come on, how can you come up with vampires more awesome than Spike[sup]1[/sup] and Angel[sup]2[/sup]?

[sup]1[/sup]Not counting after season 4 of _Buffy_.

[sup]2[/sup]Puppet Angel is the greatest vampire of all time.


----------



## Alex

Thank you all, but as Foster suggested, I'm going to choose to make my own race.  If you want to help with brainstorming, I posted a few quick ideas in the brainstorming forum .


----------



## Steerpike

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I think vampires are pretty played out at this point. Ever since _Buffy_ and _Angel_, I haven't really come across any vampire mythos that I find interesting (_True Blood_'s is tolerable, but they've really wasted a lot of potential -- why are we only seeing the inner workings of the Authority in _season five_?). I mean, come on, how can you come up with vampires more awesome than Spike[sup]1[/sup] and Angel[sup]2[/sup]?




Angel is a ponce. Spike is cool, though.

I think the big explosion in vampires in literature came around the tail end of those series, but not doubt those and some of the urban fantasy vampire books that preceded them had an impact.

I think what is played out is the urban fantasy / brooding romantic vampire. The genre is probably ripe for a few good books that go the other way, making vampires horrific again. There are a few of those around, but not many. The Orange Eats Creeps actually turns some of the urban vampire stories on their heads.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Don't be too hasty Alex.

Vamps are overdone only because we're flooded with the whiny, "I long to be human", "immortality & power suck" crappy vamps.

If you want to write vampires then write vampires. Don't tailor your desire to write to your perception of the market.

I would agree that a brutal, cunning, lusting for more power vampire is due. But ultimately, write what YOU want to write.


----------



## Alex

T.Allen.Smith said:
			
		

> Don't be too hasty Alex.
> 
> Vamps are overdone only because we're flooded with the whiny, "I long to be human", "immortality & power suck" crappy vamps.
> 
> If you want to write vampires then write vampires. Don't tailor your desire to write to your perception of the market.
> 
> I would agree that a brutal, cunning, lusting for more power vampire is due. But ultimately, write what YOU want to write.



Well, perhaps I could ally the vampires with my race i intend to create?


----------



## Saigonnus

I personally don't really like vampires, like many others. I certainly like them more than zombies; who I feel have zero "ambience" or "personality" however they are portrayed in books or movies. They walk about mindlessly in search of human flesh to rend (why not poodles or rats I don't know) and there is nothing inherently noble or redeeming about that. Vampires at least in many portrayals have a sense of honor or are more choosy of their victims. They tend to live in high style and at least make a show at being human even if they aren't. 

I agree that at this moment, vampires are extremely overexposed in movies, books and even games so I think if you are adding them "just for bling" you should reconsider.


----------



## Chime85

The only vampire story I enjoyed was Dracula. The "modern" Vampire annoys me no end. There is nothing more off putting than having a character look miserable and complain all the time. "I push everyone away, but why does nobody loooove meeeee?"

I would love to see vampires more feral. I imagine something like the morlocs from the time machine, or the infected from 28 days later. Every other kind of undead creature is often portrayed as mindless, so do vampires get special treatment?

x


----------



## shangrila

Try reading the Preacher comics for a different take on vampires. Cassidy is the most unique vamp I've ever seen.


----------



## Shockley

I actually like vampires, to be totally honest. I have an issue with them being overplayed in popular culture at the moment, but I'd love to revisit vampires at some future date and take them back to a better place. Growing up I loved Bram Stoker's Dracula (I had a great edition that had it set up where Dracula's Guest flowed into Dracula) and I enjoyed the Interview With the Vampire film, if not necessarily the work. Don't even get me started on how much I love Nosferatu.

 Also, I'm going to slap myself in the face a bit and take a moment to defend Stephanie Meyer. The books are poorly written and plotted, I'll be the first to admit, but I refuse to give her any trouble over the sparkles. We're always looking for ways to differentiate our creation, and she nailed it. I respect that.


----------



## Godzilax99

Adding in my opinion. I will be more neutral in this. I do like vampire story, but some of them. I hate romantic vampire story where the girl will fall in love with a extremely handsome and charming vampire.. and the best thing is, the vampire actually like the girl not for her blood.. It's like huh?

I do agree with vampires being mindless, crazy blood sucking monsters rampaging the streets and sucking every ounce of blood from humans.. Pretty cool. 

But like what Allen.Smith said, if you want to write vampire, write vampire. You can create a different style of vampire, or just twist the storyline a bit.. Be creative!


----------



## Ireth

I like vampires a lot, as should be obvious by the fact that I've put my own spin on them for my stories. My vampire characters are a mixed bunch: some are the psycho mass-murdering type (some more psycho than others), some have bypassed angst into stoic acceptance of vampirism without giving in to the urge to kill people, and some still struggle with the desire to be human again and not have to drink blood, meanwhile they avoid humans as much as possible.

I'm doing my best to keep the hero of my vampire novel in the "stoic" category; he's very young by vampire standards, which is the optimal angsting time, and I don't want any angst from him about feeding from humans. He very firmly believes that killing humans is wrong, which I think is a bit of a cliche in itself, but he doesn't go around whining about it. I do want him to be actually, honestly tempted by human blood, though, which might be a problem since I don't actually want him to succumb to temptation. The last thing I want him to be is a Marty Stu.


----------



## Taro

i like vamps, but they have to have their own spin to them in any of the stories i read. same with were wolves love em. just need their own spin


----------



## Taro

Ireth said:


> He very firmly believes that killing humans is wrong, which I think is a bit of a cliche in itself, but he doesn't go around whining about it.



reminds me of the tv show Angel.


----------



## nlough

I don't mind vampires, I agree they're a little over done nowadays but I don't mid them. I enjoyed Joss Whedon's take with Angel and loved it, preferred Spike more than Angel, so much cooler, and you never found him brooding. But overall I enjoy the nasty, brutal kind.


----------



## Taro

nlough said:


> I don't mind vampires, I agree they're a little over done nowadays but I don't mid them. I enjoyed Joss Whedon's take with Angel and loved it, preferred Spike more than Angel, so much cooler, and you never found him brooding. But overall I enjoy the nasty, brutal kind.




Hehe Spike was an awesome character


----------



## korabas

I dislike Twilight A LOT! But I used to like vampires a good bit, from Anne Rice to I Am Legend. I think vampires are currently very over-used, as are zombies -- mainstream media seems to find something that is on-trend and then thrash it to death.

For me, thinking of the original Dracula, vampires are purely about sex, seduction, invasion and fear of the other. All these themes have disappeared from the current crop of teen vamp flicks.


----------



## Ireth

korabas said:


> For me, thinking of the original Dracula, vampires are purely about sex, seduction, invasion and fear of the other. All these themes have disappeared from the current crop of teen vamp flicks.



Well, in Twilight's defense (can't believe I just typed that), once Edward and Bella got past their "I need to stay virgin and/or human until marriage" thing, all they ever DID was have sex. Along with all the other Cullens, apparently. And "invasion" was Edward's primary MO -- sneaking into Bella's room, removing parts from her car to keep her in one place, manipulating her in every aspect of life. Meyer just somehow decided that it was *~romantic~* and *~speshul~* for him to do that.


----------



## Lorna

Like anything, depends on how they're depicted. 

I like vampires in: Nosferatu, Dracula, Lost Boys, Vampire Hunter D.

I hate vampires in: Buffy, Twilight.


----------



## Mindfire

I'm still trying to figure out when vampires magically became deserving of empathy. As an example, in the Skyrim expansion: Dawnguard, if you side with the Dawnguard, a league of vampire hunters, you encounter a vampire who tells you that what you're doing is morally wrong. _Morally. Wrong._ And she's not trying to deceive you either. She's serious. She actually thinks its morally wrong for you to go out there and kill the bloodsucking monsters who terrorize men and mer alike. W I could understand if she's saying it just to save her own skin, but it seems she- and Serana, your vampire companion (long story)- actually believe it.

When did it become morally wrong to kill vampires? Killing vampires is just about the most righteous kind of killing there could possibly be.


----------



## Ireth

Lorna said:


> I hate vampires in: *Buffy*, Twilight.



What don't you like about Buffy's vampires?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Mindfire said:


> I'm still trying to figure out when vampires magically became deserving of empathy. As an example, in the Skyrim expansion: Dawnguard, if you side with the Dawnguard, a league of vampire hunters, you encounter a vampire who tells you that what you're doing is morally wrong. _Morally. Wrong._ And she's not trying to deceive you either. She's serious. She actually thinks its morally wrong for you to go out there and kill the bloodsucking monsters who terrorize men and mer alike. W I could understand if she's saying it just to save her own skin, but it seems she- and Serana, your vampire companion (long story)- actually believe it.



Why is it surprising that a vampire says that killing vampires is wrong? Don't vampires have a self-preservation instinct?



> When did it become morally wrong to kill vampires? Killing vampires is just about the most righteous kind of killing there could possibly be.



Only if you define vampires as inherently evil. Whether that's the case depends entirely on the mythos.


----------



## Mindfire

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Why is it surprising that a vampire says that killing vampires is wrong? Don't vampires have a self-preservation instinct?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you define vampires as inherently evil. Whether that's the case depends entirely on the mythos.



Well, if something wants to eat and/or kill you, I'd say killing it is justified, if only for self-defense. As for the vampires of Skyrim, their big introduction is that you walk into a castle and witness them nonchalantly feasting on a corpse. ...So yeah. And while I'm not surprised by the desire for self-preservation, the fact that they can claim it's morally wrong to kill them (without saying why) is puzzling. These creatures practically wallow in their evil. They worship an evil god, try to blot out the sun, and they feast on corpses.


----------



## Chime85

Lorna said:


> Like anything, depends on how they're depicted.
> 
> I like vampires in: Nosferatu, Dracula, Lost Boys, Vampire Hunter D.
> 
> I hate vampires in: Buffy, Twilight.



You read my mind. I much prefer the monster than the human in the vampire stories


----------



## robertbevan

i like a good vampire story. i want my vampires to be like gary oldman's dracula. creepy and old at home, charming and sophisticated when he needs to be, and a monster beast when he's feeding and/or ****ing. 


what i'd really like to see an end to is every vampire story having an obligatory werewolf thrown in. i don't mind werewolves. but i don't want them in my vampire story. i'm willing to suspend my disbelief for one type of fantasy monster at a time.  

and i really really really don't want to see any more stories about a vampire and a werewolf competing for some boring human girl. i'm not only talking about twilight. i've read like three or four books like that recently, and i don't like the trend at all.

i was really digging true blood through the first season and (i think) most of the second. (it's been a while.) but then, of course, they had to add werewolves to the mix, and i quit watching altogether when (you guessed it) sookie started making goo goo eyes at a werewolf.

what's wrong with just having a vampire in your vampire book?


----------



## Steerpike

I do like _Buffy._ Not necessarily because of how the vampires are portrayed there, but because of the show as a whole.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Ok, here's my two cents.

I like Twilight, Angel, Buffy, and all of the other vampire crap ya'll have mutilated. So, shoot me. 

Vampires need to be interesting in your story for them to work. If all they do is grab and suck people dry there's no personality or character there. I like edgy vamps, like Anne Rice's versions - suave, but feral. The Thirst is a decent motivator, but there's got to be another layer or they're just mindless blood suckers - which is ~boring~!

The thing is, I'm tired of vampire stories. I started my RPGing with Vampire: The Masquerade, and that was 10+ years ago. Please, someone, stop the vampires from taking over.

Alex,

To answer your questions - use vamps if they fit your story. If you decide to go with your new race creation then by all means do so. Perhaps allying them with - or hiding them behind - the vampire legend may actually help you in your plot? A secret society shadowed by a secret race. Has potential in my mind.  I hope this all helps, and it's 2 AM and my brain is a bit mushy.


----------



## Rikilamaro

robertbevan said:


> what's wrong with just having a vampire in your vampire book?



I find this awesome, because my WIP has werewolves. I refuse to add vamps. One paranormal species at a time, dag-nabbit!


----------



## Mindfire

Rikilamaro said:


> Ok, here's my two cents.
> 
> I like Twilight, Angel, Buffy, and all of the other vampire crap ya'll have mutilated. So, shoot me.
> 
> Vampires need to be interesting in your story for them to work. If all they do is grab and suck people dry there's no personality or character there. I like edgy vamps, like Anne Rice's versions - suave, but feral. The Thirst is a decent motivator, but there's got to be another layer or they're just mindless blood suckers - which is ~boring~!



See this ^ is a perfect example of what I don't really understand. Why do monsters need personality? Werewolves I get, because they're still partially human. But the entire point of vampires is that the have no humanity. They're soulless demons. That's why its okay to massacre them with impunity. Making them "human" sort of muddles the point and makes them seem less threatening. Or maybe I'm just saying this to be contrarian. I don't know.

I'd consider Underworld an exception to this, however, partly because their vampires are (sort of) science-based instead of magic or supernatural based, which is a game changer. And also because the movie was so awesome.


----------



## korabas

Mindfire said:


> Well, if something wants to eat and/or kill you, I'd say killing it is justified, if only for self-defense.



Again, surely this depends on the mythos behind the vampire. What if the vampire is an infected or possessed human that is driven to kill against it's will? You could kill it, sure, but what if you could cure it instead? Is it morally right to kill a vampire just because it is the easy path? This reminds me of the argument behind whether or not to shut off a coma patient's life support. Well, sort of.

Also, check the story of I Am Legend. He kills the vampires without mercy, under the assumption that they are all violent and evil. The ending of the story reveals that the morality is reversed.


----------



## Mindfire

korabas said:


> Again, surely this depends on the mythos behind the vampire. What if the vampire is an infected or possessed human that is driven to kill against it's will? You could kill it, sure, but what if you could cure it instead? Is it morally right to kill a vampire just because it is the easy path? This reminds me of the argument behind whether or not to shut off a coma patient's life support. Well, sort of.
> 
> Also, check the story of I Am Legend. He kills the vampires without mercy, under the assumption that they are all violent and evil. The ending of the story reveals that the morality is reversed.



Not entirely. If I remember correctly, there were actually two types of vampires: the mindless killers and those who just wanted to be left alone, and he'd been killing both groups indiscriminately. But his mistake in killing the second group doesn't mean he was wrong to kill the other group. 

Regardless, I Am Legend depicts an entirely different scenario from the one I'm referring to. I'm talking about vampires preying on a large group of people, which shifts the morality involved considerably. And even if it is possible to cure them, does that mean you should just let them keep on killing and turning people until the cure is found? That you shouldn't proactively protect your citizens? And what if some of them don't want to be cured, and would rather go on eating the flesh of men for all eternity? Should you just "live and let live"? Of course not.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Mindfire said:


> See this ^ is a perfect example of what I don't really understand. Why do monsters need personality? Werewolves I get, because they're still partially human. But the entire point of vampires is that the have no humanity. They're soulless demons. That's why its okay to massacre them with impunity. Making them "human" sort of muddles the point and makes them seem less threatening. Or maybe I'm just saying this to be contrarian. I don't know.
> 
> I'd consider Underworld an exception to this, however, partly because their vampires are (sort of) science-based instead of magic or supernatural based, which is a game changer. And also because the movie was so awesome.



If all you want is monsters, use zombies. In my opinion is comes down to a matter of sentience. The creature is aware of it's existence, intelligent, and able to make choices that determine it's destiny. We'll leave out the discussion on whether or not vampires have souls, but that's what it partially boils down to. If they meet these criteria, then they're not that far off from us, and therefore, killing them would be wrong. Because they have the power to change, it boils down to the free will.


----------



## Mindfire

Rikilamaro said:


> If all you want is monsters, use zombies. In my opinion is comes down to a matter of sentience. The creature is aware of it's existence, intelligent, and able to make choices that determine it's destiny. We'll leave out the discussion on whether or not vampires have souls, but that's what it partially boils down to. If they meet these criteria, then they're not that far off from us, and therefore, killing them would be wrong. Because they have the power to change, it boils down to the free will.



"Monster" doesn't necessarily mean "non-sentient", see this TVtropes entry: Complete Monster - Television Tropes & Idioms

THAT is what vampires are. Unrepentant, murderous carnivores driven by bloodlust. The only alternative to killing them is to let them go on feasting on humanity. Is that what you're suggesting ought to be done? Why should a vampire get a free pass to murder people just because he's a vampire and "he can't help it"?


----------



## Rikilamaro

In their defense, vampires don't usually view humanity as more than chattel. So, should we all become vegetarians just because the cows feel it's wrong that we eat them?


----------



## Ireth

Rikilamaro said:


> In their defense, vampires don't usually view humanity as more than chattel. So, should we all become vegetarians just because the cows feel it's wrong that we eat them?



That brings up an important point. Cows can't think on the same level humans can; they don't have any knowledge of whether it's "right" or "wrong" that we eat them, whereas humans can make that distinction when it comes to vampires who would feed on them. What say you to that?


----------



## Mindfire

Rikilamaro said:


> In their defense, vampires don't usually view humanity as more than chattel. So, should we all become vegetarians just because the cows feel it's wrong that we eat them?



I'm vegetarian, though not for moral reasons.

Vampires may see us as chattel, but that doesn't actually make us chattel. Vampires are not exempt from moral standards simply because they _think_ they are. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal. If vampires have humanity, they must conform to human laws and moral standards. You can't have it both ways. If they have humanity, they are subject to moral standards and killing them is justified. If they don't have humanity, killing them is still justified because they're a threat that cannot be reasoned with.


----------



## korabas

Also, regardless of whether the vamps are evil or sentient or not -- perhaps the question is whether it is morally right for the humans to kill them on sight or seek to exterminate them, or whether they should aim to kill them only in self-defence (and this includes clearing territories and culling as pre-emptive security). We don't torture prisoners just because other countries might do. (not officially, anyway).
Is it right to kill at all, vamp or not?


----------



## Mindfire

korabas said:


> Also, regardless of whether the vamps are evil or sentient or not -- perhaps the question is whether it is morally right for the humans to kill them on sight or seek to exterminate them, or whether they should aim to kill them only in self-defence (and this includes clearing territories and culling as pre-emptive security). We don't torture prisoners just because other countries might do. (not officially, anyway).
> Is it right to kill at all, vamp or not?



Well this is a survival issue. These things are _eating humans_. That's about as black and white as it gets.


----------



## Rikilamaro

The cows don't see themselves as chattel either. 

Vampires don't have humanity. They're not human. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent and self-aware. They have a different set of cultural values. 

So in your way of reasoning as soon as aliens make themselves known on Earth we should kill them because they aren't human and may be a threat. How bloodthirsty of you. What does that remind me of?


----------



## Rikilamaro

Ireth said:


> That brings up an important point. Cows can't think on the same level humans can; they don't have any knowledge of whether it's "right" or "wrong" that we eat them, whereas humans can make that distinction when it comes to vampires who would feed on them. What say you to that?



How do you know a cow doesn't have that knowledge? They certainly show enough terror at being penned up and slaughtered.


----------



## Mindfire

Rikilamaro said:


> The cows don't see themselves as chattel either.
> 
> Vampires don't have humanity. They're not human. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent and self-aware. They have a different set of cultural values.
> 
> So in your way of reasoning as soon as aliens make themselves known on Earth we should kill them because they aren't human and may be a threat. How bloodthirsty of you. What does that remind me of?



No. I'm saying if aliens make themselves known on Earth and _start vaporizing cities_ they should be killed. And quickly too. Stop manufacturing an army of straw men. Otherwise you're just making it seem like we should roll over and happily let the abominations drink our blood. Which is absurd.


----------



## Rikilamaro

I'm not saying that at all. I am looking at it from the vampire's perspective. You have to understand both sides of an argument to write it well. To THEM it's not morally wrong.


----------



## Ireth

Rikilamaro said:


> How do you know a cow doesn't have that knowledge? They certainly show enough terror at being penned up and slaughtered.



Any creature with enough working brain cells will freak out when someone harms it with something sharp. They would see it as a BAD thing, yes, but "right/wrong" and "good/bad" don't always line up neatly. For example: death (by natural causes as opposed to murder, suicide, etc., which is a whole other issue) is seen generally as a bad thing, and we take measures to avoid it for as long as possible, but I think a lot of people will agree that it is meant to happen to all of us sooner or later, and in that way it is "right".


----------



## Mindfire

Rikilamaro said:


> I'm not saying that at all. I am looking at it from the vampire's perspective. You have to understand both sides of an argument to write it well. To THEM it's not morally wrong.



But how? Vampires may not be human, but they used to be. Did they just forget all about morality when they turned? Or did they choose to ignore it? If the former, then they ought to be reminded. Brutally. If the latter, then their actions fall squarely in the "evil" category.


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> But how? Vampires may not be human, but they used to be. Did they just forget all about morality when they turned? Or did they choose to ignore it? If the former, then they ought to be reminded. Brutally. If the latter, then their actions fall squarely in the "evil" category.



Well said.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> But how? Vampires may not be human, but they used to be. Did they just forget all about morality when they turned? Or did they choose to ignore it? If the former, then they ought to be reminded. Brutally. If the latter, then their actions fall squarely in the "evil" category.



In the Buffy world, at least initially, the idea was that when someone turned into a vampire, it was really that a demon came into possession of their body. A demon with no soul, no ability to have a morality or conscience. Just an evil entity. They looked like the person, had their memories, and so on, but weren't actually just a person who was now a vampire, but something else entirely.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> In the Buffy world, at least initially, the idea was that when someone turned into a vampire, it was really that a demon came into possession of their body. A demon with no soul, no ability to have a morality or conscience. Just an evil entity. They looked like the person, had their memories, and so on, but weren't actually just a person who was now a vampire, but something else entirely.



In that case, killing them is 100% justified.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> In that case, killing them is 100% justified.



Yes, and in that world that is exactly the view the characters take. As a vampire slayer, Buffy won't kill humans, even bad ones, and in general it is shown to be evil and bad to do so (for example, Faith and Willow, two other characters, kill humans and it starts a spiral into evil for them). "Bad" people are left to be tried and judged in the judicial system. But soul-less, evil demons (like vampires) are killed with no qualms.


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> Yes, and in that world that is exactly the view the characters take. As a vampire slayer, Buffy won't kill humans, even bad ones, and in general it is shown to be evil and bad to do so (for example, Faith and Willow, two other characters, kill humans and it starts a spiral into evil for them). "Bad" people are left to be tried and judged in the judicial system. But soul-less, evil demons (like vampires) are killed with no qualms.



...unless the vampires are able to regain their souls (as at least two important ones do), and thus their ability to judge the morality of their actions.


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> ...unless the vampires are able to regain their souls (as at least two important ones do), and thus their ability to judge the morality of their actions.



Yes, if they get their souls back. I felt like this kind of changed a bit in Angel, where they started departing from the initial set up on vampires. Like with Darla, who was brought back, still didn't have a soul, but still had the "human" Darla in there somewhere, causing her internal conflict and so on.


----------



## Meyrrek

I've always preferred the view that Vampires are considered to be wild animals and to be regarded in the same manner as a pack of hungry wolves or a pride of lions. Therefore, you could cover the grey area of Morality and judgment.


----------



## korabas

If the vamps are indeed soulless, evil killers, then yes you would entirely justified in destroying them, if only for reasons of safety. However, there is a fine line here - if we go out of our way to eradicate them does that not bring us closer to their actions, in terms of morality and ethics?

Also, in fiction you would need to consider your characters. Some might be prepared to hunt out and destroy vampires, but most regular people would not have the will to do this outside of self defense, even if it makes sense. Killing living things (or in this case, un-living) is HARD, and will have psychological effects.


----------



## mbartelsm

I love them (with the exception of the tinkerbell/vampire halfbreed).
I find the hole concept of immortality quite interesting, how do they feel time? how do they plan their stuff? do they feel a day as five minutes or simply as a day? is their age an important variable to the previous questions?
That with their mystical powers and weaknesses combined (such as their weakness to the sun and having to be invited to a huose in order to enter, or how in many stories they can hide in shadows), it is all fascinating!
But as much as I like them, I prefer to see them in low fantasy rather than high, vampires are the kind of thing that gives spice to THIS world, even if they don't exist.


----------



## Addison

I like classic vampires. Vlad Dracula a prime example. Vampires today, Twilight being the example, not so much. One because....i can't explain it but I couldn't get through the first book of the series. The werewolves, while the chemistry between them and vampires was interesting, and their inter-pack government was interesting as well was very nice but they didn't follow the full moon thing. Vampires have been stereotyped. One author started the trend and authors followed, brushing and sanding to fit their story, and now authors today are following that example. Being a writer or partially, almost majorly, about being original.


----------



## Rullenzar

Check out the movie "Priest" or "The Priest" its one of those. It's a pretty nice take on brutal animalistic vamps that have a hive queen controlling them.

Also the movie 30 days of night. Them some nasty vamps there too.

I have to agree with the spike and angel take. The stories they have are hard to top as they touch base on almost everything. At this point to write a good vampire book you have to completely think outside of the box and recreate them in a different way, different characteristics etc... 

Twilight author tried to do this and although there are diehard fans of it, i think its completely absurd. Twinkle twinkle


----------



## Endymion

Love Dracula.
Hate sparkly ones.


----------



## Zero Angel

I love vampires! 

Not so much angsty ones though...


----------



## korabas

Speaking of decent vampire movies, has anyone since the fairly recent film 'Stakeland'? It's a bit like 'The Road' but with vampires and lots of violence. It's a pretty good film, and the vamps in it are VERY cool (and not at all sparkly)


----------



## rockman

I don't like modern vampires at all, except for the Buffy and Angel series. 

The old type of vampires are much more interesting. They slashed their victims throats with long fingernails instead of using fangs, they couldn't enter peoples homes without being invited, and they were grotesque looking. Then when you wanted to kill them, you had to stake them, cut off their heads, then burn them and scatter their ashes. Some types even had two hearts. They were much more vicious and harder to kill.

You can find old vampire legends in almost any culture, and most of them are pretty cool (and none of them have sparkly vampires).


----------



## Zero Angel

As far as the morality of killing vampires, I try to turn this on its head with a short story I recently wrote. In it, I have a hunter pursuing a blood magus (which is a magickian that uses blood magick and almost inevitably corrupts into a vampire). Both the hunter and the blood magus used to be partners in an undead hunting business until the magicker eventually turned to blood magick to get them out of dicey situations. 

Although the blood magus believes his old friend is justified morally in pursuing him, he also believes he is mistaken because he has not gone too far into the blood to come out yet.

Anyway, long short story short, it is revealed that the hunter has been paid by some powerful undead to pursue the blood magus and force him to use more and more blood magick. The hunter is very hedonistic and knows that his friend will not kill him until he has progressed over into the vampire level of blood magick, at which point his contract will be over with the powerful undead and he will try actually try to kill the blood magus/vampire. 

So here the hunter is deliberately forcing his friend to turn into a vampire before he kills him...although it's not like he has any shred of morality in the first place--he does it all for money.


----------



## Mindfire

Zero Angel said:


> As far as the morality of killing vampires, I try to turn this on its head with a short story I recently wrote. In it, I have a hunter pursuing a blood magus (which is a magickian that uses blood magick and almost inevitably corrupts into a vampire). Both the hunter and the blood magus used to be partners in an undead hunting business until the magicker eventually turned to blood magick to get them out of dicey situations.
> 
> Although the blood magus believes his old friend is justified morally in pursuing him, he also believes he is mistaken because he has not gone too far into the blood to come out yet.
> 
> Anyway, long short story short, it is revealed that the hunter has been paid by some powerful undead to pursue the blood magus and force him to use more and more blood magick. The hunter is very hedonistic and knows that his friend will not kill him until he has progressed over into the vampire level of blood magick, at which point his contract will be over with the powerful undead and he will try actually try to kill the blood magus/vampire.
> 
> So here the hunter is deliberately forcing his friend to turn into a vampire before he kills him...although it's not like he has any shred of morality in the first place--he does it all for money.



See I'm not sure that story is applicable here for two reasons:
1. The blood magus isn't actually a vampire yet.
2. The hunter is an amoral jerk anyway, so whether killing a vampire is wrong or not would be for him a drop in the moral bucket. He's got bigger issues morally for that to much matter now.


----------



## Zero Angel

Mindfire said:


> See I'm not sure that story is applicable here for two reasons:
> 1. The blood magus isn't actually a vampire yet.
> 2. The hunter is an amoral jerk anyway, so whether killing a vampire is wrong or not would be for him a drop in the moral bucket. He's got bigger issues morally for that to much matter now.


I may have given away too much of the story in my description. On the surface, the hunter appears to be a moral character and there is little distinction made between a blood magus and a vampire--other than a name--to the reader at first. The story is written to lead the reader to view the blood magus as a bloodthirsty monster and the hunter as a stalwart hero that is forced to hunt down his one-time-friend, with only minor clues that the roles are actually reversed until some monster-like-qualities of the hunter are revealed and some hero-like-qualities of the blood magus are revealed.


----------



## BeigePalladin

I like vampires. I like the idea of them, I like what can be done with them. as for what type, I can't say I have a prefrence - so long as its not stupid and well written


----------



## SeverinR

Vampires?  They suck.



Lorna said:


> Like anything, depends on how they're depicted.
> 
> I like vampires in: Nosferatu, Dracula, Lost Boys, Vampire Hunter D.
> 
> I hate vampires in: Buffy, Twilight.



Exactly,
Teen vampire shows are cliche and played out, but there are millions of other ways to create a vampire.

Interview with a vampire, Dracula, Let me in, not the traditional cliche vampire story.

You can use a stereotypical vampire in a unique story, or a special vampire in a unique role. 
How about a vampire in a world war?  How about a story like man without a face but he's uninjured but a vampire that wants to be left alone?

There is no prohibited cliche, just ruts that writers seem to get stuck in.

"Are humans cliche? They have been written about since the dawn of mankind"


----------



## Steerpike

How can Dracula not be the traditional vampire story?

Buffy and Angel are way better than Vampire Hunter D, in my view. There's nothing wrong with those kinds of vampire stories. To some extent, the comparison is misplaced because the former are more comedy/drama presentations. Nosferatu, Dracula, Interview, and so on are not meant to be comedic. 

I'm of the opinion that any and all of the above are open to being done and done well.


----------



## Reaver

Twilight set back vampire stories by a thousand years. Meyer wrecked the whole genre for me.


----------



## Steerpike

Reaver said:


> Twilight set back vampire stories by a thousand years. Meyer wrecked the whole genre for me.



Then you'll be sorry to see another huge publishing deal for something that began as Twilight fanfic:

Twilight Fan Fiction History of Gabriel


----------



## Svrtnsse

I put vampires in my world. For now, they don't have any actual place in any of the stories I'm writing but I put them in anyway. The short summary is:


> The vampire is one of the strangest and most mysterious beings known on Aua. Partially aether-based, it is a parasite that lodges itself between its host's physical body and its soul, creating the type of being that's commonly referred to as the vampire. These vampires are creatures of the night; they're over-sensitive to light and they feed on blood. They're powerful magic wielders, they don't die of old age and they're almost impossible to get rid of.


The entire article can be read here.

I hope it's okay I'm posting a link instead of the entire article. If not, please let me know and it won't happen again.


----------



## Zero Angel

Reaver said:


> Twilight set back vampire stories by a thousand years. Meyer wrecked the whole genre for me.



I disagree Reaver. I think Twilight set back the cultural appetite of teenage girls a thousand years or so (or at least those that succumb to it), but it's kind of like any press is good press. The fact that Twilight brought vampires and werewolves mainstream means that stories about them (even monstrous ones) are much more likely to be picked up and considered than they might have been before. 

Is there a stigma around vampires and werewolves now that may prevent people from approaching them...yes I do agree with this. But well, a different stigma has been around the entire fantasy genre for as long as I can remember and the work of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings (the movies, not the books), Twilight and comic books amongst others has been slowly making fantasy one of the most accepted and competitive genres out there. 

...at least amongst people that pay for it (publishers, producers, etc).


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> I disagree Reaver. I think Twilight set back the cultural appetite of teenage girls a thousand years or so (or at least those that succumb to it), but it's kind of like any press is good press.



I agree with the latter part of the sentence, but not the former. Some teen girls who liked Twilight went on to read more substantive fare. And, of course, millions of adults from early twenties through at least their 50s in age, were also fans of Twilight.


----------



## Svrtnsse

As long as it gets people reading it can't be all bad.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> I agree with the latter part of the sentence, but not the former. Some teen girls who liked Twilight went on to read more substantive fare. And, of course, millions of adults from early twenties through at least their 50s in age, were also fans of Twilight.



Well, if they went on to read more substantive fare then they didn't succumb to it, right? 

I'll go further. It's OK to like Twilight--I like some B movies for that matter--but please don't think that Twilight is good.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> Well, if they went on to read more substantive fare then they didn't succumb to it, right?
> 
> I'll go further. It's OK to like Twilight--I like some B movies for that matter--but please don't think that Twilight is good.



That raises another interesting question - if the purpose is to entertain, and if you read it and like it (i.e. are entertained), then isn't it good, at least by some measurement? 

In any event, I submit the hate for Twilight is about 1000x beyond what is warranted. I'm not the best judge, since I don't like those kinds of stories as a rule, but I read the first book and it wasn't nearly as bad as everyone makes out. The writing was competent, but mediocre. Nothing stood out. But she apparently did a very good job of creating characters that fans engage with and care about. That's probably the biggest battle for an author, and I know a lot of people who are technically very good writers, much better than Meyer, who will never be able to achieve that


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Zero Angel said:


> Well, if they went on to read more substantive fare then they didn't succumb to it, right?
> 
> I'll go further. It's OK to like Twilight--I like some B movies for that matter--but please don't think that Twilight is good.



"Good" is a 100% subjective term. There is no such thing as objectively good. If someone thinks Twilight is good, they're not wrong. (They're also not right, because it's not something you can be right or wrong about.)


----------



## Zero Angel

Really don't like arguments about semantics, but the definition of good that I was implying was "high-quality". 

In this sense, a B movie is not "good", but can be enjoyable.


----------



## Zero Angel

Also, I agree with Steerpike that the hate is much more than deserved. I think it deserves apathy more than anything.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> The writing was competent, but mediocre.








Some disagree.


----------



## Steerpike

That's almost all subjective, Mindfire. And almost all stupid.

Look, for example, at the one thing that arguably may not be subjective: "It was seventy-five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue." Nothing wrong with that sentence.

The image you posted above makes my point perfectly, because the criticisms are so nitpicky and so asinine as to make the reviewer look like a fool, imo.


----------



## Zero Angel

Mindfire said:


> Some disagree.


That was awesome.

I do agree with Steerpike, but I loved seeing the write-up. Are there more write-ups out there like this of famous published works? I imagine there are from the classics to today.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> That was awesome.



Please. The reviewer is obviously a fool with an axe to grind just because it is Twilight. You could do that with any work; it's all a bunch of subjective nonsense. If Twilight had never been written, and someone posted that piece in the showcase here, for example, anyone who says that the above would be reflective of their reaction to it is being less than honest.

If I had written something like that, for some reason, and those were the comments I got back from a reviewer, I wouldn't change any of it. That's how bad of a review it is.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> Please. The reviewer is obviously a fool with an axe to grind just because it is Twilight. You could do that with any work; it's all a bunch of subjective nonsense. If Twilight had never been written, and someone posted that piece in the showcase here, for example, anyone who says that the above would be reflective of their reaction to it is being less than honest.
> 
> If I had written something like that, for some reason, and those were the comments I got back from a reviewer, I wouldn't change any of it. That's how bad of a review it is.



I was a little too lazy there and I edited my post after seeing yours. I meant it was awesome for its entertainment value, not as a review. I would fire a reviewer that sent that back to me. I assumed it was meant for entertainment. It also seemed unduly harsh. 

I agreed that she didn't seem terrified and that "affectionately" would have sounded better, but the rest appeared to just be attacking for attacking's sake.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> I was a little too lazy there and I edited my post after seeing yours. I meant it was awesome for its entertainment value, not as a review. I would fire a reviewer that sent that back to me. I assumed it was meant for entertainment. It also seemed unduly harsh.
> 
> I agreed that she didn't seem terrified and that "affectionately" would have sounded better, but the rest appeared to just be attacking for attacking's sake.



That's a good point, and yes I was just thinking the same thing - which is that it is kind of a joke review meant to be funny and not serious.

I saw some similar things on writing forums with respect to the Harry Potter books when that was at the height of its popularity, where someone would pick a passage from the book, beginning, end, or middle, and just go through redlining the whole thing. It really is silly. Much of it was meant to be funny, and in a way it illustrates the subjective nature of critiques generally. But I saw a few that I felt really were intended to slam Rowling and to try to make the reviewer look clever. They invariably had the opposite effect. Personally, I'm happy to see an unknown writer have a huge hit right out of the gate, whether I like the work or not. 

But I think you're right - the review was probably meant to be a joke from the start. At first it just seemed unduly harsh, as you note, but upon reflection it would be impossible for any reasonable person to take it seriously, so I'll assume it was meant to be over-the-top and silly from the outset.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Please. The reviewer is obviously a fool with an axe to grind just because it is Twilight. You could do that with any work; it's all a bunch of subjective nonsense. If Twilight had never been written, and someone posted that piece in the showcase here, for example, anyone who says that the above would be reflective of their reaction to it is being less than honest.
> 
> If I had written something like that, for some reason, and those were the comments I got back from a reviewer, I wouldn't change any of it. That's how bad of a review it is.



I disagree Steerpike. Sorry. I tend to be very nitpicky with my criticisms both of self and others. More nitpicky than this reviewer usually. And yes if this piece had been posted in Showcase I can honestly say I would have made similar remarks if not the exact same ones. But maybe I'm just a dick. 

Now I can't speak to the intention of the original reviewer, so maybe it was just meant to be entertaining. But what can be said is that this first page is dry. Extremely so. Intolerably so for a modern novel I think. I would likely not read on.


----------



## Mindfire

Oh, and it should be noted that what you saw is not the entire review, there's more and its more substantial. 
Superhero NationÂ» A Glimpse into the Editor’s Office: Editing Twilight


----------



## Mindfire

Also this: Superhero NationÂ» Editing Errors in Twilight


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Intolerably so for a modern novel I think. I would likely not read on.



That may be so, but I think based on the success of the novel, there were plenty of people who did read on. The vast majority of novelists, including your favorites and mine, will never even come close to acquiring the same size audience. It's a real rarity.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> That may be so, but I think based on the success of the novel, there were plenty of people who did read on. The vast majority of novelists, including your favorites and mine, will never even come close to acquiring the same size audience. It's a real rarity.



A fact which I have yet to fathom. Did you see the other posts with links to the _rest_ of the criticism? I think you'll have a better opinion of the reviewer if you look at the whole thing rather than the small snippet I posted.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> A fact which I have yet to fathom. Did you see the other posts with links to the _rest_ of the criticism? I think you'll have a better opinion of the reviewer if you look at the whole thing rather than the small snippet I posted.



I doubt it. I've read the entire book and formed my own opinion. I don't need someone to tell me what to think about it. As I said above, the writing was mediocre. Nothing great, but certainly not horrible. Meyer was able to create a story and characters that resonated with readers, however. There is a difference between story-telling ability and writing ability. If you have the former, you can gain an audience even without the latter. If you don't have the former, stellar writing ability won't save you.


----------



## Shockley

As technically poor a writer as Meyer may be (I use that as opposed to 'good' or bad'), she's better at it than some of the people that half of this forum would go to the grave defending (bluntly, Christopher Paolini and Megan Lindholm/Robin Hobb). 

 In addition, I'm surprised at some of the hate I do see from people working in fantasy, as we are probably the most maligned group of fiction writers in existence.  

 Every criticism of Meyer I've heard seems to be couched in either jealously or resentment. 'Vampires don't sparkle' is the dumbest one, as I alluded way back in the opening posts of this thread. It just means that she took something traditional and made it unique - something each and every writer on this forum struggles with in some way. 'Bella is a blank slate' is second dumbest - it just means that she found an extremely effective way for every female reader of that book to relate with her main character.

 I don't like Twilight - I just don't. But I feel no need to tear down Meyer.


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> Every criticism of Meyer I've heard seems to be couched in either jealously or resentment.



Bingo.

I've made that point as well, and I do think it is true. I also agree re: Paolini - in terms of writing ability, he may be the worst I've come across. But, that said, he was also able to gain and hold an audience.

I don't think it is necessary to tear down any writer. It is hard work; often solitary. Many/most writers experience varying degrees of insecurity about their work. Many are introverts by nature and have a hard time putting their creative output up for inspection. When a fellow aspiring professional writer goes from aspiring to having done it, I'm pretty happy about it. 

Meyer went from an unknown to a tremendous first book deal. She had some good feedback and teachers along the way (David Farland, who wrote the Runelord books, among others, and also taught Brandon Sanderson), but we all stand on the shoulders of others, as they say. I say good for her.


----------



## Ireth

Shockley said:


> 'Bella is a blank slate' is second dumbest - it just means that she found an extremely effective way for every female reader of that book to relate with her main character.



Not to derail the thread too much, but it's exactly that blank-slate character, that ease of slipping into her shoes, which makes the series so unhealthy and despised in many people's eyes. If girls slip into Bella's shoes, they insert themselves into a relationship of emotional manipulation and abuse masquerading as a romance. Many of those girls are grounded firmly enough in reality to not take that sort of thing to heart, but how many other teens and preteens wish they had a boyfriend "just like Edward"?

*steps off of her soapbox*


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> Not to derail the thread too much, but it's exactly that blank-slate character, that ease of slipping into her shoes, which makes the series so unhealthy and despised in many people's eyes. If girls slip into Bella's shoes, they insert themselves into a relationship of emotional manipulation and abuse masquerading as a romance. Many of those girls are grounded firmly enough in reality to not take that sort of thing to heart, but how many other teens and preteens wish they had a boyfriend "just like Edward"?



This presumes the reader is a complete idiot. Never a good thing for a writer to do 

And pointing to the exception is no different than any other argument that has been used to censor art, music, literature, and the like for many years (i.e. a small minority might take it wrong, so it's bad).


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> This presumes the reader is a complete idiot. Never a good thing for a writer to do



Apologies if I offended anyone.


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> Apologies if I offended anyone.



I don't think anyone is offended, but you have to admit that when that kind of criticism is thrown out there, what the person making the statement is basically saying is "OK, sure, I get it because I'm clever and smart, but we've got to think of all the morons who won't get it!"

I think it is a bad assumption to make. I've heard the argument made regarding Bella _ad naseum_, and I have yet to see a shred of evidence to back up the concern.


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> I think it is a bad assumption to make. I've heard the argument made regarding Bella _ad naseum_, and I have yet to see a shred of evidence to back up the concern.



The argument that she's a blank slate, or that her relationship with Edward is unhealthy? I could find several examples pointing to the latter. But I think that's a discussion best left to another thread.


----------



## Shockley

Two points in response:

 1. If we're worried about the social ramifications of our fictional works, we might as well hang it up right now.

 2. It's not our place to decide what someone else should or should not want in a relationship.


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> The argument that she's a blank slate, or that her relationship with Edward is unhealthy? I could find several examples pointing to the latter. But I think that's a discussion best left to another thread.



Yes, that argument. I'm not talking about pointing to examples of the argument, but to some evidence actually substantiating the effects that those who make the argument claim.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> As technically poor a writer as Meyer may be (I use that as opposed to 'good' or bad'), she's better at it than some of the people that half of this forum would go to the grave defending (bluntly, Christopher Paolini and Megan Lindholm/Robin Hobb).



Defend Christopher Paolini? That's a good one. I read his books as motivational material. Never heard of Lindholm and Hobb.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Defend Christopher Paolini? That's a good one. I read his books as motivational material. Never heard of Lindholm and Hobb.



Megan Lindholm and Robin Hobb are the same person. She's sold a large number of books since about the mid- to late 1980s. I have one of her Robin Hobb books in my to-read pile somewhere. The Assassin's Apprentice stuff.


----------



## Shockley

Plenty of people would proudly defend Paolini. I think they're wrong on a lot of levels, but he's far from universally maligned.


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> Plenty of people would proudly defend Paolini. I think they're wrong on a lot of levels, but he's far from universally maligned.



I'm pretty sure there are a number of fans of Eragon and others in the series on these very forums.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Yes, that argument. I'm not talking about pointing to examples of the argument, but to some evidence actually substantiating the effects that those who make the argument claim.



I can't say if Twilight will encourage teen girls to seek out abusive relationships. I certainly hope no one out there is that stupid. But if they are... natural selection?

Anyway, regardless of the effect, my biggest "ick factor" with Twilight is that her relationship with Edward is unhealthy... and the book doesn't even notice. I know you've heard the "watches her while she sleeps" thing before, but its still creepy. And yet the book ostensibly makes it out to be romantic. Also, Bella rejects a genuinely nice person for a self-described vicious undead killer (although thats sort of an informed attribute) and the book seems oblivious to the fact that that's _not a good decision_. It's one thing to be disconnected from reality, but this series seems disconnected from logic altogether.


----------



## Shockley

I was going to make this point earlier, but I totally forgot.

 Books are meant to be read; writing is only the act that gets them to the place where they can be read. In that sense, Meyer has been extremely successful in accomplishing the prime purpose of putting out a book. We can diss on the writing, the content, etc. whatever, but we do that as writers of books first and readers second.

 That's why we'll never understand the Twilight fanbase, fundamentally.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I'm pretty sure there are a number of fans of Eragon and others in the series on these very forums.



Well that's interesting. Maybe we should start a thread about that next. Also, I think I've found the one argument that can convince me to support fan-fiction.


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> Anyway, regardless of the effect, my biggest "ick factor" with Twilight is that her relationship with Edward is unhealthy... and the book doesn't even notice. I know you've heard the "watches her while she sleeps" thing before, but its still creepy. And yet the book ostensibly makes it out to be romantic. Also, Bella rejects a genuinely nice person for a self-described vicious undead killer (although thats sort of an informed attribute) and the book seems oblivious to the fact that that's _not a good decision_. It's one thing to be disconnected from reality, but this series seems disconnected from logic altogether.



^ This. It's not that the book is oblivious to the badness of the relationship, it's that it paints the relationship as beautiful and healthy and perfect and dazzling. Which, in a nutshell, is why I hate it. But I'm one person out of ~7 billion, so take my two cents or leave them as you will.


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> It's not that the book is oblivious to the badness of the relationship, it's that it paints the relationship as beautiful and healthy and perfect and dazzling.



I think this is a false statement.

You're getting the book through Bella's POV, and you see how she feels about things. It is up to you to decide if she is right or not.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I think this is a false statement.
> 
> You're getting the book through Bella's POV, and you see how she feels about things. It is up to you to decide if she is right or not.



I think that's letting the author off too easy. Either the relationship is supposed to seem creepy or its supposed to seem perfectly romantic. If the former, the writer failed somewhere because all Twifans see in Edward is a knight in sparkling armor. If the latter, then both the author and the book have serious issues.


----------



## Shockley

I think we should bear in mind that what is 'normal' and what is 'creepy' are purely subjective.

 For some people, writing fantasy would be extremely creepy.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I think that's letting the author off too easy. Either the relationship is supposed to seem creepy or its supposed to seem perfectly romantic. If the former, the writer failed somewhere because all Twifans see in Edward is a knight in sparkling armor. If the latter, then both the author and the book have serious issues.



I don't agree. That's letting the reader off too easy. There's nothing wrong with an author throwing something out there and letting the reader draw conclusions. Some of the greatest works of literature do just that, without the author intruding and saying "now, you're supposed to think X, Y, or Z."


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Shockley said:


> Every criticism of Meyer I've heard seems to be couched in either jealously or resentment.



You must not have heard very many, then. I've seen a number of criticisms that focus on things like the fact that Bella and Edward are in what is pretty clearly an abusive relationship, and yet that relationship is lionized as True Love For The Ages, which is an absolutely awful role model for the young women who are the book's core audience. It has nothing to do with jealousy or resentment; it's a perfectly valid criticism of the book's central relationship. And that's just the most obvious one I can think off of the top of my head.

I'm not making any claim about the relative frequency of arguments-that-are-not-couched-in-jealousy-or-resentment, but to claim they don't exist is absurd on its face.


----------



## Steerpike

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> You must not have heard very many, then. I've seen a number of criticisms that focus on things like the fact that Bella and Edward are in what is pretty clearly an abusive relationship, and yet that relationship is lionized as True Love For The Ages, which is an absolutely awful role model for the young women who are the book's core audience. It has nothing to do with jealousy or resentment; it's a perfectly valid criticism of the book's central relationship. And that's just the most obvious one I can think off of the top of my head.



Given all of the books subject to similar criticisms, and what it says about the criticizer's view of the reader, you still have to explain why those criticisms appear with such vehemence with respect to Twilight. And I think Shockley is on the right track.


----------



## Steerpike

Also, I think the jealousy and resentment factors explain why it is that, seven years after the publication of Twilight, most of the original fans of the series have moved on to other books, whereas those who get so worked up hating the book that they can't see straight still dredge it up into writing conversations on a very, very frequent basis


----------



## Shockley

I think it shares the origin, though perhaps subconsciously for the person making it. There are a lot of works that glorify really awful relationships without ever condemning them, and that's rarely brought up in their criticisms (Off the top of my head: The Fountainhead, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Good Earth, The Great Gatsby all have these terrible relationships).

 It seems that the criticism is being applied to Twilight specifically, while other works get a free pass even if they are worse (the prime relationship in the Fountainhead revolves around the love a rape victim has for her rapist, though it's never depicted in such direct terms). I can't buy that it's just moral outrage. I can't.

 Yeah, Edward watches Bella sleep. And Romeo leads Juliet to suicide.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree. That's letting the reader off too easy. There's nothing wrong with an author throwing something out there and letting the reader draw conclusions. Some of the greatest works of literature do just that, without the author intruding and saying "now, you're supposed to think X, Y, or Z."



Well, even open-ended works have clues about what the author believes the right opinion is. I have yet to see a work where there's no clear author opinion. And besides, this isn't a morally grey area. Stalking, abusive and unhealthy relationships? It hardly gets more black and white than that. A reader might draw the conclusion that Edward is a great guy, but that's still a _wrong_ conclusion. And if the author makes no attempt to correct this (which Meyer has not AFAIK, she seems content to bask in the "OMG I LOVE YOU EDWARD I WANT YOUR BABIES" fervor of her fans), then the author is complicit in that wrong conclusion.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Well, even open-ended works have clues about what the author believes the right opinion is. I have yet to see a work where there's no clear author opinion. And besides, this isn't a morally grey area. Stalking, abusive and unhealthy relationships? It hardly gets more black and white than that. A reader might draw the conclusion that Edward is a great guy, but that's still a _wrong_ conclusion. And if the author makes no attempt to correct this (which Meyer has not AFAIK, she seems content to bask in the "OMG I LOVE YOU EDWARD I WANT YOUR BABIES" fervor of her fans), then the author is complicit in that wrong conclusion.



I disagree with everyone you've said here. So it appears we have a fundamentally different outlook on things.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> There are a lot of works that glorify really awful relationships without ever condemning them, and that's rarely brought up in their criticisms (Off the top of my head: The Fountainhead, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Good Earth, The Great Gatsby all have these terrible relationships).



Books I have never read. And now I won't read them. Thanks for the warning. And if what you say about them is true, they most certainly don't get a free pass. At least not in my book.



> Yeah, Edward watches Bella sleep. And Romeo leads Juliet to suicide.


FUN FACT: I've always _hated_ Romeo and Juliet. Every. Single. Version. Of it. West Side Story especially has a distinguished place in my Hall of Hatedom.


----------



## Svrtnsse

This topic got a bit derailed didn't it?

I like what I perceive to be the original idea with vampires: undead, everliving creatures of the night who prey on the living.


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> I think it shares the origin, though perhaps subconsciously for the person making it. There are a lot of works that glorify really awful relationships without ever condemning them, and that's rarely brought up in their criticisms (Off the top of my head: The Fountainhead, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Good Earth, The Great Gatsby all have these terrible relationships).
> 
> It seems that the criticism is being applied to Twilight specifically, while other works get a free pass even if they are worse (the prime relationship in the Fountainhead revolves around the love a rape victim has for her rapist, though it's never depicted in such direct terms). I can't buy that it's just moral outrage. I can't.
> 
> Yeah, Edward watches Bella sleep. And Romeo leads Juliet to suicide.



Yes. I've tried to make this point before as well. If I'm not mistaken, you get a similar dynamic with Angel watching Buffy in the TV show (which I actually like). But, as you say, literature is rife with novels and other works having such relationships. Ah, well.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Books I have never read. And now I won't read them. Thanks for the warning. And if what you say about them is true, they most certainly don't get a free pass. At least not in my book.
> 
> FUN FACT: I've always _hated_ Romeo and Juliet. Every. Single. Version. Of it. West Side Story especially has a distinguished place in my Hall of Hatedom.



This is why it is good that we have the freedom to write and enjoy vastly different works, and why it is good that no single person or group has a free hand to censor what is out there.


----------



## Steerpike

Svrtnsse said:


> This topic got a bit derailed didn't it?
> 
> I like what I perceive to be the original idea with vampires: undead, everliving creatures of the night who prey on the living.



That's how I like them. I think the novelization of _30 Days of Night_ has been mentioned before. That's a nice, relatively recent example of nasty, vicious vampires.


----------



## Svrtnsse

They seem to be portraied like that in the Dresden Files as well. Rather nasty creatures underneath the skin.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> Also, I think the jealousy and resentment factors explain why it is that, seven years after the publication of Twilight, most of the original fans of the series have moved on to other books, whereas those who get so worked up hating the book that they can't see straight still dredge it up into writing conversations on a very, very frequent basis



You're trying to claim that a particular criticism of Twilight is invalid *not because of the merits (or lack thereof) of the particular criticism, but because of the fact that a lot of people obsess over it.* (Or because the same criticism isn't levelled nearly as often at other works that do the same thing.) So what? If I point out that Bella and Edward's love is unhealthy, and I don't point out the same thing about similar characters from some other work, _how does that affect the argument that Bella and Edward's relationship is unhealthy?_

Let me ask you this: Whether or not you particularly agree with the idea that Bella and Edward's relationship is unhealthy, do you really think it's not even a valid topic of discussion, _just because people exist who attack Twilight for no good reason?_ Do you _really_ claim that there are _no good reasons to criticize Twilight?_ Because that's the vibe I keep getting from you.

I agree that, in sum, the vitriol directed against Twilight is excessive; but it is a non sequitur to subsequently claim that any particular criticism of Twilight is therefore unjustified/pointless/irrelevant.


----------



## Steerpike

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> You're trying to claim that a particular criticism of Twilight is invalid *not because of the merits (or lack thereof) of the particular criticism, but because of the fact that a lot of people obsess over it.* (Or because the same criticism isn't levelled nearly as often at other works that do the same thing.)



No, I'm not. Go back and read my posts and respond to what I actually said instead of what you want me to have said. I get that this is a debate tactic, which is fine, but still... 



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Let me ask you this: Whether or not you particularly agree with the idea that Bella and Edward's relationship is unhealthy, do you really think it's not even a valid topic of discussion, _just because people exist who attack Twilight for no good reason?_



It is possible to discuss those aspects reasonable; most of the hate for Twilight, particularly on writing forums, does not do so. Instead, the language used is irrational and over the top, and the person making the argument discards out-of-hand the counter arguments. I'm not talking about a rational discourse on Twilight or any other work. I'm talking about the vast majority of nonsense you see from people criticizing it, especially if they are writers on writers forums. I might add that I saw the same thing regarding Rowling when Potter was at the height of its popularity, although in that case it wasn't nearly as bad as it is with respect to Twilight. If you can't see that there is something else going on in those cases, apart from an objective critique of the work, then I don't know what to tell you. It seems rather obvious to me.



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I agree that, in sum, the vitriol directed against Twilight is excessive; but it is a non sequitur to subsequently claim that any particular criticism of Twilight is therefore unjustified/pointless/irrelevant.



I suppose, then, that is it lucky for me I made no such claim.

Even if someone is making a facially valid argument, I do believe that pointing out inconsistency is an appropriate response. If you believe that works of fiction should only show positive interpersonal relationships, then I've got a huge list of books for you to ban. If you think that fiction read by juveniles should only show positive interpersonal relationships, then I've got a huge list of books for you to ban from high school classrooms and libraries.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> If you believe that works of fiction should only show positive interpersonal relationships, then I've got a huge list of books for you to ban. If you think that fiction read by juveniles should only show positive interpersonal relationships, then I've got a huge list of books for you to ban from high school classrooms and libraries.



Just showing a negative relationship isn't the problem. It's showing a negative one and _passing it off as positive_.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Just showing a negative relationship isn't the problem. It's showing a negative one and _passing it off as positive_.



Again, in your view. The author never intrudes into the narrative and says this is how things should be. It is all told from Bella's POV; the reader gets what she thinks and can make up their own mind. You view readers as passive and unintelligent. I say they're thinking creatures. Even if the author had intruded, hypothetically, and said it was good, the reader can still make up their own mind.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> Even if someone is making a facially valid argument, I do believe that pointing out inconsistency is an appropriate response. *If you believe that works of fiction should only show positive interpersonal relationships*, then I've got a huge list of books for you to ban.



Well, if you want to talk about attacking things people never said... ;-)

And, yes, to be fair, I don't think you've explicitly said that the arguments aren't valid because of the excess hate. The issue is that every time someone brings them up, your response rarely seems to be about the argument itself; your response is essentially "Who cares? Twilight hate is overblown." Which is a perfectly fine opinion to have, it's just not a very useful response.



Steerpike said:


> Again, in your view. The author never intrudes into the narrative and says this is how things should be. It is all told from Bella's POV; the reader gets what she thinks and can make up their own mind. You view readers as passive and unintelligent. I say they're thinking creatures.



Are you really saying that the people who have read Twilight and subsequently have the opinion that B&E's relationship is healthy are actually _thinking_ about it? People can certainly be unduly influenced by things they read, especially if they're young and impressionable. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that everyone is always giving everything a proper amount of analysis in its proper context. When someone reads Twilight and then goes around gushing about what a wonderful love it is, it's pretty clear that they _haven't_ thought about it.


----------



## Steerpike

I think it is true, Benjamin, that not everyone is putting that level of thought into it. The question, then, is whether authors are supposed to tailor their fiction to what the most credulous, gullible, or susceptible member of the populace might make of it? I don't think that's a good approach, either. 

While I didn't care for the one book in the series I read, I don't have a problem with it, either. I have heard the arguments about the relationship, and I think if presented in a reasonable way, that's a valid discussion to have. But the counter-arguments, about what that says about readers, or where we think the author's responsibilities should lie, or the number of works of literature (classic and otherwise) read by juveniles that portray unhealthy relationships...all of those are valid responses to the relationship argument. And by raising those responses you can find out if the person making the criticism is consistent or not. If they are, then fine - they probably have a consistent moral view on the subject and their view on Twilight is part of that. If they're not consistent (and so far no one I've discussed it with is), then there has to be something else going on specifically with respect to Twilight. Doesn't make sense to me. But then, tearing down writes who have become successful doesn't make sense to me, either.


----------



## Zero Angel

Wow. I went away for 24 hours and came back to three pages of new posts! 



Mindfire said:


> I disagree Steerpike. Sorry. I tend to be very nitpicky with my criticisms both of self and others. More nitpicky than this reviewer usually. And yes if this piece had been posted in Showcase I can honestly say I would have made similar remarks if not the exact same ones. But maybe I'm just a dick.


I'm not feeling so lazy about not posting any parts of my writing in Showcase all of a sudden. I'm not saying that I wouldn't tear apart Twilight's writing--but I tear apart ALL writing. Since I became a writer I have not read a single thing where I was happy with how the other people have written it. Still, I don't believe a reviewer should review with anger in their heart.



Mindfire said:


> Now I can't speak to the intention of the original reviewer, so maybe it was just meant to be entertaining. But what can be said is that this first page is dry. Extremely so. Intolerably so for a modern novel I think. I would likely not read on.


I'm all about non-dry first pages, and I do realize that our society as a whole has progressed to having ADHD, but I dislike the first page for the opposite reason. I HATE FLASH FORWARDS. The TV show Supernatural does this all of the time and I'm always like, "what? what? NOOOoooooooOOOoOOOOOooo." I think the flash forward was put there purposefully so that it is not dry and catches the reader's attention, making them want to find out how someone can kill the girl in a friendly manner.



Shockley said:


> As technically poor a writer as Meyer may be (I use that as opposed to 'good' or bad'), she's better at it than some of the people that half of this forum would go to the grave defending (bluntly, Christopher Paolini and Megan Lindholm/Robin Hobb).


That's much better terminology, Shockley. Why do people go to the grave defending things though? I mean, it's OK if someone doesn't like something or if they do and you think it is trash. If we want to talk about specifics and say what caused that dislike or interest, then that is grounds for a good discussion--if we want to just blanket a work by saying it's crap, then that is something else entirely. 

I have not read all of the Twilight series, so I will not attack it other than saying I do not like what I see from their fans. But I rarely care for the obsessed fan in general. Sports teams are much worse in my experience -_-



Shockley said:


> In addition, I'm surprised at some of the hate I do see from people working in fantasy, as we are probably the most maligned group of fiction writers in existence.


I agree. This is crap! Fantasy united!

I think I made this point at some point in the conversation, but Twilight and Potter and LotR and the recent comic book movies are all making our favorite genre more accepted and bringing more talented people into the genre as well. Sure you can say that Twilight and Potter are trash, but I think of them more like a gateway drug. After consuming those and waking up from the daze, you might want something a little harder, a little more dangerous. That's where the rest of the community can be waiting to pounce on them. "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm out of the usual Twilight for the day, how about some Anne Rice?" "Sorry, no more Potter for you? ...have you ever heard of this wizard named Gandalf?"



Shockley said:


> Every criticism of Meyer I've heard seems to be couched in either jealously or resentment. 'Vampires don't sparkle' is the dumbest one, as I alluded way back in the opening posts of this thread. It just means that she took something traditional and made it unique - something each and every writer on this forum struggles with in some way.


I think a lot of the vitriol comes from that they always loved *THEIR* idea of vampires and she went so far in the other direction. To that I say, make your own vampire story then.



Shockley said:


> 'Bella is a blank slate' is second dumbest - it just means that she found an extremely effective way for every female reader of that book to relate with her main character.


I agree, although the blank slate turned into a dullard on the big screen in my opinion. Didn't translate so well.



Shockley said:


> I don't like Twilight - I just don't. But I feel no need to tear down Meyer.


Agreed.



Mindfire said:


> Anyway, regardless of the effect, my biggest "ick factor" with Twilight is that her relationship with Edward is unhealthy... and the book doesn't even notice. I know you've heard the "watches her while she sleeps" thing before, but its still creepy. And yet the book ostensibly makes it out to be romantic. Also, Bella rejects a genuinely nice person for a self-described vicious undead killer (although thats sort of an informed attribute) and the book seems oblivious to the fact that that's _not a good decision_. It's one thing to be disconnected from reality, but this series seems disconnected from logic altogether.


Well. Here's the thing. The difference between a stalker and a romantic is only one thing. How the receiver feels about the giver. 

If a woman wants your affections, then stalking them, watching over them while they are sleeping, running into them "accidentally", doing S&M or whatever, is all part of romance. If she doesn't want it, then the nicest guy in the world all of a sudden becomes a douche bag. 



Mindfire said:


> Well, even open-ended works have clues about what the author believes the right opinion is. I have yet to see a work where there's no clear author opinion. And besides, this isn't a morally grey area. Stalking, abusive and unhealthy relationships? It hardly gets more black and white than that. A reader might draw the conclusion that Edward is a great guy, but that's still a _wrong_ conclusion. And if the author makes no attempt to correct this (which Meyer has not AFAIK, she seems content to bask in the "OMG I LOVE YOU EDWARD I WANT YOUR BABIES" fervor of her fans), then the author is complicit in that wrong conclusion.


I think I disagree with everything here. If there are clues as to what the author believes, then they are not writing it from the perspective of their character. Unless the clue is the disapproval of another character?

And did the fans' fervor reach that level before he was portrayed on the big screen? I always assumed that the fervor was for the actor portraying Edward, not for the character from the books. Also, this prompted me to form the theory that women like large foreheads. 




Steerpike said:


> I think the novelization of _30 Days of Night_ has been mentioned before. That's a nice, relatively recent example of nasty, vicious vampires.


I did not realize they did a novel about this. I read the first graphic novel (before the movie) and it was an interesting idea, although I did not care for the art style. This is all about personal preference again though. Some people don't like vampires to have mouthfuls of teeth. Some want the elegant count with just the two incisors. Some want their vampires to sparkle. 



Mindfire said:


> Just showing a negative relationship isn't the problem. It's showing a negative one and _passing it off as positive_.


Aren't all negative relationships passed off as positive? If they weren't, then why do they exist?


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Mindfire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, even open-ended works have clues about what the author believes the right opinion is. I have yet to see a work where there's no clear author opinion. And besides, this isn't a morally grey area. Stalking, abusive and unhealthy relationships? It hardly gets more black and white than that. A reader might draw the conclusion that Edward is a great guy, but that's still a _wrong_ conclusion. And if the author makes no attempt to correct this (which Meyer has not AFAIK, she seems content to bask in the "OMG I LOVE YOU EDWARD I WANT YOUR BABIES" fervor of her fans), then the author is complicit in that wrong conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with everyone you've said here. So it appears we have a fundamentally different outlook on things.
Click to expand...

I'd like a bit of elaboration on this point. 

It seems very clear to me that readers are either right or wrong in believing Edward to be a nice guy. I hope we can all agree that they are in the wrong. That being the case, is it not irresponsible on the author's part not to correct this fatal error? If it were only a fringe element of the fanbase that had this opinion, I might understand it not attracting the author's attention. But this glorification of Edward + Bella seems to be at the very heart of Twilight fandom. Ought not the author say _something_ if all these fans are taking her work the wrong way? And if they aren't, if from Stephanie Meyer's perspective her fans are perfectly correct in praising Edward + Bella, then does that not make Stephanie Meyer and consequently her work, _wrong_? Your mileage may vary on where she is on that scale from creepy to morally bankrupt, but she is _on_ that scale, provided her lack of effort to correct her fans is a signal of tacit approval.

What exactly do you disagree with and on what grounds?


----------



## Mindfire

Zero Angel said:


> And did the fans' fervor reach that level before he was portrayed on the big screen? I always assumed that the fervor was for the actor portraying Edward, not for the character from the books. Also, this prompted me to form the theory that women like large foreheads.



Here's a concession I am willing to make. I think my distaste for the books might be somewhat conflated with my hatred of the films.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> That being the case, is it not irresponsible on the author's part not to correct this fatal error?



No, I don't think the author has any duty to come out and try to 'correct' how a fan reads the work, nor do I think it is even desirable for her to do so. The author puts the story out there. The reader is an intelligent, thinking person who can interpret or view the story in any way she sees fit. I don't particularly care what Meyer's own view on it. That's the thing about art - once you put it out there, it belongs, in a sense, to the viewer, reader, or whoever. The person who brings their own experiences to bear in receiving it.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> No, I don't think the author has any duty to come out and try to 'correct' how a fan reads the work, nor do I think it is even desirable for her to do so. The author puts the story out there. The reader is an intelligent, thinking person who can interpret or view the story in any way she sees fit. I don't particularly care what Meyer's own view on it. That's the thing about art - once you put it out there, it belongs, in a sense, to the viewer, reader, or whoever. The person who brings their own experiences to bear in receiving it.



Do you not think artists ought to be responsible for the messages they send or might be sending? 


I wouldn't consider myself an "artist" really, but I am very concerned with what messages a reader might intuit from my work. As you say, once it's out there it's out there. And so far as is within my power, I'd like to see that the messages sent are received correctly. I have planned a scene where my MC slaughters potentially innocent people- but I make it very clear that this is _not_ a good thing, despite his intentions. If a fringe reader takes my book to mean I support killing innocent people so long as the intent is noble, I will likely write them off as a loon. But if a large contingent of my hypothetical readership came to this conclusion, I would be appalled and issue an official statement on the matter as fast as my fingers would allow.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Do you not think artists are responsible for the messages they send or might be sending?



That depends. If an artist is intentionally sending a message to try to cause harm, then I think they may be responsible (at least if it is reasonable the message will be received in that way). In my view, those cases are very few and far between, if they exist at all in terms of pure art. 

The mere fact of writing a relationship like the one in Twilight, or Romeo and Juliet, or ones in The Great Gatsby, or East of Eden, don't rise anywhere even remotely close to that level, in my view.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Mindfire said:
			
		

> Do you not think artists are responsible for the messages they send or might be sending?



I'll weigh in on this & say that I don't think an author should even be remotely concerned about the "messages" they send.

Crime, racism, sexual abuse, drug addiction.... These are things that most people I know find reprehensible. In fiction though, these are the things that make great stories. Bad decisions make for good reading.

If you want to write about perfect, healthy relationships then have it at. I'll use it to cure occasional bouts of insomnia. People want to read interesting stories and as a writer that what I want to provide. I'm certainly not going to be effective in doing so if I'm constantly concerned with how a few readers are going to perceive some message (intentional or otherwise).

I'm telling a story, through the eyes of a character. That's all I'm concerned with....


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Steerpike said:
			
		

> That depends. If an artist is intentionally sending a message to try to cause harm...




Good point, that would be a lone exception in my mind as well.


----------



## Steerpike

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I'll weigh in on this & say that I don't think an author should even be remotely concerned about the "messages" they send.
> 
> Crime, racism, sexual abuse, drug addiction.... These are things that most people I know find reprehensible. In fiction though, these are the things that make great stories. Bad decisions make for good reading.
> 
> If you want to write about perfect, healthy relationships then have it at. I'll use it to cure occasional bouts of insomnia. People want to read interesting stories and as a writer that what I want to provide. I'm certainly not going to be effective in doing so if I'm constantly concerned with how a few readers are going to perceive some message (intentional or otherwise).
> 
> I'm telling a story, through the eyes of a character. That's all I'm concerned with....



Bingo. 

/10char


----------



## Mindfire

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I'll weigh in on this & say that I don't think an author should even be remotely concerned about the "messages" they send.
> 
> Crime, racism, sexual abuse, drug addiction.... These are things that most people I know find reprehensible. In fiction though, these are the things that make great stories. Bad decisions make for good reading.
> 
> If you want to write about perfect, healthy relationships then have it at. I'll use it to cure occasional bouts of insomnia. People want to read interesting stories and as a writer that what I want to provide. I'm certainly not going to be effective in doing so if I'm constantly concerned with how a few readers are going to perceive some message (intentional or otherwise).
> 
> I'm telling a story, through the eyes of a character. That's all I'm concerned with....



I think there is a difference between using unfortunate circumstances as elements to further a story and praising harmful behavior. Even Romeo and Juliet, which I can't stand, makes it clear that this is not behavior to be aspired to or imitated.


----------



## Zero Angel

Mindfire said:


> I have planned a scene where my MC slaughters potentially innocent people- but I make it very clear that this is _not_ a good thing, despite his intentions. If a fringe reader takes my book to mean I support killing innocent people so long as the intent is noble, I will likely write them off as a loon. But if a large contingent of my hypothetical readership came to this conclusion, I would be appalled and issue an official statement on the matter as fast as my fingers would allow.



You can always provide commentaries or an annotated version talking about what you thought or liked or disliked in your story. I don't feel that I have control over my characters once they've been created. They do what they want to do. If that means they kill and think it's a good thing, that's fine. It's rare where someone successfully argues that there are no deserved deaths.

Also, have you ever read Machiavelli's "The Prince"? He basically argues that people in power need to bear in mind the ends. If your MC is someone that has power, whether assumed or granted, then it is possible that he might be justified--so long as it doesn't blow up in his face. 

One common example given of Machiavellian practices is during WWII when we had already broken the Nazi's code and intercepted a transmission that told us of an attack on a town that would have been wiped out. I am speaking from memory of high school history class and college ethics so forgive me the details. The allied side knew of the attack and was able to prevent it and save the town, but chose not to because they had no other evidence other than the intercepted transmission and if they interfered, the Nazi's would have known we had broken their code. The allies chose to allow the deaths of these innocent people bearing in mind the lives they would save later on. This is something any leader or person in a position of power has to face. It is why the towns always choose to sacrifice the princess or their daughters to the dragon/kraken to save their town. It's either the one dies or they all die. 

They believe that they are doing the right thing by saving their town with the sacrifice of the one and unless they have the power and knowledge to be reasonably assured they can defeat the creature, they *are* doing the right thing. Or at least the most right thing available.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Mindfire said:
			
		

> I think there is a difference between using unfortunate circumstances as elements to further a story and praising harmful behavior. Even Romeo and Juliet, which I can't stand, makes it clear that this is not behavior to be aspired to or imitated.



This is where I think the disconnect is....

It's not "using unfortunate circumstances" & it's not "praising harmful behavior". It's just part of the story from a character's viewpoint.

You're saying that you believe an author should feel responsible concerning how their writing is perceived. I feel it's ridiculous to take responsibility for anyone's actions or perceptions who may pick up your book. 

Take the recent runaway hit "50 Shades". Now I haven't read it but I understand it revolves around a S&M relationship. It's obviously interesting because stores can't keep it on shelves. I sincerely doubt though that the people reading it all run out and buy whips and gimp suits the following day. Some might, but should the author feel bad about wax dripping burns perpetuated by a couple that wanted to try something new after reading a book. I sincerely hope not.

Your position seems to revolve around the idea that readers are impressionable morons which is a inaccurate assumption. Even teenagers, in the case of YA books, are not idiots. Sure there are always exceptions in every case but making an argument based off of exceptions is inherently flawed.


----------



## Zero Angel

I think everyone is going to have to agree to disagree. It doesn't seem we are making much progress and Mindfire and others are entitled to believe what they want to about an artist's responsibility--as much as I disagree with this view, I don't think we are making any progress here towards a mutual agreement. 

Anyway, so how about the vampires in the manga "Vampire Knight"? I borrowed the first ten volumes from my library and had no qualms with their description of vampires.


----------



## Steerpike

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Your position seems to revolve around the idea that readers are impressionable morons which is a inaccurate assumption. Even teenagers, in the case of YA books, ate not idiots. Sure there are always exceptions in every case but making an argument based off of exceptions is inherently flawed.



Exactly. I pre-read Twilight because my then-thirteen year old daughter wanted to read it, and all I knew about it was 'vampire romance,' which could be quite racy. So I read it, determined it to be harmless, and told her OK. As I've related before, about halfway or so into the book my daughter came to me and said "Man, Bella is an idiot." She nevertheless loved the books and devoured the entire series, before branching off into reading other things (there had been a lull in her reading habits for a few years prior to that).


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> Anyway, so how about the vampires in the manga "Vampire Knight"? I borrowed the first ten volumes from my library and had no qualms with their description of vampires.



I don't really know any manga vampire stories that well. I saw one episode of Vampire Hunter D and didn't like it, and really my knowledge of manga is very limited. I'm always open to giving it another shot, though.


----------



## Zero Angel

They use a pretty normal description of vampires. There are pure bloods that have their blood undiluted from the progenitors of the vampire race and have additional powers; aristocrats that are from noble bloodlines with some dilution; and human vampires created from a pureblood drinking the human's blood but not killing them. If the human vampire does not drink the pureblood's blood in return, they descend into madness and become mindless beasts.

Also, pure blood vampires that drink the blood of another pure blood becomes more powerful. 

They have normal super-human abilities, are weakened by sunlight, take blood tablets so they do not have to feed on humans (although the tablets don't work on everyone) and the pure bloods are able to command lesser vampires along with their own abilities.

I've only seen the first movie with Vampire Hunter D and I was not a fan. Hellsing is a much better adult anime for vampires. Haven't read the manga though.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> I think it is true, Benjamin, that not everyone is putting that level of thought into it. The question, then, is whether authors are supposed to tailor their fiction to what the most credulous, gullible, or susceptible member of the populace might make of it? I don't think that's a good approach, either.



The purpose of the criticism isn't to get _Stephenie Meyer_ (or, in general, an author) to change. It's to (hopefully) reach the _readers_ who are under the relevant misapprehension. I've seen several people who used to love Twilight becoming exposed to the negative criticisms, and saying, "Wow, I never thought of that," and then reassessing their love for the books.

Writing that glorifies negative relationships should be met with criticism. The cure for bad speech is more speech.



> While I didn't care for the one book in the series I read, I don't have a problem with it, either. I have heard the arguments about the relationship, and I think if presented in a reasonable way, that's a valid discussion to have. But the counter-arguments, about what that says about readers, or where we think the author's responsibilities should lie, or the number of works of literature (classic and otherwise) read by juveniles that portray unhealthy relationships...all of those are valid responses to the relationship argument. And by raising those responses you can find out if the person making the criticism is consistent or not. If they are, then fine - they probably have a consistent moral view on the subject and their view on Twilight is part of that. If they're not consistent (and so far no one I've discussed it with is), then there has to be something else going on specifically with respect to Twilight.



Obviously people have emotions and sometimes those emotions affect or interfere with their opinions; but if someone points out B&E's negative relationship, and fails to point out (or even defends!) a similar relationship in another story, that has no bearing on whether or not B&E's relationship is healthy. Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. (It might make you less convincing, but it doesn't logically undermine anything.)



> Doesn't make sense to me. But then, tearing down writes who have become successful doesn't make sense to me, either.



Tearing them down _only because_ they're successful makes no sense, sure. But it would be kind of silly to claim that there's never any reason to criticize a successful writer. If someone writes what I think is crap, I'm going to point it out. The only relevance their popularity has is that I'm not going to spend time criticizing some writer nobody's ever heard of.


----------



## Shockley

My problem with this still boils down to people deciding whether the relationship in Twilight is healthy or not. At the end of the day, whether a relationship is good or not should be determined by the potential happiness and the actual happiness achieved. If both people in the relationship are at maximum happiness (as in the end result of Twilight), then who am I to say that the relationship is healthy or unhealthy?

 You can take abuse as the message of Twilight - that's a reasonable interpretation (though, taking into account some of the arguments used against my own position here, that's certainly not the author's intention). Or you can take the message as 'you should go for the person who makes you happy, even at great risk and difficulty.'


----------



## Lawfire

Mindfire said:


> ...all Twifans see in Edward is a knight in sparkling armor.



That is a good one!


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Twilight really stunk. I still like vamps but I'd prefer to keep them more along the lines of Anne Rice/Stoker. However having said that, I hated Buffy but loved Angel... Maybe it's because David Boreanaz is super hot?

:bat:


----------



## dreamslave

I think it depends on how you portray them. If it’s as a bloodthirsty corpse, or a sparkly undead person, a lot of people won’t like it. But if it’s a bloodthirsty corpse with a believable personality, or a sparkly undead person whose surname is not Cullen, then it would probably work. If people don’t like them, it’s usually not because they’re a vampire, it’s because they’re a stereotypical vampire.


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> However having said that, I hated Buffy but loved Angel... Maybe it's because David Boreanaz is super hot?



I liked them both, but Buffy a lot better. Angel (i.e. David Boreanaz) is a ponce


----------



## Alex

Steerpike said:
			
		

> I liked them both, but Buffy a lot better. Angel (i.e. David Boreanaz) is a ponce



Steerpike, what is a ponce? I must know!


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Alex said:


> Steerpike, what is a ponce? I must know!



Google says -- Ponce = Pimp... 

David B can pimp on me any day of the week! :tongue:  Just so long as he is not pimping me out!!! I'd not enjoy that too much.


----------



## Alex

The Blue Lotus said:
			
		

> Google says -- Ponce = Pimp...
> 
> David B can pimp on me any day of the week! :tongue:  Just so long as he is not pimping me out!!! I'd not enjoy that too much.



And that's your slang term for today ladies and gents!


----------



## Steerpike

Wrong definition.  It also means an effeminate male.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Hey I just went with what google said... LOL

Oh, wait just one cotton pickin' min. Mr. 
We are talking about the same David Boreanaz right? high forhead, biceps that go on for days, killer hair, big brown eyes and a crooked smile... Effeminate I think not Sir.


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> Hey I went with what google said... LOL



Google is right, that is also a definition. But I was going with the other one, which is probably what Spike means when he calls Angel a ponce


----------



## Zero Angel

...Google also says the other definition! Don't think it doesn't know.

Although I am surprised that the pimp definition is first. I always think of a ponce as being a fop or dandy.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> I always think of a ponce as being a fop or dandy.



Yep 



> We are talking about the same David Boreanaz right? high forhead, biceps that go on for days, killer hair, big brown eyes and a crooked smile...Effeminate I think not Sir.



Mr. "Oh, I'm so broody, but really sensitive deep down inside?" Yes, that's him


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Steerpike said:


> Mr. "Oh, I'm so broody, but really sensitive deep down inside?" Yes, that's him



Yum Yum eat him up with a spoon and go for seconds, thirds, all week... 
Big, strong, drop dead sexy hunk of man meat _and _sensitive too boot!!!! What girl could resist?


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> Yum Yum eat him up with a spoon and go for seconds, thirds, all week...
> Big, strong, drop dead sexy hunk of man meat _and _sensitive too boot!!!! What girl could resist?



I think I'd prefer Buffy. Or Faith. Or Anya. Or Cordelia. Or Fred. Or Kate. Or Willow. Or whoever Gina Torres plays when she shows up. None of those are Angel


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Yeah but you are a dude... So that is to be expected.


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> Yeah but you are a dude... So that is to be expected.



So you don't go for Spike, eh?


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Na looks too much like a burnt out punk rocker that was rode hard and put away wet.
I prefer rugged and dashing, tall, dark and handsome or skinny dweeb, pudgy in a lab coat, but not burnt out old ex punk rocker that is just icky.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

What, no love for Wesley?


----------



## Steerpike

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> What, no love for Wesley?



I don't know about Wesley, but Lilah wasn't bad.

What about Lindsey?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> I don't know about Wesley, but Lilah wasn't bad.
> 
> What about Lindsey?



You do have to give him a _hand._


----------



## Steerpike

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> You do have to give him a _hand._



LOL.

/10char


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> What, no love for Wesley?


Wes was not a vamp, he was a book worm.  or did I miss something?


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> Wes was not a vamp, he was a book worm.  or did I miss something?



He was less bookwormy after getting his throat cut.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

oh was that when Angel's son was taken? Man I'm getting old...


----------



## Alex

This thread has become the best thread in existence.  Angel was like...one of my all time faves


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Who is this Angel?


----------



## Steerpike

A character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer who spun of to his own show.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Steerpike said:
			
		

> A character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer who spun of to his own show.



Yeah I know.... Was just trying to fire BL up over her crush.

I've never watched any of the Buffy shows or spinoffs but I know of them.


----------



## Steerpike

Good shows.  I like Buffy better. and Firefly was great


----------



## FireBird

I've never really watched Angel or Buffy, but I love Firefly and Serenity to death.


----------



## Steerpike

FireBird said:


> I've never really watched Angel or Buffy, but I love Firefly and Serenity to death.



If you like Firefly, you'll probably like Buffy and Angel. Some of the actors from Firefly show up in those series from time to time (Mal, Zoe, River, and the guy who plays the Alliance Agent in the first episode of Firefly, for example).


----------



## The Blue Lotus

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yeah I know.... Was just trying to fire BL up over her crush.
> 
> I've never watched any of the Buffy shows or spinoffs but I know of them.



 It is not a "crush" It is a full blown obsession! :insertevillaughhere


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> It is not a "crush" It is a full blown obsession! :insertevillaughhere



You'll never be able to get between him and Buffy. Or Cordelia. Or Darla. lol

Speaking of Darla - she wasn't half bad either. Gotta like Whedon's female actors.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

This is true man, Josh did have a good eye for the gals. 

But I happen to think that the girls of Charmed were way hotter...


----------



## Steerpike

Never saw Charmed, but I have to say the competition is pretty fierce if we're looking at Buffy, Angel, and Firefly


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Steerpike said:


> Never saw Charmed, but I have to say the competition is pretty fierce if we're looking at Buffy, Angel, and Firefly



Tell me you are joking! OMG, _*how*_ did you manage to miss charmed? It was only the hottest thing going long before Buffy and Angel showed up.

The Buffy movie, which did come before the tv show, was better than the show imho. Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry... Man I miss those days.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't watch much TV at all. Probably been two years since I've actually seen a show on TV that wasn't a sporting event (which I watch from time to time). The only reason I've seen all the Buffy and other Whedon shows is because I've watched them on Netflix or through friend's who loaned me the DVDs etc.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Well I think you might enjoy some of the later shows, the first season or two were just okish, nothing super cool, but once it gained some traction it was really really good.  Give it a go sometime. Once you get to the start of season three I'd bet you dollars to donuts you will be hooked!


----------



## Steerpike

So was it like the WB response to Buffy? I'll check it out.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Kind of, they had been filming before the moves release date, but who knows how long these things get stuck on a shelf?

Like I said it takes a bit to get into it, and some of it gets a bit wonky/cheesy. But over all it's not a bad show.


----------



## Steerpike

Oh. Because it looks like the Buffy TV show was already a year and a half into their run when Charmed aired, and I think the Buffy movie was out at least four or five years before the TV show hit. I'll see if it is on either Netflix or Amazon and watch it!


----------



## The Blue Lotus

IDK all I know is what I think I remember from press coverage way back when. 
Good show none the less.


----------



## Zero Angel

The Blue Lotus said:


> Na looks too much like a burnt out punk rocker that was rode hard and put away wet.
> I prefer rugged and dashing, tall, dark and handsome or skinny dweeb, pudgy in a lab coat, but not burnt out old ex punk rocker that is just icky.



To be fair, burnt out punk rockers look that way because Spike looks that way, not the other way around.


Charmed is worth watching for fantasy nuts (which I assume everyone here is). Definitely more aimed at females I thought.


----------

