Tried of vampires being goody two-shoes?

[Mindfire]

I'm guessing you haven't read it. They can be killed, and in fact one is in the first book.

What can they be killed by? If the answer is "other vampires" it doesn't count.

Yeah, because a perfected apex predator having a devastatingly fatal weakness that provides its specific prey a fighting chance makes so much more sense.

But vampires aren't evolved predators. They're more akin to demonic creatures or supernatural aberrations. How does something evolve if it's dead?

I'll make an exception for Underworld, because they've banked enough cool points to get a free pass, plus they at least make an effort at scientific explanation. If the vampires in Underworld evolved resistance to sunlight, it would still be kind of a cheat, but it could be an interesting plot point.

Twilight however does not have enough cool points to get a free pass. As far as evolution goes, sparkling makes even LESS sense than severe UV vulnerability does. How can you explain or justify diamond skin? You can't. It's just a cheap handwave to make the romance doable and to elicit swooning from the tween female audience. The only "evolution" Edward's skin represents is the ultimate evolution of teen idol-itis.

Also, vampires who can walk around in the sunlight without instantly bursting into flames has never ever been done before Twilight, ever. Well, except for Count Dracula, but it's not like he counts for anything, amiright?

Now let me explain why I give Dracula a pass (although in some versions light does kill him). In the rare instances when a vampire is immune to sunlight, it's supposed to signify something special, unique, and (most importantly) badass. Like Blade, the Daywalker. The ultimate vampire killer. The creatures of the night tremble at his name. Likewise Dracula is not just a vampire, but the greatest of all vampires, so if he is immune to sunlight it is because of his greater power and importance. Twilight commits a double sin. Not only is the vampire's immunity to sunlight made into a casual fact, but it is decidedly NOT badass.

Really, it's not the fact that they can survive sunlight most people are complaining about, but specifically that they sparkle. I just don't get it.

Explained above.

You and I clearly have different ideas of what counts as "boring." You know what I find boring? Being able to completely destroy an ancient, superhuman monster by walking up to the nearest window, throwing the curtains open and going: "It's a bit stuffy in here, don't you agree?"

It's not really that simple. Sunlight offers hope of surviving a vampire attack. It gives the humans a fighting chance. But it also creates a ticking clock. You have to make it to sunrise for that hope to mean anything. Compare that to twilight. If vampires attack, the humans are screwed. What can they do except sit around and wait for the good vampires or shirtless werewolves to save them. Yawn. That may work for teen girls who have a white knight/helpless damsel complex, but not for me.

Anyway, Twilight vamps can totes be killed, that's the whole reason they go to such lenghts to stay hidden. Aro, the head honcho evil vampire, specifically states that human technology had advanced to the point where they simply couldn't afford an outing.

(It doesn't help that they are absurdly flammable. You can seriously set these guys completely ablaze by throwing a zippo lighter at them.)

So yeah. Set their dwelling on fire, hit them with a rocket launcher, bomb their house, use ancient Native American magic to turn into a giant wolf and then bite their heads off, etc. It's doable.

If this is true, then the writer makes unforgivably poor use of it. AFAIK, Bella does nothing except get fought over. Plus, the fandom seems to think their sparkling darlings are totally invincible.

 

[Steerpike]

What can they be killed by? If the answer is "other vampires" it doesn't count.

Dismemberment and burning, by anyone. That's one that comes to mind. There may well be other ways I don't recall or weren't stated in the first book.

Again, your statements make it clear you're arguing from ignorance. If you're going to go into a detailed critique of any work, common sense advises to read it first.

 

[Ireth]

Dismemberment and burning, by anyone. That's one that comes to mind. There may well be other ways I don't recall or weren't stated in the first book.

Again, your statements make it clear you're arguing from ignorance. If you're going to go into a detailed critique of any work, common sense advises to read it first.

Dismemberment and burning are all well and good, but that can only happen if another vampire (or several) make it so -- Meyers vamps are so ridiculously strong that, like diamonds, the only thing that can harm them is each other. Nothing but a vampire, or perhaps a Native American shapeshifter (the "werewolves" are not actually werewolves, as is revealed in the last book -- letdown, huh?) can rip another vampire to pieces, or even break its skin. (And yes, I have unfortunately read the whole series.)

 

[Mindfire]

Dismemberment and burning, by anyone. That's one that comes to mind. There may well be other ways I don't recall or weren't stated in the first book.

Again, your statements make it clear you're arguing from ignorance. If you're going to go into a detailed critique of any work, common sense advises to read it first.

Dismemberment by anyone? So they can be hit by a truck and be totally fine, but I could cut off their head with a chainsaw? That's consistent. -_- And I can't bring myself to read it on account of I value my soul.

Another thing: Twilight's vampires have essentially lost their archetypal connection to the night. That probably contributes to the hate they get. They aren't dark (in any sense of the word) anymore. Meyer essentially took something badass and neutered it. It's like the Adam West Batman... if it was a soap opera.

 

[Xaysai]

The first actual novel I ever read was "The Vampire Lestat" which was the sequel to "Interview with a Vampire", and Anne Rice killed Vamps for me.

Thanks, Anne Rice.

 

[Steerpike]

Dismemberment and burning are all well and good, but that can only happen if another vampire (or several) make it so -- Meyers vamps are so ridiculously strong that, like diamonds, the only thing that can harm them is each other. Nothing but a vampire, or perhaps a Native American shapeshifter (the "werewolves" are not actually werewolves, as is revealed in the last book -- letdown, huh?) can rip another vampire to pieces, or even break its skin. (And yes, I have unfortunately read the whole series.)

I think that's generally true for hand-to-hand combat, where humans are not going to be able to do it, but I believe it is mentioned in the series that human technology can do it.

 

[Steerpike]

Dismemberment by anyone? So they can be hit by a truck and be totally fine, but I could cut off their head with a chainsaw? That's consistent. -_- And I can't bring myself to read it on account of I value my soul.

So why do you spend so much time trolling it? You're more obsessed with Twilight than any of the die-hard fans I know, who have mostly move on to other things. Get over it.

 

[Mindfire]

So why do you spend so much time trolling it? You're more obsessed with Twilight than any of the die-hard fans I know, who have mostly move on to other things. Get over it.

Obsessed? My attitude toward Twilight is best described as "please, just go away already." It sounds like you're saying I should be barred from the discussion simply because my opinion of the work differs from yours. The question of why people dislike Twilight was raised. As someone who dislikes it, I answered and gave reasons why someone might hold that opinion. It's not like I started this thread just to troll Twilight supporters. If I wanted to go out of my way to troll fans of the work, I'd just vandalize the wiki or something, or otherwise troll in an arena I don't value or care about being banned from.

 

[Steerpike]

Mindfire, you're spending your time ranting about something you haven't even read. Think about that for a minute. And its not the first time. Opinions are better when informed, and I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering what's up when someone puts energy into running down a work they haven't taken the time to read. That's true simply as a general statement. I think most people who comment on writings familiarize themselves with the source material prior to doing so. You obviously have a bone to pick with anyone who liked the work, or the desire to hold yourself out as superior for your viewpoint, informed or not, or both. I have to wonder why that is.

 

[Wanara009]

Obsessed? My attitude toward Twilight is best described as "please, just go away already." It sounds like you're saying I should be barred from the discussion simply because my opinion of the work differs from yours. The question of why people dislike Twilight was raised. As someone who dislikes it, I answered and gave reasons why someone might hold that opinion. It's not like I started this thread just to troll Twilight supporters. If I wanted to go out of my way to troll fans of the work, I'd just vandalize the wiki or something, or otherwise troll in an arena I don't value or care about being banned from.

Must agree with Mindfire. Twilight is like SCP-1055. The more people knows about it, the stronger it get no matter how you think of it. If you're bored with vampire as seen in the mainstream media, look toward the horror. There's still some decent undead there.

Anyhow, the decay of vampire started long before Meyer. In fact, I personally think that the decay of all mythological creatures started with we invent "Paranormal Romance" genre. Today human teenager romance vampire. Tomorrow? Maybe Godzilla...

Yeah... Have fun with the image guys ;P When will the madness END?!

 

[Mindfire]

Mindfire, you're spending your time ranting about something you haven't even read. Think about that for a minute. And its not the first time. Opinions are better when informed, and I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering what's up when someone puts energy into running down a work they haven't taken the time to read. That's true simply as a general statement. I think most people who comment on writings familiarize themselves with the source material prior to doing so. You obviously have a bone to pick with anyone who liked the work, or the desire to hold yourself out as superior for your viewpoint, informed or not, or both. I have to wonder why that is.

Let's just say I was exposed to extremely devout fans of it, so now my knee-jerk reaction is "kill it with fire." I'd be perfectly happy if I never heard of it again.

 

[Steerpike]

Let's just say I was exposed to extremely devout fans of it, so now my knee-jerk reaction is "kill it with fire." I'd be perfectly happy if I never heard of it again.

Injecting yourself into conversations about it runs contrary to that stated desire.

 

[murersr]

Meyer didn't start it. Vampire paranormal romance goes back nearly ten years before her that I've seen. I don't count Rice

So who do you think started it? I remember when I was in middle school, I read a book (I think it was a Goosebump series, not sure) It was about a girl who had a vampire living up in her attic. He drank all the clique - ish cheerleaders that were preventing her from being on the cheerleading squad. I remember reading this and being very scared. The story wasn't written "to swoon my teenage heart", it was written to scare me. And it did.

Why do you think the current has vampires as heroes? And do you think it is possible to reverse the trend?

 

[Steerpike]

So who do you think started it? I remember when I was in middle school, I read a book (I think it was a Goosebump series, not sure) It was about a girl who had a vampire living up in her attic. He drank all the clique - ish cheerleaders that were preventing her from being on the cheerleading squad. I remember reading this and being very scared. The story wasn't written "to swoon my teenage heart", it was written to scare me. And it did.

Why do you think the current has vampires as heroes? And do you think it is possible to reverse the trend?

Buffy was probably the first very popular implementation of it. Tanya Huff wrote her blood books before Buffy (first one was published in 1991), and the elements are there as well (I like Huff, but I prefer her military science fiction). I believe there was at least one work predating Huff, but I don't know it.

But with Buffy, things get very popular. Two TV shows that do well, novels, graphic novels, and so on. Twilight comes 7 or 8 years later, well after the whole vampire/human romance has been done by Buffy and Angel, Buffy and Spike, Angel and Cordelia (sort of), and so on. A lot of the criticisms people make of Edward and Bella could be applied to Angel and Buffy, but I don't think the criticisms amount to much, to be honest.

There were and are books about horrific, terrifying vampires being written during this time period. These aren't likely to become the cultural phenomena of things like Buffy and Twilight, so if that's what you mean by reverse the trend, then I'd say no. But there is an audience for those books (I'm one of them), and I think if they're done well there is a good market out there.

 

[Mindfire]

Injecting yourself into conversations about it runs contrary to that stated desire.

I was asked for my opinion, albeit indirectly. No one else was exactly jumping to the fore to provide an argument. I couldn't let my side of the issue go unrepresented. For the most part, I was trying to stay away from personal ranting and present a more analytical take on why Twilight might not be some people's cup of tea. Again, I'm not the one who started the thread. But that doesn't mean Twilight doesn't deserve a sound thrashing.

And what's this Buffy I keep hearing about?

 

[danr62]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer? I only ever saw the movie, and maybe one or two episodes of the show while channel flipping or something.

 

[Mindfire]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer? I only ever saw the movie, and maybe one or two episodes of the show while channel flipping or something.

Yeah but what is it? I never watched any of it.

 

[Steerpike]

I was asked for my opinion, albeit indirectly. No one else was exactly jumping to the fore to provide an argument. I couldn't let my side of the issue go unrepresented. For the most part, I was trying to stay away from personal ranting and present a more analytical take on why Twilight might not be some people's cup of tea. Again, I'm not the one who started the thread. But that doesn't mean Twilight doesn't deserve a sound thrashing.

And what's this Buffy I keep hearing about?

Your post was better before you edited it.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah but what is it? I never watched any of it.

That shouldn't prevent you from commenting on it, however. I think that's been established. Google is you friend. If you type in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you'll be able to see what it is in no time.

 

[murersr]

Buffy was probably the first very popular implementation of it. Tanya Huff wrote her blood books before Buffy (first one was published in 1991), and the elements are there as well (I like Huff, but I prefer her military science fiction). I believe there was at least one work predating Huff, but I don't know it.

But with Buffy, things get very popular. Two TV shows that do well, novels, graphic novels, and so on. Twilight comes 7 or 8 years later, well after the whole vampire/human romance has been done by Buffy and Angel, Buffy and Spike, Angel and Cordelia (sort of), and so on. A lot of the criticisms people make of Edward and Bella could be applied to Angel and Buffy, but I don't think the criticisms amount to much, to be honest.

There were and are books about horrific, terrifying vampires being written during this time period. These aren't likely to become the cultural phenomena of things like Buffy and Twilight, so if that's what you mean by reverse the trend, then I'd say no. But there is an audience for those books (I'm one of them), and I think if they're done well there is a good market out there.

I forgot about Buffy. Hmmm.., but you know what? Buffy was a much stronger character and she had a job to do - kill vampires. In my opinion, Bella was not.

So where do you think "True Blood" fits in? The terrifying vampires or teenager vampires? How could they ("True Blood") be that terrifying with those small fangs. My cat has scary fangs!

To you as a fan of terrifying vampires, how important is transformation( eyes turning a different shade and/or glowing, forehead and checkbone change like the "Buffy" series). Is tradition still important to you as a reader? Would you be offended if vampires didn't take center stage?

My book is a combination of all the genres that I have dabbled in, most of which came from the vampire story. I wrote several chapers, but I couldn't handle the stress of trying to deal with vampires politics and/or courtly life- hierachy. I wanted to make it simple, but it swelled into this monstrous thing which eventually led me to stashing all the drafts away.