Question about age gap

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

That would be cool to see. Very tragic. It seems most people are just over vampires or if they still are, wouldn't like it because it makes them sadder or brings their mood down. Don't relate, but I'm thinking about what most people like in their media.

As for nonTwilight vampires, I'd say it's up to the writer to decide on their world/race creation, and their readers to analyze and/or call them out for things that should be reviewed. There are so many adaptations of the vampire myth that it's hard to keep track of the main elements of what makes them interesting or fun to play around with versus what we should throw away. Or if I'm just not considering something, please let me know.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

I don't know of any others. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any. I haven't read or watched every piece of vampire media out there, by a long shot. But even if it's just that one character in that one book/movie, that's enough to set a precedent. Whether or not any other creator of vampire fiction has ever followed that precedent, it's still set.

And a precedent has definitely been set. I was wondering if there were other tales with that twist, so I can enjoy them myself.

 

[WooHooMan]

There was a child vampire in the game Skyrim who more or less acted as an adult but being a minor character, they didn’t delve too deeply into that.
Plus I believe there was a book just called “the Vampire Hunter” where the vampire society specifically forbid turning children because they tend to go psycho, presumably due to trauma.
In any case, I’d definitely say there’s a notion out there that a child vampire eventually starts acting as an adult.

Actually, a story I did some years ago had a vampire child. If I thought to do that, I’d assume many other writers would have that same idea. It’s probably more common than we realize.
In any case, I doubt too many people thought to add child vampires into the vampire romance/eroticism mix. Or rather, I hope no one thought to try that.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

In any case, I doubt too many people thought to add child vampires into the vampire romance/eroticism mix. Or rather, I hope no one thought to try that.

Anne Rice did. But it was romance between vampires, not a vampire and a mortal.

 

[Stevie]

Here's another angle to consider: vampires are dead. The moment when they were turned into a vampire was the moment of their death. Only difference is, they became a vampire instead of their body decomposing, their soul going to heaven, what have you.

Any story about the dead (or undead or quasi dead, as the case may be) will have them frozen at the age they were when they died. Ghosts don't age. Zombies don't age. So, logically, neither do vampires.

I think dead, only in the sense that they no longer have a human physiology. But something must be going on in there, since they move around a bit, feel things (hunger for instance - implying some kind of metabolic process) and, if they're in Twilight, indulge in long, angsty conversations. There are creatures creeping and crawling round the earth just now that don't age or live for a very long time or in the case of a particular kind of jellyfish, are effectively immortal. So, not that far fetched.

But even if our vampires undergo some kind of physiological change, they remain sentient creatures and sentient creatures always learn new stuff as they travel along life's road. So they become more mature (intellectually older) as they learn more, irrespective of physical age.

Unless their vampire brains don't allow them to learn, in which case, they'd be pretty rubbish vampires, because they'd never learn how to be a half way competent vampire, probably leading to vampire extinction in short order.

Or maybe vampire brains only let them learn a limited repetoire of stuff but what would be the advantage to them of forming romantic relationships. They don't need relationships to make more vampires and ensure the nurturing of vampire kids. Evolutionary dead end.

So maybe some of their human brain processes survive the transition to vampire, so they still crave companionship and long, angsty conversations. But if they still have a human brain, they'll carry on learning and maturing...

 

[Miles Lacey]

Different authors have taken different approaches as to whether the vampire's brain continues to develop once they have been "turned". Some think they do, some think they don't. To me, it's irrelevant as to whether or not they do because vampires are made up creatures and it's up to the authors to decide what happens with them emotionally, intellectually, socially and so forth. What matters here is that the author is consistent and that it makes sense within the context of the story.

Readers don't need to have stuff spelt out for them, including young adults. A bit of ambiguity or leaving readers with unanswered questions isn't necessarily a bad thing.

As I see it, the biggest problem with a vampire who looks underage is they will continue being treated as an underage person until someone sticks a stake in their heart. Many basic things that adults would take for granted, such as going to buy alcohol, entering age restricted premises, participating in certain things like adult movies, voting and doing many types of jobs, would be next to impossible. It would also hinder their relationships as anyone in a relationship with this type of vampire would run the risk of being labelled or even arrested as a paedophile. Even a routine traffic stop by the police is going to be awkward.

Of course, this assumes they interact with the mortal world for any purpose other than biting people to turn them into vampires and killing vampire hunters.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

I think dead, only in the sense that they no longer have a human physiology. But something must be going on in there, since they move around a bit, feel things (hunger for instance - implying some kind of metabolic process) and, if they're in Twilight, indulge in long, angsty conversations. There are creatures creeping and crawling round the earth just now that don't age or live for a very long time or in the case of a particular kind of jellyfish, are effectively immortal. So, not that far fetched.

But even if our vampires undergo some kind of physiological change, they remain sentient creatures and sentient creatures always learn new stuff as they travel along life's road. So they become more mature (intellectually older) as they learn more, irrespective of physical age.

Unless their vampire brains don't allow them to learn, in which case, they'd be pretty rubbish vampires, because they'd never learn how to be a half way competent vampire, probably leading to vampire extinction in short order.

Or maybe vampire brains only let them learn a limited repetoire of stuff but what would be the advantage to them of forming romantic relationships. They don't need relationships to make more vampires and ensure the nurturing of vampire kids. Evolutionary dead end.

So maybe some of their human brain processes survive the transition to vampire, so they still crave companionship and long, angsty conversations. But if they still have a human brain, they'll carry on learning and maturing...

I have written in this thread about this, and I said that I thought that Twilight vamps appear to be able to learn new skills and absorb information, it's just that it seems their "semi-core" personality, their strong preferences, philosophies, etc. don't go through deep and meaningful changes, which I think are essential for and are the things that part of/determine a human's psychological "age" aside from how long their bodies last. Physical "age" is for humans.

With what you said baout them being sentient and thus being able to learn new skills and thus becoming more emotionally mature, I'd say that there could be a conflation of two particualr kins of maturity. There's the knowing how to use language, how to decieve, how to make people doubt themselves along with how to tune cars or play a violin; then there's the pshycological maturity that comes with being a child verus being a teenager or adult that doesn't necessarily mean the exact thing as being able to learn new skills. Being able to learn how to manipulate other's emotions isn't necessarily a sign of being an adult, you'd first have to be aware of how difficult it is to understand everything about yourself all the time, which many adults have a lot of trouble with. I can be able to turn your mind inside out by filling it with doubt, but at the end of the day I'm a teenager with particualry prominent priorities and a perception that has defined me as a teenager.

Abilities versus state, are they exactly the same or are they completely different, or are they just intertwined and difficult to acertain?

Since vampires don't experience physical, organic changes, no one (us and the characters) can look at a Twilight vamp and be able to know how long their body has lasted on this earth, even though they will manage to guess what age they were when they were turned. Because again, their bodies don't change after their transformation. However, if they stay still long enough (because vamps in the franchise apparently instinctually feel more comfortable standing still than moving), they will begin to develop a film over their eyes.

You mentioned the fact that they are sentient and will inevitably be able to learn, and I agree. I don't know about the part about them only able to only be able to retain a limited amount since it sounds like they have a limited capacity, as if there's only so much water that can be put into the cup. That sort of thing probably would have been mentioned in the series, that vampires could only retain a certain amoutn of knowledge. That would also be told along with the disadvantages of being a vampire some vampires give as info. to Bella.

As for the uselessness of forming romantic relationships, I think we can argue that since these vamps retain their human emotional and logical capacities or their sentience, they will also retain the ability to admire others, hate others, fall in love, and have romantic relationships. They also still feel the urge to take revenge, but times 5, which is psychological and (I don't think) is an evolutionary imperative. Revenge comes with sociality. And if we keep talking about evolution, I think that since vampires in the series (as a species) don't need copulation at all and reproduce through their venom, it's not that much of an evolutionary loss. And I don't know if people have relationships only because their bodies have a womb and they need to procreate, or that it's for the best for the entire species. Humans still have that choice to abort, kill their kids, or give them away if they don't want them, and they make that choice because of their beliefs and the environmental/social/poltical/economic circumstances. Also, humans eve after having children are sill able to stay in love. Having kids doesn't really make or break a relationship, I think the characters, priorities, social/political/etc. pressures, psychology of the people within the relationship make or break the relationship. Relationships, rather than copulation, are a lot more complicated and nuanced.

However, I could be misunderstanding the "limited repetoire" thought and/or, as I've said before, Meyer just didn't think enough about all these implications and technicalities enough where we can ignore holes enough or not be able to perceive them without some real deep thinking.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

Different authors have taken different approaches as to whether the vampire's brain continues to develop once they have been "turned". Some think they do, some think they don't. To me, it's irrelevant as to whether or not they do because vampires are made up creatures and it's up to the authors to decide what happens with them emotionally, intellectually, socially and so forth. What matters here is that the author is consistent and that it makes sense within the context of the story.

Readers don't need to have stuff spelt out for them, including young adults. A bit of ambiguity or leaving readers with unanswered questions isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think similarly since fiction, writing, and storytelling--all are arts of playing with ideas themselves and testing the ideas in imagined scenarios to witness how viable they are. Fantasy storytelling is the art of playing, remodeling, and revising familiar cultural and philosophical beliefs and norms with non-human creatures. In fantasy, storytellers seem to use non-humans and/or their interactions with humans to play with some philosophical/psychological questions of what people could call the human condition.

Though vampires are made-up, they also are products of human narratives, and narratives are tools of learning, power, control, agency, and manipulation, perception. So if there are ethical questions about the form they take or even of the idea of a vampire itself, I think it should be addressed and discussed, keeping in mind that liking vampire, horror, or gory stories, etc. doesn't make you immature or unable to think maturely and reasonably. or not be able to create good, engaging and/or thoughtful stories yourself. I mention this last part because it seems you're saying that you focus more on the technical part of storytelling/writing, which is awesome because I think that it's good to remember that entertainment isn't 100% about teaching moral or ethical lessons, as much as it reveals stuff and can be a tool for understanding and building ethics. Entertainment/storytelling, once people agree to engage, is a tool of psychological influence, whether it's for controlling others or just staying present and enjoying your own existence and abilities to perceive, do, and think. I can say I love Aurora from the Disney film Sleeping Beauty because she represents my loneliness, feeling invisible, and helpless, rather than Jasmine, the perceived strong woman who doesn't let her dad decide anything without her consent. Sometimes people just want to feel seen and have their value acknowledged. It's not always or only about having a positive influence to refer to when feeling too vulnerable, wanting to feel valuable when facing social/political oppression, or wanting the political representation for social rebellion and empowerment.

Writing/storytelling is inspired by what matters to people. Social, philosophical, etc things matter to people because they determine how they perceive and determine reality. Fantasy, storytelling itself, is a constant experiment of reality. How to conduct, organize people's movement, thoughts, and beliefs is very important, so important and structural that it still finds its way to why people sometimes like this versus another thing.

Writers consider what matters to people, and since they are people themselves, they also learn what should matter or what matters to people around them, their society, and themselves.

So because of this, I'd say that yes, it's up to the writer to decide what happens to their characters and creatures, especially since it's not like anyone has control over how they feel, think, how they learn, etc. They are also their own persons, and it's important to respect and the space a person's independent process has. If I'm going to simplistic: how else am I supposed to enjoy a plethora of cool, exciting, inventive stories without human creativity, which needs some space to be? At the same time, since writers are people and have such influence over their readers, who then have influence over other people, it's pretty important to consider what their creation is conveying to its audience, intended or not.

As I see it, the biggest problem with a vampire who looks underage is they will continue being treated as an underage person until someone sticks a stake in their heart. Many basic things that adults would take for granted, such as going to buy alcohol, entering age restricted premises, participating in certain things like adult movies, voting and doing many types of jobs, would be next to impossible. It would also hinder their relationships as anyone in a relationship with this type of vampire would run the risk of being labelled or even arrested as a paedophile. Even a routine traffic stop by the police is going to be awkward.

As for this part, I see it. Immortal people--by virtue of being immortal--of different ages can only do certain things according to the society they are existing under. Still, there are many people uncomfortable with the idea of a perceived older person in a relationship with a perceived younger one, and I don't know if "It would also hinder their relationships as anyone in a relationship with this type of vampire would run the risk of being labelled or even arrested as a paedophile" would convince them that the immortal isn't a pedophile. People are disturbed because they consider the possible vulnerability and psychological danger against the perceived youth/mortal, and they prioritize the mortal/youth's possible danger over the perceived inconvenience of the immortal. Though you are posing the reader in the vampire's position, it still won't necessarily convince readers to accept the relationship. The point of people's concern is that they don't want kids and teens to think that there is no potential danger in being in a relationship with an older person. They're afraid that the teens/kids will perceive all of this as just harmless, exciting romance. None of us (I hope) want teens and kids to be psychologically traumatized, and many people are concerned with the state of others' minds. No one (maybe?) wants to be the bad, evil guy. It's a concern that needs to be considered.

It's also still fiction and it's difficult to ascertain what to keep and what to throw away while still having fun witnessing the drama for the philosophical challenge. This is another reason why I advocate for discussing why/how we think about certain things in a certain way. The possible misunderstandings and shutdowns and the casual suppression of independent thinking happen all the time and really hurts not only feelings but makes people discouraged to believe in the value of their own thoughts, which is death to the imagination.

There is merit in considering the technicalities and theorization of setting up things in particular ways. After all, that's half the fun of fantasy. But the how writers/people even do that in the first place is that they glean from the knowledge that is socially learned and that they have independently processed, and that matters individually and socially, since we can never separate the two and expect them to exist on their own.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

Anne Rice did. But it was romance between vampires, not a vampire and a mortal.

Oof. Even this can be very unsettling for many people with some justification. Imagining the reality of an adult body that way with an eight-year-old's body is kinda horrifying. I do know what you're referring to: Claudia, being a maybe 30-year-old mentally, has a relationship with Louis. I think Rice suggested that they had a non-sexual or physical romance, but since sex and eroticism are still at the forefront of many people's minds (socially learned or not) when it comes to most things concerning relationships and romance, that is a risk.

For some others, this may be part of why they consider fiction fun even: what did Rice mean to do here, is she doing something new, or is she allowing creepiness to happen? The debate and philosophical questioning, not the possible creepiness, can be fun to engage with.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

For some others, this may be part of why they consider fiction fun even: what did Rice mean to do here, is she doing something new, or is she allowing creepiness to happen? The debate and philosophical questioning, not the possible creepiness, can be fun to engage with.

I think she was doing both of those things. In that and her other works, many of which covered no less taboo subjects.

But she wasn't writing for the YA market. If she had been, I doubt she'd have managed to get published.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

"Angst"! That's the word I was looking for to bring up a particular trait/behavior/etc that we especially attribute and see in teenagers versus children or adults. And that's really interesting! I can imagine the 30-years-old-when-turned vampire having some concerns that a "typical", or expected 30-year-old human would have with a vampiric twist.

 

[FifthView]

At the risk of sounding repetitive....Vampires are gonna vampire. By nature, they are predatory. At least, this is the trope. I'm not sure when the uncontrollable urge to feed on human blood became a central trait—I mean, beyond simply feeding on blood, there came a certain lust for it that could drive a vampire mad, and I don't think that aspect always existed? In any case, the idea of uncontrollable urges translated into sexual lust also. This, then, can be mapped onto the teenage or YA experience. The vampires who fall in love with mortals and must always fight their own hunger are almost quintessentially teen, heh.

I've been wondering if other types of immortal beings could get away so easily with chasing after teen partners. What about an immortal wizard? Even if that wizard had the physical appearance of a teenager, it'd seem much creepier seeing him chase after a 16-year-old girl. What about an immortal scientist who discovered the cure for aging? An immortal of the Highlander type? Or will it not matter if each of these is first locked into immortality when a teenager, and ise "trapped" at that age—due to accident or no fault of their own?

 

[Rosemary Tea]

I've been wondering if other types of immortal beings could get away so easily with chasing after teen partners. What about an immortal wizard? Even if that wizard had the physical appearance of a teenager, it'd seem much creepier seeing him chase after a 16-year-old girl. What about an immortal scientist who discovered the cure for aging? An immortal of the Highlander type? Or will it not matter if each of these is first locked into immortality when a teenager, and ise "trapped" at that age—due to accident or no fault of their own?

None of those are associated, in the popular imagination, with teenagers. What's the first image that comes to mind when you hear "wizard"? Probably an old man with a long gray beard.

"Scientist"? Probably the mad scientist trope with flyaway gray hair--again, not young. And for good reason: it takes years of study to become a scientist. In most wizard lore, it takes a similarly long time to become a competent wizard (Harry Potter notwithstanding). And once you're a qualified scientist (or wizard) it takes many more years to discover an eternal youth potion... and then, because wizards and scientists are (usually) wise, they refrain from making themselves younger. Nicholas Flammel uses the Philosopher's Stone to give himself a longer life, but he still looks like an old man. In the one story I can think of off the top of my head involving a scientist and a youth potion--Dr. Heidegger's Experiment--he gives it to his friends but doesn't take any himself.

I'm not sure how old the Highlander character is supposed to be (I only saw snippets of that movie, and that was decades ago), but I don't think he was a teenager. Although, if he was a sixteenth century Scottish warrior, he probably would have been in his first battles sometime in his teens.

But then, before vampire lore became popular, there was fairy lore. Seductive fairies who are as old as the hills but look young forever take young lovers, and either keep them for eternity or let them go after a couple hundred years. Or, sometimes, the now ageless (or eternally young) captive gets rescued by a young lover of their own: Tam Lin, for instance.

Seems to me that teen vampire lore has taken the place of fairies in popular imagination.

 

[FifthView]

None of those are associated, in the popular imagination, with teenagers. What's the first image that comes to mind when you hear "wizard"? Probably an old man with a long gray beard.

"Scientist"? Probably the mad scientist trope with flyaway gray hair--again, not young. And for good reason: it takes years of study to become a scientist. In most wizard lore, it takes a similarly long time to become a competent wizard (Harry Potter notwithstanding). And once you're a qualified scientist (or wizard) it takes many more years to discover an eternal youth potion... and then, because wizards and scientists are (usually) wise, they refrain from making themselves younger. Nicholas Flammel uses the Philosopher's Stone to give himself a longer life, but he still looks like an old man. In the one story I can think of off the top of my head involving a scientist and a youth potion--Dr. Heidegger's Experiment--he gives it to his friends but doesn't take any himself.

Sure the trope is old man with long gray beard or old scientist type well beyond his prime. But as a thought experiment, and using speculation to create a fiction, we could imagine a tale involving a younger sort.

Say, the wizard's apprentice who steals a glance or two at his master's spell book and accidentally casts an immortality spell on himself; then, 564 years later, meets a teen girl he can't resist. That would be creepy.

Or you could have the junior scientist who sneaks into another scientist's lab, has an accident, and, instead of being able to swing from building to building on webbing, he is made an immortal. Again, the story proper doesn't happen until millennia have passed. Heck, maybe that time has already passed, and the "kid" was previously abducted by aliens during the renaissance, the master scientist, his teacher, was an alien, and now he's returning to Earth.

Basically, my point was to compare other sorts of immortal beings to the way the trope of vampire is received.

But then, before vampire lore became popular, there was fairy lore. Seductive fairies who are as old as the hills but look young forever take young lovers, and either keep them for eternity or let them go after a couple hundred years. Or, sometimes, the now ageless (or eternally young) captive gets rescued by a young lover of their own: Tam Lin, for instance.

To me, virtually all tales involving fairy lore are creepy. For some reason. I've never much liked it, and it freaks me out.

________

Edit: Maybe the point is simply that these other sorts of beings have long established tropes that make working them into a YA romance more problematic...?

 

[Rosemary Tea]

Sure the trope is old man with long gray beard or old scientist type well beyond his prime. But as a thought experiment, and using speculation to create a fiction, we could imagine a tale involving a younger sort.

Say, the wizard's apprentice who steals a glance or two at his master's spell book and accidentally casts an immortality spell on himself; then, 564 years later, meets a teen girl he can't resist. That would be creepy.

Or you could have the junior scientist who sneaks into another scientist's lab, has an accident, and, instead of being able to swing from building to building on webbing, he is made an immortal. Again, the story proper doesn't happen until millennia have passed. Heck, maybe that time has already passed, and the "kid" was previously abducted by aliens during the renaissance, the master scientist, his teacher, was an alien, and now he's returning to Earth.

Basically, my point was to compare other sorts of immortal beings to the way the trope of vampire is received.

I think the examples you give would have a similar reception to Twilight. Maybe better, if the story were better written and the immortal lover did not have "abusive codependent stalker" written all over them.

The only reason that hasn't happened is those stories haven't been written (yet?).

To me, virtually all tales involving fairy lore are creepy. For some reason. I've never much liked it, and it freaks me out.

Maybe that's why I like fairy lore. I love creepy stories. If they're creepy in the right way, that is.

Edit: Maybe the point is simply that these other sorts of beings have long established tropes that make working them into a YA romance more problematic...?

So did vampires, originally. Count Dracula was no youth.

I think the other sorts of beings could be worked into a YA romance if the tropes were altered a bit. It just hasn't been done so far.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

Sure the trope is old man with long gray beard or old scientist type well beyond his prime. But as a thought experiment, and using speculation to create a fiction, we could imagine a tale involving a younger sort.

Say, the wizard's apprentice who steals a glance or two at his master's spell book and accidentally casts an immortality spell on himself; then, 564 years later, meets a teen girl he can't resist. That would be creepy.

Or you could have the junior scientist who sneaks into another scientist's lab, has an accident, and instead of being able to swing from building to building on webbing is instead made immortal. Again, the story proper doesn't happen until millennia have passed. Heck, maybe that time has already passed, and the "kid" was previously abducted by aliens during the renaissance, the master scientist, his teacher, was an alien, and now he's returning to Earth.

Basically, my point was to compare other sorts of immortal beings to the way the trope of vampire is received.

I see your point about other immortals. Perhaps, it is that vampires are not "human" in that they are ruled by their instincts more than a warlock with immortality. Maybe it's that a warlock is still bound by human society/condition because their basic spiritual and/or biological being is accepted as "human", or at the very least like a human enough, they don't experience the exact kind of alienation or exile that a vampire frequently does in many stories? Maybe it's the trope of their instincts or spirit controlling them instead of them controlling their instincts versus a warlock who is pretty much an epitome of control and eternally developing magical abilities, that made the warlock/witch figure much more "in" human society? It may sound creepy that the immortal witch gets in a relationship with a body-and-mind 17yr-old because that warlock is able to make the free choice to pursue them even knowing that the current society won't approve or stand for it. But with vampires, there's the idea that vampires will and can never be a part of human society the way scientists and witches are. This really can be debatable, as witches can have covens. Perhaps then it's about vampires traditionally being solitary versus witches are more likely to be depicted as social creatures. Scientists, not so much, so I don't know.

I mean you see a form of "vampires-aren't-human-and-maybe-are-more-beasts" when we see Twilight vamps refer to their eternal romantic partner as their "mate". Not "lover", "mate". They tend to hiss when they're upset, angry, or scared. They are a lot more prone to go through with their physical instincts, almost compulsively. You can argue that "mate" could be like "soulmate" since vampires devote their lives to their partners until death and even beyond. It could also be a callback to how people can perceive a vampire as more an animal since only animals have "mates", some would argue.

Finally, to summarize, I think it may sound creepier because (even with some of us debating a vampire being alive), that not a lot of people in real life or in the lore understand vampires to be human whatsoever. Vampires are like a different race/species, while a warlock is a human with magical abilities. Same for the scientist. The rules seem laxer when vampires enter the picture. Again as discussed, because of their permanent state in some form and now because of their animal-like instincts.

I'm not sure when the uncontrollable urge to feed on human blood became a central trait—I mean, beyond simply feeding on blood, there came a certain lust for it that could drive a vampire mad, and I don't think that aspect always existed? In any case, the idea of uncontrollable urges translated into sexual lust also. This, then, can be mapped onto the teenage or YA experience. The vampires who fall in love with mortals and must always fight their own hunger are almost quintessentially teen, heh.

About this, I did mention something similar some 15 or more posts back (an exaggeration) that vampires culturally/historically involve, maybe embody, the sexual thrill of crossing boundaries, particularly boundaries determining power. You went in another direction and farther and I love it. The uncontrollable aspect of blood-drinking, I don't know where it comes from exactly as in what writer wrote a story first with vampires in this situation, but I think it might have to do with that part about instincts I say above. A writer or someone/some people might have said, "we need to up the ante", looked/felt that element of how vampires are looked at as more beasts or nonhuman and decided that that would be a good twist to the necessity of drinking blood, a decidedly nonhuman thing to do and a revolting thing to have to do for survival. Only "beasts" need to do nasty, horrendous stuff to survive.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

I really haven't been considering the public reception and publishers' willingness to publish a story aspect in this. Another person in this chat said that depending on the writer handles characterization, context, and setting that writers can depict a relationship with a significant age gap if they do certain things like present a morally loose man being willing to involve himself with a teen while a "gentleman" may have reservations, maybe still romantically interact but not have sex with her until marriage or/and she gets older. The writer could decide to place the pair in a society where 16-year-olds live doing a lot more "adult" activities than teens of the post-modern world can be equal to a 25-year-old, because they have similar life experiences.

Does the writer suggest the disadvantages or dangers of such pairings with someone being manipulative, do they show a pairing that has a gap but little to no malicious manipulation? And for what purpose do they do so? The writers can allow their characters to openly be in situations where the gap is compared to other gaps and questioned by the characters themselves as they are living their lives. Depending on how the writer handles it all, it can be all good, okay, bad, or an ethical travesty.

They mentioned that the reception would match how the writer handled such pairings, and I agree. It's possible that an 18-year-old with a 25-year-old is accepted because their relationship is so fluffy and sweet, or shows the potential of danger in such relationships.

It was also said that no matter what a fiction/fantasy writer is going to find people who protest and/or get offended by the implications of them writing out characters actively performing taboo behaviors, thinking and seemingly accepting taboo thoughts, etc.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

Meyer's Twilight leaves a lot to be desired in terms of technicalities and the logic behind her vampires. Yes, there are always plot holes, logical inconsistencies, logic holes, etc, especially in fantasy, the occasional "ooo, I don't know about that!" (If you upend and mess with ideology and philosophy, there will some swings and misses). However Meyer's series seriously left many people stuck with the task of plugging up holes, and some were just really dum or offensive choices. My god, I hate the fact she said that vampires' venom turns all humans of every race pale white or olive-toned. In other words, dark-skinned vampires, when they're turned into a vamp, don't stay dark! They become "chalky olive-toned".....Just why, with the history of dark/black-equals-evil?

And yet, I love the craziness of humans being like worms to a vampire in terms of strength. And that they have "gifts" that come from their special ability inherited from when they were humans. It's theorized in the series that vampires inherit their gifts according to what they were particularly good at when they were humans, another sort of amplification. Edward could have been just better at understanding people or knowing what they think when he was human more than the average human, thus he can now read minds. Why could Meyer allow this kind of open speculation about other things people would question? She just didn't seem to handle the story right or put enough thought into it.

 

[Steerpike]

Anne Rice did. But it was romance between vampires, not a vampire and a mortal.

In Octavia Butler’s novel Fledgling the mc is essentially a vampire who is maybe 60 years old but looks like a 10 or 11 year old girl. She has a sexual relationship with a human adult male. Slight twist there is the mc is not human and never was but is of a different species.

 

[PurpleNoxandPizzaDough]

In Octavia Butler’s novel Fledgling the mc is essentially a vampire who is maybe 60 years old but looks like a 10 or 11 year old girl. She has a sexual relationship with a human adult male. Slight twist there is the mc is not human and never was but is of a different species.

What was the reaction like? Was the vampire mentally like an adult and what age if yes?