Twilight Saga

[Yuki-Anne]

I agree! Vampires are...eww...although, I thought the ones from Vampire Knight were a bit better

Actually, if I remember the ending to Vampire Knight aright, it turned out even creepier. At least in addition to being drastically mismatched in age, Bella and Edward weren't

[spoiler]related to each other. In the anime, at least, Yuki ends up with Kaname... who, it turns out, is not only thousands of years older than her, but is also her ancestor? Maybe I misunderstood the details]

I actually rather like vampire movies and such. Call it a guilty pleasure. I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer, despite some philosophical and moral objections I have to it. I saw the original Dracula film as a kid and loved it. And there are parts of Twilight that I have to admit I still find enjoyable. I think the biggest shame of Twilight is the potential it had to be a truly good story.

EDIT: Also, while I think the sparkly vampire thing is ridiculous, I don't think it's the opposite of BA predator. It's bait. Deep sea fangly fishes have shiny appendages. Why not vampires?

And I was being facetious about the "you are Bella" thing... at least partially. I honestly don't understand why straight guys would enjoy Twilight. It is a complete mystery to me. Perhaps they like the idea of a submissive, helpless woman who can't think for herself?
Though I think one of my friends pretty much just loved it because of Alice.

EDIT AGAIN: Say, shouldn't this thread be in General Entertainment?

[Shao Feng-Li]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbn580oTRE1qd0quuo1_500.png for giggles

What the heck does that even mean?

[samurai10]

@ Yuki uh, yeah, I realized too late that this should not be in the General forum, and should be in the Entertainment forum. *headdesk* sorry mods.....

(even going as far as to say she HATES music).

*gasps* *splutters with rage* SHE SAID WHAT?! HOW DARE SHE! HOW DARE STEPHANIE MEYER MAKE BELLA SAY THAT! WHERE ARE THEY?! THEY HAVE INVOKED MY WRATH! I SHALL HAVE BOTH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!! *frantically looks around for them**is a passionate music lover*

But uh, yeah. Well, no matter what anybody says, I think, that sparkly vampires are absolutely, through and through, ridiculous. "Oh look, I'm SPARKLY" and the writing style is awful. That's all I can say.

[ich1990]

I don't see how sparkling is the opposite of everything vampires supposedly stand for though. Besides, how is "the opposite of everything they stand for" bad? I remember a Perry Bible Fellowship comic where someone made fun of a kid for wearing a unicorn shirt, and the kid's unicorn friends impaled the bully on their horn. Unicorns were never murderous beings, but guess what? Making them murderous beings is pretty funny. Or how about Charlie the Unicorn and Candy Mountain? Charlie doesn't act like a unicorn now does he?

Now granted, these ARE done for comedy purposes, and Twilight isn't meant to be comedic. Still, even in serious works, it's not like terrible monsters haven't switched roles.

Hey, I know the perfect example! Godzilla. Ever seen the first Godzilla movie? He was a destructive, malevolent force of nature. He destroyed Tokyo, he was a terrible creature who cared not for the tiny humans. And guess what Godzilla became as the movies went on? Godzilla became a protector of the humans. A force of good, and Earth's defender against those who would try to destroy it. That's the complete opposite of how Godzilla started, now isn't it? And guess what? It was still totally awesome.

How about Catwoman from Batman who turned from a villain to a hero? Oooh, or Venom in Spider-Man, who became a good guy (of sorts)?

So yeah. Definitely don't buy "This is how something is and it can never be different ever!" That's just not true, and even if it was, I still fail to see how sparkling somehow makes Edward "the opposite of a vampire." Heck I remember reading a book when I was a kid called Bunnicula about a vampire rabbit who sucks the juice out of vegetables. Is Bunnicula a horrible abomination of a creature that somehow is horrid and insulting to vampires? I don't think so. In fact he was kinda cute.

So, artistic license means people can do whatever the heck they want? If you want to argue that way, doesn't that mean you can't be upset about Meyer's sexist portrayal of women, though? I mean, you can say that portraying women in a positive light is how things should be and I can say that vampires not sparkling is how things should be, but in the end, well, who are we to tell Meyer she can't do things her own way?

If bunnies can be vampires, then why can't women be pathetic helpless beings that need to be saved by men? If things can be the opposite of what they are and have always been--and I can't complain about it--then why not?

[Beau Soir]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbn580oTRE1qd0quuo1_500.png for giggles

Lol. But nooo... That's like describing someone's brown hair as "a deep chocolate cake."

[ShiroiHikari]

Fun for everyone.
Mark Reads Twilight - this guy's blog is hilarious. He reads and comments on a chapter at a time and picks the story to pieces, while providing an insightful and intelligent analysis. There's some strong language at times and if you enjoy the Twilight series you'd probably best avoid it but everyone else should have a good laugh.

http://markreadstwilight.buzznet.com/user/journal/?p=13

Thanks for that; very funny and entertaining.

[mechana2015]

Some glaring inconsistancy...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcbwlyHGsD1qd0quuo1_500.png

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcf32qMZpP1qd0quuo1_500.png and another gem.

[Nate]

What the heck does that even mean?

My assumption is that she's describing Edward's eyes as she gazes into them. "Butterscotch today," despite the fact butterscotch isn't a color (I'm guessing she means the same color as butterscotch), "lighter" comparing it to how they were previously, and "warmer after hunting" meaning he had been hunting, and somehow his eyes were warmer and friendlier after this.

I could be completely wrong. And I had to read it about seven or eight times to even begin to wrap my head around it. It's poorly written no matter what.

If you want to argue that way, doesn't that mean you can't be upset about Meyer's sexist portrayal of women, though?

No, I certainly can. See, vampires and Godzilla are fictional creatures. Women and relationships are real life. Saying a vampire sparkles does nothing to harm people. Because vampires are fictional. However, young impressionable girls DO exist and can get the wrong idea about relationships and identity from these books.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not sure what that phrase means exactly, though, since you can totally compare apples and oranges. I mean I did it. But what I'm trying to say here is your argument is fallacious, and the two things cannot be compared.

If bunnies can be vampires, then why can't women be pathetic helpless beings that need to be saved by men? If things can be the opposite of what they are and have always been--and I can't complain about it--then why not?

I'm not sure whether you're saying Bunnicula shouldn't exist or not. If you are saying he shouldn't, that's sad. Because Bunnicula was awesome. But again, vampires (vampire bunnies especially) are fictional. Women are not. I mean...that's pretty obvious. She has artistic license to do whatever she wants with a fictional being that has never had a definitive history or series of traits (since some vampires can cross running water, some vampires can drown, some vampires don't like garlic, and so on).

Also, and despite what I said, I never said she shouldn't have written these books. I never said she shouldn't be allowed to write what she wants. Her writing is very strongly based on Mormonism which has the same teachings of singleness being horrible and emphasizing marriage and how you're not fulfilling your duties as a Mormon if you're not with a man (or woman). She should very much be allowed to write what she wants. No one should be prevented from writing things based on how they feel, otherwise let's get rid of Narnia and Lord of the Rings too since they've got basis in Christianity and Catholicism.

What I said was I don't like the books because of the message she gives about women being useless and meaningless without a man. She should still be allowed to write it, but I don't have to like it. Likewise, people here who like vampires have every right to not like how she portrays vampires. If you don't like it, great! You feel vampires shouldn't sparkle. That's cool! But to say "Vampires shouldn't sparkle because history has never shown them to have that trait" well, so what? That's not a good reason. That's why I brought up Alucard. It seems like the creators of Hellsing basically said "Let's make this guy a god." "But wait, why would the Catholic Church hang out with this guy if he was a god, don't they have a thing about gods other than God?" "Oh then uh...let's say he's a vampire! Yeah, then that totally works." Since Alucard is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like a vampire, he's pretty much a god.

So hate the sparkly vampires if you want. You're welcome to! But quit trying to say it's wrong because it's not like vampires in history have been, because everyone brings their own personal interpretation to fictional creatures and have every right to, because everyone else in history has done the exact same thing. Just because you personally don't like the way the vampires are portrayed doesn't make it "wrong" because then I can say Alucard in Hellsing is a stupid vampire and they screwed him up and he's dumb and vampires shouldn't be immune to stakes and sunlight because hey those are defining traits of vampires you can't just CHANGE what vampires are like man, it'd be like Santa Claus giving kids cyanide to have a vampire who can't be killed by a stake!

See what I'm getting at? And again, portraying a fictional character in a certain way is still completely different from portraying relationships the way she does in her book, because women and relationships actually exist and young girls could be damaged emotionally and psychologically by thinking the way this book says they should. I don't think anyone will be emotionally or psychologically damaged by a vampire being sparkly.

[WhiteMage212]

Some glaring inconsistancy...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcbwlyHGsD1qd0quuo1_500.png

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcf32qMZpP1qd0quuo1_500.png and another gem.

The second one is an epic fail!

[mechana2015]

The second one is an epic fail!

There are contexts where that could work, say, if you were introducing a well hidden house with a manicured lawn kept by a hermit or something important about the confusion between meadow and lawn that could later be resolved as a mystery that is somewhat important to setting. Unfortunately this scene involves neither, and she probably would have been better off noting that the grass was short and just moving on.

[ich1990]

No, I certainly can. See, vampires and Godzilla are fictional creatures. Women and relationships are real life. Saying a vampire sparkles does nothing to harm people. Because vampires are fictional. However, young impressionable girls DO exist and can get the wrong idea about relationships and identity from these books.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not sure what that phrase means exactly, though, since you can totally compare apples and oranges. I mean I did it. But what I'm trying to say here is your argument is fallacious, and the two things cannot be compared.

Yet, at the same time no one exists in reality who is anything like Bella, so aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

She has artistic license to do whatever she wants with a fictional being that has never had a definitive history or series of traits (since some vampires can cross running water, some vampires can drown, some vampires don't like garlic, and so on).

Vampires do have a defining philosophy. It is just much vaguer than you think and does not include sparkling. I didn't make this up, it is something that has been pretty consistent throughout all of vampire lore: you have a creature that is a BA predator, usually drinks blood, and is almost always evil. These are guidelines or philosophical handrails if you will, and they have been followed quite consistently throughout the past hundred years and more.

While Edward has the evil thing down (by being a mentally abusive, stalking, manipulator) and he drinks blood, he is not BA. If you want to pull a MSP and argue over what BA is, then we can do that. Just don't say that vampires can arbitrarily be anything, because otherwise you might as well start replacing random words in your vocabulary with "vampire".

Also, vampire despite vampire I said, I never said she shouldn't have vampire these books. I never said she vampire be allowed to write what she wants. Her writing is very vampire based on vampire which has the same teachings of vampire being horrible and emphasizing vampire and how you're not fulfilling vampire duties as a Mormon if you're not with a vampire (or woman). She vampire very much be allowed vampire write what she wants. No one should be vampire from writing things based on how they feel, vampire let's get rid of Narnia and Lord of the Rings too since they've got basis in Christianity and vampire.

I agree and never said otherwise.

Likewise, people here who like vampires have every right to not like how she portrays vampires. If you don't like it, great! You feel vampires shouldn't sparkle. That's cool! But to say "Vampires shouldn't sparkle because history has never shown them to have that trait" well, so what? That's not a good reason.

That is not what I said, so please don't act like it is. To repeat, I said that vampires sparkling is counter to the entire idea of vampirism that has been established and upheld throughout the past hundred years or more of literature. The specifics don't matter. It is the philosophy behind the specifics that do.

To say that a specific set of traits define a vampire is foolish, yeah, we agree. But to say that any random thing can be a vampire if we want it to is also foolish. The only logical choice is to define vampires based upon what they have historically been to the populace in question. That is what I am doing. What are you doing? I am not quite sure.

Since Alucard is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like a vampire, he's pretty much a god.

God-like or not, he has all the philosophical tics of a vampire and stands among the vampires of old without standing out. Some of the details are different, but he doesn't frolic in the grass while his skin sparkles in the sun.

So hate the sparkly vampires if you want. You're welcome to! But quit trying to say it's wrong because it's not like vampires in history have been, because everyone brings their own personal interpretation to fictional creatures and have every right to, because everyone else in history has done the exact same thing. Just because you personally don't like the way the vampires are portrayed doesn't make it "wrong" because then I can say Alucard in Hellsing is a stupid vampire and they screwed him up and he's dumb and vampires shouldn't be immune to stakes and sunlight because hey those are defining traits of vampires you can't just CHANGE what vampires are like man, it'd be like Santa Claus giving kids cyanide to have a vampire who can't be killed by a stake!

I have already made my position clear and will not repeat it again. What I will repeat, however, is my question to you: what are you saying? How do you define vampires? Are you really saying that vampires can arbitrarily be anything? If that is the case, then you should get along really well with MSP and Derrida. If that is not the case, then how do you define them? How do you define anything?

See what I'm getting at?

Not really, no. I see myself using historical precedent as a methodology to define vampires, and I see you seemingly saying that vampires have no definition. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, so I await your reply so that you can un-confuse me.

I would like to also take this time to thank the internet for giving us the chance to seriously enter into protracted debates over life, love, and the meaning of vampires.

[Nate]

The second one is an epic fail!

How?

The book is told in first person. The narrator (Bella) is saying she isn't sure where she was. How is that a failure of writing? If I say,

"Gee...I'm not sure where I am...am I in my room? Or was I transported somewhere else?"

would you go "HERP DERP NATE YOU SHOULD KNOW WHERE YOU ARE YOU IDIOT HOW CAN YOU NOT EVEN KNOW THAT TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE."

Of course you wouldn't. Because since I'm telling you it in first person with MY experiences and thoughts, then it's PROPER WRITING. If Twilight was written in third person, then yes, you would be correct, but it ISN'T.

Geez. I hate to defend Twilight but you know it's just sad that some of you are just bashing it because it's popular to bash it without knowing anything about the books whatsoever. I mean I haven't read them either but I at least know that when you have a first person narrator they're not always going to know everything going on, because first person is not omniscient! Gasp! This isn't a new concept!

EDIT: I was ninja'd!

Yet, at the same time no one exists in reality who is anything like Bella

I don't know that you can say no one exists who is anything like Bella. I don't know every single female on the planet after all. :p Especially since the reader is (to a degree) supposed to identify with Bella. Bella isn't a self-insert for the reader as I stated earlier (since straight men do read and enjoy Twilight too, as odd as that seems), but the fact that many girls seem to identify with her kinda says that girls like her do exist. And even if they don't, girls may start to get the idea that "I should be more like Bella!" and let's face it, Bella isn't exactly the best role model, any more than a kid who watches the Punisher should start to think they should be like him. Not that the Punisher isn't totally awesome, but he still isn't the best role model for kids to emulate.

Vampires do have a defining philosophy. It is just much vaguer than you think and does not include sparkling.

I don't recall a "vampires can never sparkle" in the defining philosophy. I wonder if people in the early 1900s or whatever said the same things you did when new vampire traits were added. "The original defining philosophy never said that vampires can't cross running water! You can't just ADD IN something like not being able to cross a river, it was never part of the philosophy!" Since Bram Stoker completely invented the "not crossing running water" thing, it was never part of European folklore about vampires.

So unless you want to say Bram Stoker's vampires aren't real vampires, you can't say sparkling vampires aren't real vampires.

you have a creature that is a BA predator, usually drinks blood, and is almost always evil

You seem to have made up the BA predator thing. Not all vampires are like that. The Discworld novels certainly don't portray vampires like that (though again, Discworld is comedy/satire, but it still proves that not all vampires fit that description). Edward does drink blood, though, which to me seems to be the only real defining consistent trait of vampires. Bunnicula is different because he sucked vegetable juice, but come on, he's a rabbit. It goes with the theme.

Just don't say that vampires can arbitrarily be anything

I'm not saying they can arbitrarily be anything. I'm just saying there's nothing you can do to show the vampires from Twilight aren't vampires, because the traits of vampires have always changed historically except for their tendency to drink blood.

Question: Is the Count from Sesame Street a vampire? Yes or no? He doesn't seem to be a BA predator and he doesn't seem to drink blood either, and he certainly isn't evil. So is the Count a vampire? What about Count Chocula?

In fact...looking at TV Tropes "Our Vampires Are Different" page, what about the vampires in Blood+? Are they not vampires? Lots of good examples there.

I said that vampires sparkling is counter to the entire idea of vampirism that has been established and upheld throughout the past hundred years or more of literature.

You have yet to provide proof of this, for all the times you keep repeating it. You have given YOUR opinions on what vampires are, and maybe they are not vampires TO YOU, but that doesn't make them not vampires, any more than my opinion on Alucard in Hellsing makes him not a vampire. He may not be a vampire TO ME but he is still a vampire, would you not agree? All you can say is "Well, history!" Except history has changed many of the traits commonly associated with vampires. When was the last time you saw a vampire acting OCD? That was one of their original traits y'know. Did you know unnatural strength and speed were NOT part of the original vampire lore? Pretty crazy that it seems to be used commonly these days.

God-like or not, he has all the philosophical tics of a vampire and stands among the vampires of old without standing out. Some of the details are different, but he doesn't frolic in the grass while his skin sparkles in the sun.

He doesn't stand out against the vampires of old? Right, because not being able to be killed by a stake through the heart totally doesn't make him stand out, nope, every vampire was immune to stakes. And crosses. And garlic. And all vampires had insane magical powers that made them like gods. And none of them were affected by sunlight at all. See, if Dracula had stepped into sunlight he would've just said "Man I sure do need some sunglasses!"

"Doesn't stand out." Ha. Does he even drink blood? That's an honest question, actually. I haven't really read Hellsing, so I don't know if he does or not.

I would like to also take this time to thank the internet for giving us the chance to seriously enter into protracted debates over life, love, and the meaning of vampires.

Vampires are serious business. If we don't argue over the traits of fictional characters, the world may very well collapse.

[mechana2015]

How?

The book is told in first person. The narrator (Bella) is saying she isn't sure where she was. How is that a failure of writing? If I say,

"Gee...I'm not sure where I am...am I in my room? Or was I transported somewhere else?"

would you go "HERP DERP NATE YOU SHOULD KNOW WHERE YOU ARE YOU IDIOT HOW CAN YOU NOT EVEN KNOW THAT TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE."

Of course you wouldn't. Because since I'm telling you it in first person with MY experiences and thoughts, then it's PROPER WRITING. If Twilight was written in third person, then yes, you would be correct, but it ISN'T.

Geez. I hate to defend Twilight but you know it's just sad that some of you are just bashing it because it's popular to bash it without knowing anything about the books whatsoever. I mean I haven't read them either but I at least know that when you have a first person narrator they're not always going to know everything going on, because first person is not omniscient! Gasp! This isn't a new concept!

I did read the book and in the context of the book, it makes no sense at all. There are meadows in Oregon/Washington, and I've been hiking out there and seen these areas, and it was very clear that these were not lawns, and I'm not even a native of the state. They're way out in the middle of the forest, and unless she's implying that she expected some house with a manacured lawn out there, it really makes no sense to bring it up, especially since theres no dialog past this point that indicates that she expected any of the trappings that come with a lawn to appear, like a house or other evidence of maintenance. Maybe if she hadn't lived in Forks and visited regularly for years it might be excusable that she thinks that all short grassed areas are lawns but really we're left with two options since she actually grew up in this this area, or at the very least visited it regularly (we run into the same problem with a beach at another point in the book).

1. Meyer threw the word in without considering the definition and then ignored any implication of it in her pursuit of the scene she originally dreamed, resulting in it being useless misleading fluff that serves to confuse the reader rather than inform them.

2. Bella Swan is an idiot that can't tell the difference between nature and a golf course, despite having lived in this environment and a contrasting environment with tons of actual lawns and golf courses. She has been through a bit of a surprising event right before this, but nothing comes of it after the comment, and I'm fairly sure it's called a meadow for the rest of the time without any sort of clarification process.

I'm voting for 1, though it sort of comes off as 2, which is the problem with stream of consciousness in general... if you're going to show thought processes, you need to show them through to a conclusion, unless your character has mental issues that you're trying to exhibit through the writing, as Faulkner did in Sound and the Fury.

[ShiroiHikari]

A meadow is not manicured; a lawn probably is (but not necessarily). Also "lawn" typically implies an expanse of grass surrounding some sort of structure, whereas "meadow" is more like a clearing out in a rural/forest area which might also have weeds or wildflowers growing on it. In any case she should have just skipped it because it doesn't really matter and just makes her sound even more like an idiot.

[Nate]

I thought in the trailer for the movie though that there was a house the werewolves were living in that was in the middle of the woods or something, so I mean it's not impossible for a house to be out there.

Meyer threw the word in without considering the definition and then ignored any implication of it in her pursuit of the scene she originally dreamed, resulting in it being useless misleading fluff that serves to confuse the reader rather than inform them.

Probably the most likely. I use words that are wrong all the time in things I write, often by accident or because it just sounds good. And it doesn't necessarily confuse the reader. It shows how neat the grass was if she confused it for a lawn.

Bella Swan is an idiot that can't tell the difference between nature and a golf course, despite having lived in this environment and a contrasting environment with tons of actual lawns and golf courses.

Man, I think I see dumb stuff all the time. The eyes and mind play tricks on people, like one time I thought I saw a squirrel crossing the road and slammed on the brakes only to find out it was a leaf blowing in the wind. Doesn't make me an idiot despite the fact that leaves and squirrels don't look alike usually.

[mechana2015]

What nette said. I don't think the intent was to make her sound dumb, but more just to pad wordcount...for some reason. (She's not writing a serial or being paid by the words why does she do this? Oh yeah, her editor was a useless lump on a log.)

[Okami]

The only reason I don't particularly care for the books is the whole message of "If you are a woman and you don't have a man in your life you will be unfulfilled and alone and your life is meaningless until you get a man." I know it's because of the Mormon influence, but it's still an absolutely terrible message to send to girls.

I knew there was some underlying reason why I really don't like the books anymore. This explains it.

[ShiroiHikari]

What nette said. I don't think the intent was to make her sound dumb, but more just to pad wordcount...for some reason. (She's not writing a serial or being paid by the words why does she do this? Oh yeah, her editor was a useless lump on a log.)

I'm more inclined to believe it's a case of "Editor? What editor?"

[Furen]

The second one is an epic fail!

it may be a fail, but it's simultaneously a win, but the first was better.

[FllMtl Novelist]

I haven't read Twilight. The first I'd heard of it was when I came across a magazine article saying how disturbing/ morally unhealthy it was. I just did a mental shrug and went 'hey whatever' because I hadn't heard of it, and had no interest.

When I first saw all the hype, I did hate it, but now I'm just disinterested. It's not my thing; therefore I don't like it, nor will I hate on it since I'll never actually read/watch it.

Vampire romances don't interest me. At all. I just don't get the appeal. I read some of the manga Vampire Kisses and Vampire Knight because my friend was reading them, but I didn't get far, especially with the former.

Also, all the hating on Twilight is just making it an even bigger deal. I've heard so much about how bad the writing is, I'm tempted to take the book out from my library and attempt to read it. Because when everyone says "This sucks SO MUCH" I, at least, tend to think, "Really? Does it really?"

[mechana2015]

I can just keep linking the excerpts, or you could watch one of the blogs linked earlier where someone else reads twilight.

[ShiroiHikari]

Because when everyone says "This sucks SO MUCH" I, at least, tend to think, "Really? Does it really?"

Yes, REALLY. People need to learn how bad it sucks so they can read better books, and so an "author" as freaking terrible as Meyer doesn't get this rich and famous ever again.

[ich1990]

I don't know that you can say no one exists who is anything like Bella. I don't know every single female on the planet after all. :p

Oh come now, Nate. I would expect someone like you to have encountered a very large sample size.

I don't recall a "vampires can never sparkle" in the defining philosophy.

Alright, please point out to me where sparkling was used as a vampire trait a hundred years ago and I will acquiesce.

I wonder if people in the early 1900s or whatever said the same things you did when new vampire traits were added. "The original defining philosophy never said that vampires can't cross running water! You can't just ADD IN something like not being able to cross a river, it was never part of the philosophy!" Since Bram Stoker completely invented the "not crossing running water" thing, it was never part of European folklore about vampires.

I don't know, I haven't met every single person from the early 1900's.

So unless you want to say Bram Stoker's vampires aren't real vampires, you can't say sparkling vampires aren't real vampires.

This isn't too difficult, I don't know why you are making it that way.

Vampire:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0_S5Nq4MJZJHZT9Hyicnijj3k_L0gcu5E-psaPy53oFBMR2Qu

Not vampire:http://twilightrehab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/sparkly.jpg

You seem to have made up the BA predator thing. Not all vampires are like that. The Discworld novels certainly don't portray vampires like that (though again, Discworld is comedy/satire, but it still proves that not all vampires fit that description). Edward does drink blood, though, which to me seems to be the only real defining consistent trait of vampires. Bunnicula is different because he sucked vegetable juice, but come on, he's a rabbit. It goes with the theme.

Dude, the TV tropes page you listed says right on the main page that they are almost universally BA. As you said, Discworld isn't a good example because it is satire and supposed to be funny. Also, how is Bunnicula not BA?

I'm not saying they can arbitrarily be anything. I'm just saying there's nothing you can do to show the vampires from Twilight aren't vampires, because the traits of vampires have always changed historically except for their tendency to drink blood.

Okay, I am fine with that. We don't disagree on the main thing, then, just the degree to which the idea is taken. You say blood drinking is their defining trait, I say that being blood thirsting BA predators with a mean streak is their defining shtick.

Question: Is the Count from Sesame Street a vampire? Yes or no? He doesn't seem to be a BA predator and he doesn't seem to drink blood either, and he certainly isn't evil. So is the Count a vampire? What about Count Chocula?

Nope and no. Comic relief mockeries of vampires, but not "real" ones.

In fact...looking at TV Tropes "Our Vampires Are Different" page, what about the vampires in Blood+? Are they not vampires? Lots of good examples there.

I don't know, I haven't seen Blood+. There are lots of good examples, though, most of which fall right into my definition of a vampire.

You have yet to provide proof of this, for all the times you keep repeating it. You have given YOUR opinions on what vampires are, and maybe they are not vampires TO YOU, but that doesn't make them not vampires, any more than my opinion on Alucard in Hellsing makes him not a vampire. He may not be a vampire TO ME but he is still a vampire, would you not agree? All you can say is "Well, history!" Except history has changed many of the traits commonly associated with vampires. When was the last time you saw a vampire acting OCD? That was one of their original traits y'know. Did you know unnatural strength and speed were NOT part of the original vampire lore? Pretty crazy that it seems to be used commonly these days.

Actually, your TV Tropes page is proof of it. See also: The Vampyre from 1819, Dracula from 1897, or Irish mythology.

He doesn't stand out against the vampires of old? Right, because not being able to be killed by a stake through the heart totally doesn't make him stand out, nope, every vampire was immune to stakes. And crosses. And garlic. And all vampires had insane magical powers that made them like gods. And none of them were affected by sunlight at all. See, if Dracula had stepped into sunlight he would've just said "Man I sure do need some sunglasses!"

Dude, he is Evil. Drinks blood. BA. Just like pretty much every other vampire in the history of literature.

"Doesn't stand out." Ha. Does he even drink blood? That's an honest question, actually. I haven't really read Hellsing, so I don't know if he does or not.

You usually ask dishonest questions?

As for my honest answer, I don't know, he pretty much just tears people into bite sized chunks and then eats those chunks. So, yeah, I guess he does consume a lot of blood.

Vampires are serious business. If we don't argue over the traits of fictional characters, the world may very well collapse.

Just so long as we are clear as to how serious of an issue this is. I wouldn't want us to stop arguing and go do something productive with our lives, after all.

[ShiroiHikari]

...

I still stand by my earlier statement that vampires just aren't really all that cool.

[Furen]

...

I still stand by my earlier statement that vampires just aren't really all that cool.

Yeah, if they were cool, they would have decided not to die then.

[Blacklight]

I found this Wikipedia page interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_vampire_traits#Appearance

There are even more types of "vampires" than listed, and most of those listed are fairly different from the European folklore version.
(Twilight is mentioned on the page too.)

My theory is that either
A. There are about too many different types of "vampires" for there to be a true vampire archetype, or,
B. There are no "true vampires" today, because none of them stay true to the original ideas of what vampires should be, and there were plenty more than just European folklore.

Or even C. The only "true vampires" are stereotypical ones, which I would normally disagree with.

[rocklobster]

Really, what is it about vampires that any serious girl would find attractive: they drink blood, they kill people, they're frightening. I mean, I can kind of understand fantasizing over say, Draco Malfoy, but come on? Meh, maybe I'm reading too much into this.

[Falx]

Am I the only one who thought the posters for Twilight make Robert look like he has liver cancer?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

He doesn't have liver cancer? My bad.

[ShiroiHikari]

Falx, you aren't the only one. They really expect people to find that attractive? Maybe impressionable 13-year-old girls would, but--

Wait a minute.