Twilight (The Twilight Saga, #1) Twilight discussion


154 views
Vampires: then and now

Comments Showing 1-50 of 79 (79 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Stéphanie (last edited Mar 17, 2013 12:13PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Stéphanie Lately I've been hearing so many people say that stephenie meyer ruined the reputation of vampires. that she made them look ''weak'' and ''pathetic''.

And I was wondering what most of you think? I personally think that she made them appear even stronger than the ''old'' vampires. They appear to have no weakness aside that they can't go outside because they would get noticed. they are strong, and sometimes even have superpowers...
Your thoughts??


message 2: by Deliriate (last edited Mar 17, 2013 03:18PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Deliriate They're not vampires. Sorry.


message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

They sparkle -_- this is a problem


BubblesTheMonkey I think SM's way makes it more appealing because I'm ugly and it gives me a chance to dream one day what it would be like to be beautiful, even though it will never happen. Vampires are *fiction*, so those who think that she ruined it, she really didn't. BTW- you didn't have to read the book. No one forced you to do it.


Kataury I wouldn't say she made them weak and pathetic, what she did was display them all as gary/mary-sue romance creatures, instead of demons of hell that seek the damnation of man that vampires originally were depicted as since Stoker first invented them. A gary/mary-sue, as many readers know, is a character that is altogether flawless, there is no weakness to be used by their enemies, and if there is it's small and unrealistically hard to bring out. They come from tragic circumstances to have the reader provide sympathy, their looks are beyond naturally beautiful, they're 'impossible' to hate, because there's nothing to hate to the tragically beautiful characters. The only way to kill a vampire is to tear him up and burn him? That's an unrealistically impossible weakness, and Meyer incorporates every gary-sue characteristic to her main male character Edward. Before Meyer, vampires were incredible monsters that both horrified readers, as well as appealed to them due to their mystery and dark natures. But now the only real fiction that displays the true qualities of a vampire is seen in adult fantasy literature, some of which isn't even correct in that sense, and adult horror.

Vampires were such great supernatural monsters, because they were horrors of the night. When night fell people were in fear of losing their virgin daughters, their cattle or being drained dry themselves. Vampires could only come out at night, because the light of the sun burned them to dust. If you went by Stokers vampires, they couldn't touch the bible, holy water burned their flesh, garlic was a devil's repellant, and the cross was a sacred charm to protect those that feared the dark from the very demons that ruled and inhabited such an environment. Vampires of old were so incredibly fascinating because they struck fear in people. But they were so much more developed as characters because even a predator had to take its own precautions to catch its prey, which Meyer and more modern authors fail to introduce in their characters. There was nothing romantic about demons that drained their victims of their blood. The only partial romantic part of a vampire was their ability to seduce through their hypnotizing gaze and predatory grace, with the ability to lure as a clever hunter would do, which is exactly what vampires were until current modern authors decided to alter it to a more Literary pop culture standpoint.

Meyer weakened the idea of a vampire in the worst way, in my opinion. She took a classical horrific creature and decided to popularize it by adding more appeal to them. They had beautiful features and the same predatory grace of other vampires, but there was no weakness to them that actually mattered. Vampires were such awesome monsters because they had a weakness. They were 'realistic' in a way that they had an achilles heel that could by used by their prey, the humans. The light was their shield, the cross and holiness of the church turned the people to safety from evil. But Meyer decides to toss out the classic evil and make them these misunderstood, beautiful creatures that just wanted to be loved.

The only relation that the modern vampires seen in the media today has towards the original vampires of back then are that they drink blood, live forever, and can turn others into vampires. Besides that, the modern vampire holds absolutely no relation to an actual vampire, which weakens the character of a vampire as a whole, which was a demon created by satan to bring more of man to fall to darkness and despair. So no, I strongly disagree with your statement of a vampire being stronger than the vampires of tradition, because they are possibly the most commonly popular and yet most underdeveloped characters of our modern literature today.


Mochaspresso Honestly, I think people are a little one-sided and biased in their vampire lit and that's why they act as if SM single-handedly changed the image of vampires with the Twilight novels. I think Anne Rice probably way did more to "romanticize" and "humanize" vampires than Stephanie Meyer's did.


Kataury Mochaspresso wrote: "Honestly, I think people are a little one-sided and biased in their vampire lit and that's why they act as if SM single-handedly changed the image of vampires with the Twilight novels. I think Ann..."

Except Rice used an incredible Gothic writing style and still kept the Vampire characteristic on a more dark and mysterious side. Her romance wasn't the usual popular romance, it was Gothic romance, her entire writing style (until she would later convert to Catholicism) would maintain a strict loyalty to Gothic writing. I agree Rice made the vampire a lot more human, but I feel like she didn't popularize them like Meyer's did. She strictly kept vampires to their dark and torturing lives of eternity in the night. Meyer's literally involved vampires and humans together, and made the vampire less dark and mysterious and just... "intense prettyboys".


Diane Sparkling is viewed as "girly" or "gay" and therefore weak. Not sure if internalized misogyny or homophobia. Maybe a little of both.


Lindsay Carpenter It's not that sparkling is "girly" or "gay"--those terms are rather offensive in this day and age. It's that vampires do not sparkle. They turn to ash or explode, which everyone who has ever read any other vampire fiction knows. They just don't scream "I kick butt" if they're sparkling because sparkling usually is related to a good natured, positive entity in fiction. So some of Stephenie's vampires are good, but not all are. Sparkling, thus, is out of place.

I just don't see any intrigue in the Twilight "vampires." Perhaps if the main vampires had had a bit more of a dark side. Jasper was a stronger vampire than the other Cullens in this regard because it was clear that he did not always have such great control. The "bad" vampires in Twilight, even, were pretty good at upholding what makes vampires awesome. A vampire, even if good, needs to be somewhat morally ambiguous, gothic, and mysterious. It's part of the historical appeal. Edward is really what ruined vampires--he just comes off as a whiny emo boy who happens to be really old and drink animal blood. So, Stephenie, in creating a really weak main character vampire, did sort of destroy the vampire image.


Diane Lindsay wrote: "It's not that sparkling is "girly" or "gay"--those terms are rather offensive in this day and age. It's that vampires do not sparkle. They turn to ash or explode, which everyone who has ever read..."

You're right, it is rather offensive. Which is why I don't get why a lot of people say those things, a lot. May it be in forums or in real life.

As discussed in the other threads repeatedly, not all vampires have the same characteristics. Not all vampires burn in the sunlight, not all vampires have protruding teeth, not all vampires are handsome or suave, not all vampires are ugly monsters..etc etc.

There is no rule about vampires having to be gothic or mysterious, it is a matter of preference. Should people have complained that having good looking suave vampires minimized the scary factor? Some people liked the old myths with the monster-looking vampires but I don't see how some types of vampires take away from other types.


Kataury Diane wrote: "Lindsay wrote: "It's not that sparkling is "girly" or "gay"--those terms are rather offensive in this day and age. It's that vampires do not sparkle. They turn to ash or explode, which everyone w..."

I agree that vampires are all about preference. But In other ways, if you're going to alter a vampire's traits and weaknesses, then maybe the author should pull out a little bit of creativity and call them some sort of monster other than a vampire. Call them a monster of the faerie, because there are millions of terrifying creatures from both seelie and unseelie that could be described perfectly with some authors depictions of vampires. A vampire was invented by Stoker, Rice did a play-on with vampires, but she didn't change them so drastically as Meyer did. Because in reality her vampires really weren't vampires, if anything they could have been a creature of the fae, especially since they sparkle in sunlight and not burn to ash, hold an unearthly beauty to humans, don't age a day, etc. They fit the description of a denizen of the fae almost perfectly. But she decides to call them vampires? A vampire, in my opinion, is Stoker's invention. He created their images, he developed the characteristics of these supernatural creatures, and they should be kept loyal to their natures. If one's going to change much about them they can proclaim that they have vampire like characteristics, but you can't call them vampires. Meyer had... interesting, creations, but they weren't vampires. Vampires are demons and monsters, not romantic creatures.


Deliriate Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Lindsay wrote: "It's not that sparkling is "girly" or "gay"--those terms are rather offensive in this day and age. It's that vampires do not sparkle. They turn to ash or explode, w..."

Thank you. So very much. I think I love you. You're one of the few people that seems to get this.


Diane Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracula. Stoker popularized the vampire genre but didn't come up with the idea of vampires, he wasn't even the first one to put vampire stories into writing.

A lot of the old folklore had ugly, monster like beings, some corpses, some devils, etc. Then that eventually evolved into charismatic, mysterious dudes.


Eydís The Twilight vampires are maybe not weak but they are silly. Who would chose to spend their eternity in High School?

And also, the ancient vampires in Twilight are fragile and weak, as opposed to Anne Rice's vampires that get stronger and more powerful as they get older.


message 15: by [deleted user] (new)

My problem with the sparkles is that she never explains it. If they're going to sparkle, at least give a reason for it. I mean, did their skin crystalize? Did their skin cells become reflective? How does the sparkling happen?!?!?!

I wouldn't say they're weak, so much as they're more... angsty. There's a lot less action and biting going on, and a lot more forbidden love and vegetarianism.


Diane Nicole di Angelo wrote: "My problem with the sparkles is that she never explains it. If they're going to sparkle, at least give a reason for it. I mean, did their skin crystalize? Did their skin cells become reflective? Ho..."

I always thought it was because they're "hard as diamonds" or something like that.
I dunno, it's free interpretation I guess.


Aussie bookworm I love the Scary vampires of old, but I love how The new vampires can still be caring, and have a "human" side. I don't understand the whole sparkling thing I thought that was just stupid. I like men as MEN not girly weak metrosexual boys. They need to be strong, protective and a little bit bad.


message 18: by [deleted user] (new)

Aussie bookworm wrote: "I love the Scary vampires of old, but I love how The new vampires can still be caring, and have a "human" side. I don't understand the whole sparkling thing I thought that was just stupid. I like m..."

That's it! They aren't bad. That's my problem with it! I mean, caring and sweet side, that's great and it adds another layer to the story! But there's a lack of evil, rebellious, raw bad in there. A bit of that devilish side adds to a story, and it just wasn't there.


Diane Aussie bookworm wrote: " I like men as MEN not girly weak metrosexual boys. They need to be strong, protective and a little bit bad.
."


It's perfectly fine to have that preference but I find the implication that anything "unmanly" or "girly" is weak (or silly or not to be desired) a problematic viewpoint. And the implication that there are a certain set of characteristics that are indications of "being a man".


Kataury Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracula. Stoker popularized the vampire genre but d..."


Either way, whether mythology or classic horror, they all stuck to a vampire and what it was. The name vampire probably has multiple names depending on the folklore as well as the speaker, but Stoker created a label with his classic novel and the authors of today most likely derived vampires from his works, not cultural mythology and folklore. I doubt Meyer really thought that deep about vampires, since she changed them to fit her story, instead of altering her story fit the creature that was a vampire.


message 21: by Deliriate (last edited Mar 17, 2013 10:03PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Deliriate Nicole di Angelo wrote: "Aussie bookworm wrote: "I love the Scary vampires of old, but I love how The new vampires can still be caring, and have a "human" side. I don't understand the whole sparkling thing I thought that w..."

This. They didn't even feel like vampires anymore. So it's hard to see it as a vampire love story.


message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

Right?? They're more like oddly deformed humans with a strange liking for animal blood. I mean sure, add twists to a common mythological creature, but there's a point where you twist it so much that it doesn't count as that creature anymore. If that makes sense...


Diane Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracula. Stoker popularized the vamp..."


And what exactly makes a vampire? Who gets to decide?

When whoever made vampires charismatic and suave (it wasn't Stoker) re-worked the myths to fit his vision of vampires wasn't he changing the mythology to fit his vision?
That's what SM is doing too. I don't see why that's a problem. The base mythology is pretty flexible.


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

Agreed. Think outside the box, but keep the box in sight.


Deliriate Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracula. Stoker popu..."


The thing is. It might be fiction, but Meyer took something and twisted it so much that the mythology behind her vampires blends in with faeries almost perfectly.


Diane Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracu..."


Isn't pokemon made a certain company? I assume pokemons weren't in countless folklore and have multiple interpretations.


Deliriate Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predat..."



I think you missed my point. If it's okay for Meyer to paint an image over with something else, then I may as well do just the same.


Diane Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have ..."


And you seemed to miss mine.
The vampire "image" has changed a lot. Just because you don't like the new versions doesn't mean they aren't valid.
Dude who changed vampires to have an element of mystery and attraction painted over the traditional image of vampires being ugly blood sucking monster things.


Deliriate Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and fo..."


You seem to forget that these "vampires" have changed so much that they mimic another creature in fiction. Do you not see how much they resemble faeries now? Who are you to tell me what I can and can't call things by?


Diane Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot ..."


Funny because who are you to tell SM what she can and can't call things by?

You didn't even answer my question on what makes a vampire. Mythology is pretty out there. There are purple things that are called vampires, they don't seem to be anything like the literature-favorite type of vampires but they predate that.


Diane You know what else vampires can be like? Zombies, because some of the old vampire myths have rotting corpses for vampires.
Witches, spirits, that sort of thing. Like I said, the mythology is pretty old there.


Kataury Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracula. Stoker popu..."


You can change something however you want, but Stoker is known as a classic horror author for his work. It's critically acclaimed and has been accepted widely by the general populace. His depiction of a vampire was accepted by the general populace as the description of vampires. Meyer did do the same thing, but she took a previously widely accepted mold made by stoker and made into something totally different, with the name vampire applied to it. Now, and I think rather unfortunately, a lot of the new generations think that vampires are Meyer's depiction, and don't really know about Stoker's vampire, or Rice's vampire, or even the vampires of old. Young adult novels write about the same depiction of vampires that Meyer used, and vampires are no longer demons as they were traditionally seen as for years. Now they're just romance creatures. All depends on point of view? Yes, but can one point of view twist everything to totally abandon the original prototype? Easily. Happens all the time, and it's really sad, because I loved the gothic and dark vampires from Stoker, to Rice, to Del Toro. But now it's practically impossible to find an actual gothic vampire anymore because they simply aren't popular. Being all chill to having open points of view are fine, but sometimes people also need to remember that the original ideas should be kept in mind before you apply an unfitting name to a different individual.


Deliriate Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Deliriate wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not..."


Funny. I don't remember telling SM anything, but I do remember flaming her for the crap she's put out.

So wonderful, let me know when The Walking Dead features sparkling zombies. Will they grow wings and fly over the fences of the Prison and Woodbury too? Since the mythology is open for interpretation.


Diane Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predating Stoker's Dracu..."


Just because something is well-written, generally accepted and started a vampire-genre boom doesn't mean it's the ONLY interpretation that is valid.

Now John Polidori (there, I googled it) was a legend and from his lead, there was born the widely accepted archetype of vampires (the Stoker-ish kind yes). But they only used certain types of folklore and mythology that fit to the stories they write and they add things that add to the feel of their story as well as the storyline.

Now having established a great "archetype" doesn't nullify all the awesome mythology and folklore out there, those that they based the story on and those they didn't use.
That doesn't stop authors from creating stories from different kinds of mythology, or stop authors from creating new archetypes with pre-established characteristics.

I personally would love new types of vampires born from the older lesser-known myths.


Diane I mean, if you're going to criticize one author's changes, why not criticize all the authors who made changes to the folk-lore. LOL, that'd be a hoot.


Kataury Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have vampires predatin..."


If an author writes a novel with their own version of a 'vampire', depicting them as people with angel wings, insectoid appendages, flies about during the day, lives twenty years less than a human, but can suck blood and transform people into their own kind, are they a vampire? If a man walks around sucking people's blood and spreading a disease through his mouth like a contagion, is he a vampire? I prick my finger and I suck the blood from my thumb, am I a vampire? It wouldn't be much of a surprise how many people would actually say 'no, that's not a vampire.'

Great! So Polidori was the central and beginning archetype (that's quite good to know, since it seems we can all acknowledge the fact that there is a beginning to the vampire stereotype). "They used certain folklore and mythology to fit the stories they write and add things to support their feeling to their story" (I am paraphrasing you, of course). Unless anybody acknowledged Polidori or Stoker's works as the proper depiction of a 'vampire' would it have accepted as the stereotype for a vampire? No, it wouldn't, because in the end, the popularity of a work decides what something is or isn't. That being said, the vampire stereotype has been changed. The gothic vampire is no more, unless another author comes up with a new work depicting vampires in an appealing light to the audience so it will be changed back to the gothic model. Meyer's depiction is currently what a vampire is, because she put the name 'vampire' on her characters, when really it wasn't. The original and longstanding vampire was developed and given name and renown by Stoker and Polidori. There is nothing vampiric about her characters, besides the three points that I have previously stated in some above comment.

Had Meyer been a little more creative and given them a different title, then the gothic vampire would have been spared their death in the literary world. All it took was an appealing image, and Meyer altered the stereotype and ended the literary works for the gothic vampire, of that we can all be certain of by simply looking at the popular vampire novels of today: Vampire Academy, Vampire Kisses, all those other YA novels that depict vampires base themselves of the popular stereotype developed by Meyer. There are a rare few authors that stick to the old Gothic Vampire, but they won't be popular because the popularity focuses on the stereotype of the romance vampire.


message 37: by Diane (last edited Mar 17, 2013 11:22PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Diane Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kataury wrote: "A vampire was invented by Stoker."
Nope, he did not. There are a lot of myths and folklores that have va..."


I'm sorry, are you saying popular opinion gets to decide what a vampire is or is not? Not the actual myths and folklores that they were actually BASED from? hahaha

I'm sorry I can't agree with you there. Probably best we leave it at that since our viewpoints are so different.

Meyer added something that worked for her story and was to her liking. So do many many other authors, there is a list floating around in the interwebs, you'd be surprised at all the new additional characteristics.
Sparkling isn't the essence of Meyer's vampires, but it's a play of what sunlight does to some of the traditional vampires.

Meyer didn't END gothic literature, LOL. A birth of an archetype is not a death of another. If you just look, there are still plenty of authors who stick to the Stoker-ish vampires and still a few more who stick to monsterous vampires.

(Besides SM didn't invent non-gothic vamps, there are quite a few who wrote that type of stuff before her).

All these types of vampires are not mutual exclusive. I say hurray to variety!


April Stéphanie wrote: "Lately I've been hearing so many people say that stephenie meyer ruined the reputation of vampires. that she made them look ''weak'' and ''pathetic''.

And I was wondering what most of you think? I..."


I agree with you. I LOVE the world that Stephanie created! I think the vampires are strong and just amazing! And the fact that they have powers makes them a little better! I adore the world that Stephanie created! :)


Kataury If nobody knows about the folklore of old, or nobody even cares, then yes, popular opinion in the end will decide what something is or isn't. And you laughing and also starting to caps lock words shows that you aren't in a listening mood because you're getting defensive and going to shrug things off like many arguers do. So yeah, best that we stick our own opinions.

My final statement is that Meyer altered the stereotype to her liking, but her one alteration in the end most likely permanently changed the vampire stereotype in popular literature. Yes, gothic vampires will exist, but their original popularity is totally gone, because they're replaced by the romantic vampire. Even if authors still write about them, there won't be as many readers, and new readers who've never read gothic literature may state that they aren't vampires because they will have grown up in the popular media stating the characteristics of a vampire are.

Meyer might not have invented non-gothic vampires, but shoe popularized it and made it so the populace accepted this type of vampire as the new vampire. It doesn't matter who wrote something similar before, it matters who made it an influence, which people like Meyer did.

Had Meyer chosen to be a little more creative and apply a name other than vampire, then she could have introduced a new creature into the world, instead of altering a long time traditional creature from horror. It's all about labeling and naming. If you apply a name to something inaccurately, but portray it in an extremely appealing way to the audience and can persuade them to alter their views, and it is widely accepted by many of the populace, then that will, in the end, alter something and change it from what it originally was. Hurray to variety? Sure, so long as you use creativity and invent your own name instead of screwing up one already made.


message 40: by Bill (last edited Mar 18, 2013 08:34AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Lindsay wrote: "They turn to ash or explode, which everyone who has ever read any other vampire fiction knows."

Everyone knows wrong, then.

Stoker's Dracula could walk in the daylight without harm. The only problem he had was a reduction in his powers.

To kill a classic vampire, one had to stake it through the heart (to keep it from attacking), cut off its head, burn the head, and scatter the ashes. It was a lot more complicated than "Duhhh... let's open a window!"

The burning was added by Hollywood. Someone in another thread said it came from Nosferatu, and I'm inclined to believe them.

What does "burn in sunlight" add? A shortcut. Nothing more.

There's at least one modern vampire (Miriam Blaylock in The Hunger) who didn't need to worry about sunlight. Strieber's depiction remained faithful to the lore, and actually added something new to it.

...unlike Meyers, who basically slapped together something to fit her God-awful "vision," then pasted a "vampire" label on it because vampires sell.

Yes, kids: the only reason Eddie and his crew are "vampires" is because vampires (along with zombies) remain popular even after market oversaturation has been achieved. There was no "creative vision" here (if there was, she would have put her own label on them... something faerie, as I have stated in other threads and Katuary stated here), just a simple money grab.

Even though I know it will fall on deaf ears (yet again), I urge everyone who puts Meyers on a pedestal to go out and read older vampire novels, or at least watch Dracula. At the very least, watch the older version of Fright Night. Educate yourselves on what a vampire really is.


message 41: by [deleted user] (new)

I think the only sure thing that's similar in every vampire (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that they drink blood, be it human, animal, etc.


message 42: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Nicole di Angelo wrote: "I think the only sure thing that's similar in every vampire (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that they drink blood, be it human, animal, etc."

The succubus (a female demon who drains life force from humans through sexual contact) and incubus (male counterpart to the succubus) have been added to vampire lore at times, so it's not 100% that a vampire will simply drink blood.

You should also look up the lamia from Greek mythology, who is occasionally put forth as one of the earliest vampire myths. She simply ate human flesh.


message 43: by [deleted user] (new)

My bad, thanks for telling me. But actually that helps the point that a lot of people are making: it all depends on how you classify a vampire


message 44: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Nicole di Angelo wrote: "My bad..."

No, not really. The "blood-sucking" vampire is the vast majority of leech lore, so it's the common perception. Anything outside that perception is very rare, so there's no "bad" to be had, if you follow.

But actually that helps the point that a lot of people are making: it all depends on how you classify a vampire

One thing all other vampire stories (aside from Twilight) agree on is the darker, seductive aspect of the leech. A vampire exudes a dark attraction that mortals find irresistible. You know it's evil... but you just. Can't. Look. Away.

It's a creature of horror: evil, murderous, and corrupting.

Meyers, on the other hand, makes them attractive because... they're attractive. There's no danger to Eddie; he's like a cross between that lion in the Futurama episode with the Popplers (the one the vegans were raising on a tofu diet... that poor thing looked sad) and Charles de Mar from Better Off Dead ("Bella, I've been going to this high school for 7 and a half decades... I'm no dummy.").


message 45: by Stéphanie (last edited Mar 18, 2013 01:42PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Stéphanie I agree that S. Meyers vampires are a lot less scarier than the ''older'' vampires. And don't even get me starting on the sparkling .. I found that that is just the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

But beside that.. it always seemed to me that s.Meyers vampires are so much stronger. and that they should be feared just as much as the vampires that burn in the sun. but maybe, the sparkling and magnificent beauty prevents that. I still don't really have an opinion over them.., but you guys really did gave some good insight!! (sorry for my horible english...)


message 46: by [deleted user] (last edited Mar 18, 2013 08:32PM) (new)

Personally, I dislike the typical "god" races/species that are increasingly common in modern fiction. As in, perfect and superior in every way, either immortal or near invincible -- superhuman speed, superhuman strength, extended life span, sped up healing process, additional supernatural abilities, etc.

Simply put: It's cliché and lacks inspiration.

Every being has both light and darkness, strength and weakness, intelligence and stupidity, et cetera, inherently.

If you want to write of a higher race, fine -- just don't make them essentially gods (by the polytheistic view) and don't supply them with the same exact abilities/improvements as every other master species in literature.

Don't use them to either degrade or elevate humans either. That in itself is racism, in assuming the inferiority of one based on genetics and culture.


Diane Kataury wrote: "My final statement is that Meyer altered the stereotype to her liking, but her one alteration in the end most likely permanently changed the vampire stereotype in popular literature. ."

How has sparkling permanently changed vampire stereotype? I completely don't get that.

Making vampires less scary? A lot of people have already done that before Meyer ever did. Sparkling? I don't see how that has affected other works, people don't write about sparkling vampires much.

If your enjoyment of vampires is affected by how other people view vampires then there is your problem. Stoker-type vampires will forever remain a classic, I don't see how any type of new vampire will erase that.

You know why popularity of the gothic vampires is going down? Because people don't read it. So read what you like. Promote what you like! Get people interested in it.
Complaining about new vampires is not likely to change the trend but giving attention to works that you deem deserve attention will help revive the gothic genre or whatever it is you're interested in.


message 48: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Diane wrote: "You know why popularity of the gothic vampires is going down?"

Popularity of vampires in general should be going down.

a.) It's a part of the cycle, and zombie popularity should be rising accordingly.

b.) They've reached market saturation.

Popularity of gothic vampires, however, is going down because everyone has pointed out how much they aren't like Twilight's vampires, and most of that audience is too close-minded to branch out and read real vampire novels.


message 49: by Diane (last edited Mar 18, 2013 11:58PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Diane Bill wrote: "Diane wrote: "You know why popularity of the gothic vampires is going down?"

Popularity of vampires in general should be going down.

a.) It's a part of the cycle, and zombie popularity should be..."


Yeah, vampire popularity does seem to be going down in favor of other supernatural beings. Zombies you say? Maybe.

It seems to me that people are still interested in non-twilight vampires, the last sequel of underworld did very well. True blood boasts of its "not like twilight" vampires. The Passage by Justin Cronin got picked up for a movie deal. There are probably other instances of untwilight vampires having a good audience.

What happened to the horror audience? What happened to the gothic audience? I'm sure they are still there. There would be an overlap of course, but it seems silly to blame most of the YA audience or the paranormal-romance audience for the unpopularity of gothic and scary vampires (if they are as unpopular as people seem to think).


message 50: by [deleted user] (new)

Bill wrote: "Nicole di Angelo wrote: "My bad..."

No, not really. The "blood-sucking" vampire is the vast majority of leech lore, so it's the common perception. Anything outside that perception is very rare, so..."

Bill, you are a genius. I couldn't have put it better.
I like my vampires to burn up in sunlight. I like them to be seductive, merciless, bloodthirsty creatures of the night. I like them to not sparkle. I like them to be destructible. Meyer's vampires fit none of these requirements.


« previous 1
back to top