Twilight (The Twilight Saga, #1) Twilight discussion


150 views
Do you think traditional vampires could survive in forks?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 56 (56 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Michael (new)

Michael Like vampires that burn in the sun,I find it interesting that not just the vampires from the mythology of twilight but forks would also be a perfect place for traditional vampires what with the cloudy twilight atmosphere letting vampires that burn in the sun being able to go out in the day.


Kristen Probably, yes. If they stayed in the shade. But I'm guessing traditional vampires would be sleeping during the day.

Buuut, considering how they feed on people, and that the population of Forks is pretty small, I'm guessing it wouldn't be a terribly long time before the town shut down due to the vamps killing everyone for food. Or because the smart people would leave before they could be killed.


Lauren Graves Not in the daytime, but at night Ann Rice's Lestat; Charlene Harris' Bill and Eric and Laurell K Hamilton's Jean Claude would wipe the floor with those prissy forks vampire. Come on people they sparkle!


message 4: by Michael (new)

Michael Well probably not because twilight vampires are like stone and can only killed by fire so the twilight vampires would probably do a number on them instead.Traditional vampires can live in forks due to it bring cloudy and no Sun most days


Jessica Michael wrote: "Well probably not because twilight vampires are like stone and can only killed by fire so the twilight vampires would probably do a number on them instead.Traditional vampires can live in forks due..."
But the sun is out all the time. Just because it's cloudy doesn't mean the sun isn't shining, or out most days. If it is the AM then the sun is out. And depending on what vampire you're talking about, the sun may or may not effect them anyway. Adrian from Being Human has no problem with the sun, he walks the day all the time. In Blade all vampires had to do was wear strong sunblock and they could be outside, or be completely concealed.


Jessica I will never understand people who are under Meyer's guise that because it's constantly cloudy in Forks that vampires would be okay. This woman SUCKS at everything logical. The vampires in her the story should still have some level of sparkle, a shimmer, something because they are still out in the sun, even if it's cloudy. This clear ignorance of simple science just hurts me so bad. A diamond still refracts light even if it's cloudy.


Marilyn What did I just read? I can't even.. begin to fathom.. Oh, dear god.

Clicking this topic was clearly a mistake on my part. I'm just gonna walk away.. pretending that this never happened.


message 8: by Michael (new)

Michael Jesse wrote: "I will never understand people who are under Meyer's guise that because it's constantly cloudy in Forks that vampires would be okay. This woman SUCKS at everything logical. The vampires in her the ..."

It is really closely in forks because of all the rain,so no Sun that's why they don't sparkle


message 9: by Daniel (last edited Sep 02, 2013 05:53PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Daniel Garcia First, within her universe, they would have to make peace with the wolves and agree not to feed on people. The second problem would be, if they could only come out at night. The population in Forks is relatively small, so they would stand out ever worse than the Cullens. It doesn't seem like the ideal place for "traditional" vampires.

If you're assuming the clouds would let them go out during the day, I don't think that would really work. Within her world, sunlight doesn't affect the "sparkle" vamps, but it seems like there would still be enough to bother traditional ones.


message 10: by Kristen (last edited Sep 02, 2013 10:41PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kristen Jesse, if you want to be technical, the sun affects the entire world 100% of the time. Otherwise we'd all be dead from the low temperature. I don't think SM's take on the vamps not being affected by the sun when they're in the shade or under cloud cover is terribly flawed. If I'm not mistaken, most if not all vampire stories make the distinction of direct sunlight being the thing that exposes/kills them.

And in my opinion, sparkling aside, the Twilight vamps make way more sense to me. I mean, really, you're immortal and undead, but you need to sleep? Why? Humans need to recharge or grow or whatever. What possible purpose does a vampire have with sleeping? Scientifically speaking, I mean, since apparently that's a big problem people have with SM's vampires.
And really, why should some super powerful being be vulnerable to wood or garlic or sunlight, or anything else?
Fire makes sense. Crosses make sense (unless they're like SM's vamps and not actually "evil").
A creature who's skin is harder than diamonds and only vulnerable to another vampire makes way more sense to me.

Mainly, I think people have gotten stuck on the original 'rules' of vampires, and it's all just made up anyway. I like it when people can come up with new rules. Takes more imagination if you ask me.


message 11: by Michael (new)

Michael Kristen wrote: "Jesse, if you want to be technical, the sun affects the entire world 100% of the time. Otherwise we'd all be dead from the low temperature. I don't think SM's take on the vamps not being affected b..."

I agree,I too really like her mythology


message 12: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Michael wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Jesse, if you want to be technical, the sun affects the entire world 100% of the time. Otherwise we'd all be dead from the low temperature. I don't think SM's take on the vamps not ..."
that good point there.


message 13: by Olivia (new)

Olivia i wonder what is the diff between the vamp that in twi then the vamp that in VD? was one that sparkles and the other one that just burns in the sun.?(that is if they don't the ring on.)


message 14: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden You mean real vampires, instead of Meyers' fae-mislabeled-as-vampires?

1. Vampires do not burn up in sunlight by the traditional rules. That's a Hollywood misconception.

2. Vampires do not need to kill in order to feed. They could live there indefinitely, and never have to worry about getting caught (unless the vampire took a liking to a local lass... then it could get tragic for the vampire and girl alike).

3. If he needed to find greener pastures occasionally in order to feed, there's always a road trip. Again, traditional vampires do not burn up in the sun.

People... read Dracula. I promise you, it's not only 1000x better than Twilight, but all of these silly questions about real vampires will be answered.


message 15: by Caroline (new)

Caroline Louise Bill wrote: "You mean real vampires, instead of Meyers' fae-mislabeled-as-vampires?

We need to put one fact down here. There is no such thing as "real vampires". Vampires are made up, fictional, legends etc.

Bram Stoker had his version of the vampire lore - Stephenie Meyer has her version.
None of them are more correct than the other since, as I said, it's fiction!

That doesn't mean though, that one book is better than the other - but that's a whole other discussion.


Kristen Bill wrote: "You mean real vampires,"

Am I the only one who finds this particular statement pretty funny?
There are no "real" vampires, Bill. Stoker just came before Meyer.


message 17: by Caroline (new)

Caroline Louise Kristen wrote: Am I the only one who finds this particular statement pretty funny?

Nah, you're not. That's why I answered as I did :-)


Jessica Kristen wrote: "Jesse, if you want to be technical, the sun affects the entire world 100% of the time. Otherwise we'd all be dead from the low temperature. I don't think SM's take on the vamps not being affected by the sun when they're in the shade or under cloud cover is terribly flawed. If I'm not mistaken, most if not all vampire stories make the distinction of direct sunlight being the thing that exposes/kills them. ."

We're told that they sparkle in light, if you can remember the line where it's explicitly stated that it's direct sunlight, then that would be great. But when they're described as sparkling like diamonds, the fact that they don't sparkle or shimmer in any UV light is extremely doubtful.

Kristen wrote: "And in my opinion, sparkling aside, the Twilight vamps make way more sense to me. I mean, really, you're immortal and undead, but you need to sleep? Why?"

It all depends on what vampire you're talking of specifically. If you're talking of extremely traditional vampires like Lestat then he slept because the sun was out and it made him weak and being out in the open put him in danger of being killed by the sun so he and the others would go in coffins. But like I said, there's all types of vampires. Some vampires sleep because they want to, simply because they can. Edward and co. don't need their cars because they're faster than them, but they still have them. It's all about what vampire you're talking about and where they're from.

"Scientifically speaking, I mean, since apparently that's a big problem people have with SM's vampires. And really, why should some super powerful being be vulnerable to wood or garlic or sunlight, or anything else?"

Because it's biblical. It's not because it's wood, it's because it's a cross and it's Christianity. It's not because it's just some sunlight, it's because of what the sun represents, purity. It's not simply because it's this or because it's that. Have you read of any of the blogs and the like that talk in depth of why Meyer's vampires shouldn't be able to move, let alone be out in the day? Very interesting stuff, seems like you should read it.

"A creature who's skin is harder than diamonds and only vulnerable to another vampire makes way more sense to me."

Because of Meyer's explanations, her vampires can't exist. Can't move, shouldn't be able to reproduce, there's a lot that they shouldn't be able to do because of her 'scientific' explanations.

"Mainly, I think people have gotten stuck on the original 'rules' of vampires, and it's all just made up anyway. I like it when people can come up with new rules. Takes more imagination if you ask me. "

That's the great thing about fictional creatures, there are no rules! It's only when you take every recognizable thing about that creature that everyone has known all their lives and still say it's that creature is when everyone gets up in arms. there's only so much she can change before they're unrecognizable. The only thing that her characters have that make them vampires is because they drink blood. They aren't the only mythological creature that drinks blood.


Jessica Michael wrote: "It is really closely in forks because of all the rain,so no Sun that's why they don't sparkle "

I'm going to assume you mean cloudy, and it doesn't matter HOW cloudy, diamonds sparkle in all light. UV, florescent, candle light. The fact that they don't sparkle in clouded light doesn't make sense and is unbelievable.


Jessica Caroline wrote: "We need to put one fact down here. There is no such thing as "real vampires". Vampires are made up, fictional, legends etc."

Kristen wrote:"Am I the only one who finds this particular statement pretty funny?
There are no "real" vampires, Bill. Stoker just came before Meyer. "


There's only so much artistic license one can take before a vampire is no longer a vampire. And that is what Meyer did. Meyer didn't make a new version of a vampire, she made a whole different thing and just slapped the title of vampire on them. The only thing they have directly in common with other vampires are the fact that they drink blood. Anything else she said was scientifically wrong and impossible and improbable. Because of actual science, not Meyer!Science, her vampires cannot exist. And I'm not saying that in our world, they wouldn't exist. Not even in the make-believe world of Twilight would the vampires exist.


message 21: by Somerandom (last edited Sep 03, 2013 06:57AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Somerandom I really don't care for Sparklepires, personally. But eh, to each his own. I could see the traditionals tearing the Cullens limb from limb, though.
Although, like it has been pointed out, there are many many many different versions of "Traditional Vampires" so you have to be more specific.


message 22: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Caroline wrote: "We need to put one fact down here. There is no such thing as "real vampires". Vampires are made up, fictional, legends etc."

And we needed that explicitly spelled out, because...?

It's a discussion about vampire fiction. There's no need to get to that level of pedantry.

Caroline wrote: "Bram Stoker had his version of the vampire lore - Stephenie Meyer has her version.
None of them are more correct than the other since, as I said, it's fiction!"


...except that there are no vampires in Twilight.

Stoker based "his" version of vampires on the lore in central Europe. It wasn't his interpretation... that's how they are depicted in the mythology. All he did was build an incredible story around it.

By contrast, as Jesse put it, Meyers slapped the "vampire" tag on something she slapped together with no real clue as to what she was doing. I'm convinced her research was based on watching The Lost Boys or Fright Night a couple of times, and saying to herself, "Yeah... most of that's got to go."

In traditional lore, vampirism is a curse. You are merely a shell inhabited by a thirst for human blood. Only the blood of a human abates it for a time.

It's not supposed to be a minor inconvenience that can be slaked by draining a deer or two, the way Meyers seems to depict it.

Even from a scientific standpoint, Meyers failed in epic fashion. What kind of apex predator adapts to stand out from its prey so blatantly? That sparkling is like hanging a neon sign over their heads that says "I'm not human!!! I'm something different!!!"

More to the point, a metabolism adapted around feeding on human hemoglobin would never tolerate animal blood so easily. Strieber's vampires in The Hunger and The Last Vampire make more sense in this regard.

No matter how hard Meyers' apologists push, her "vampires" aren't vampires, in any sense of the term.

Jessie wrote: " If you're talking of extremely traditional vampires like Lestat..."

Lestat isn't a "traditional" vampire, however. He's a product of the same misconception that Hollywood has propagated about them.

Traditional vampires could walk in daylight without harm, but at greatly diminished power. Where the "burn in sunlight" bit comes from is a misinterpretation of the last few minutes of the old silent film Nosferatu.

In the movie, Orlok would be killed if he was distracted by a woman of pure heart through the night. When he is caught feeding on the heroine when daybreak hits, he goes up in ashes.

Don't worry... I didn't know that until a few months ago (in another "Twilight vampires vs. 'real' vampires" discussion), and I was at one time a vampire "super-fan."


message 23: by Jessica (last edited Sep 03, 2013 07:29AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jessica Bill wrote: "Lestat isn't a "traditional" vampire, however. He's a product of the same misconception that Hollywood has propagated about them."

I don't know how Nosferatu slipped my mind. I had just woken up and started keyboard smashing in blurred irritation.

I am curious, what do you think of vampires not having a reflection? It's completely irrelevant, but I'm just curious.


message 24: by Gerd (new) - rated it 4 stars

Gerd Jesse wrote: "Adrian from Being Human has no problem with the sun, he walks the day all the time...."

Ah yes, but he's British:
http://i.imgur.com/X0U7Axk.jpg

I don't think they actually know real daylight...


message 25: by Caroline (new)

Caroline Louise I'm going to leave you all to your vampire discussion because frankly, I'm not a big fan of vampires (with a few exceptions), so I don't really have anything constructive to add.

I was just amused by the words real vampires since no such thing exist :-) and that's why I couldn't resist my comment.

But just remember one thing - we all have our right to creativity even if that breaks with the "norm".


message 26: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Somerandom wrote: "I really don't care for Sparklepires, personally. But eh, to each his own. I could see the traditionals tearing the Cullens limb from limb, though.
Although, like it has been pointed out, there ar..."


good point, that someone made from top there.


message 27: by Naiya (new) - rated it 1 star

Naiya Way I see it, with a bit of ingenuity, any kind of vampire could survive anywhere. A vampire uses blood banks and the Forks doesn't supply enough? Open a medical research center. Can't handle the sun or want to control/eat people? Head up a popular survivalist cult up in the mountains. Wanna do things the old-fashioned way and have human thralls, go the way of criminal organizations and kidnap your food source.

The werewolf element might be a problem, but vampires are immortal - it can't be that hard to arrange for accidents for the younger not-yet-turned werewolves over the course of several hundred years, or to figure out some other way to wipe them out. Best way would probably be to use the human legal system, either by making the werewolf land attractive to developers or some other approach.

There are plenty of ways a fictional species can live in a fictional town in a fictional world. :)


message 28: by Jessica (last edited Sep 03, 2013 10:20AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jessica Gerd wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Adrian from Being Human has no problem with the sun, he walks the day all the time...."

Ah yes, but he's British:
http://i.imgur.com/X0U7Axk.jpg

I don't think they actually know rea..."


Being Human has a show in America as well, they live in Boston.


message 29: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Jesse wrote: "I am curious, what do you think of vampires not having a reflection? It's completely irrelevant, but I'm just curious."

If memory serves, it has something to do with their status as soulless undead... the belief that it was not light that caused a person's reflection, but their soul.

I've also heard that it had something to do with the silver used in making old mirrors, and how it had some form of mystical property that interfered with an undead's reflection. That could be a case of werewolf lore crossing over and corrupting vampire mythology, however.

Caroline wrote: "I was just amused by the words real vampires since no such thing exist."

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyri...

...it has been strongly suggested that porphyria is the root of all vampire myths. The symptoms were abated by infusions of blood. In fact, there's an episode of CSI that references this...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0534709/

Finally, there's lovely Countess Bathory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabet...

Saying there are no vampires at all is kind of absurd. They just don't sprout fangs, turn into bats, and sleep in coffins. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I would say specifying "real" vs. real vampires would go without saying.


Jessica Bill wrote: "Jesse wrote: "I am curious, what do you think of vampires not having a reflection? It's completely irrelevant, but I'm just curious."

If memory serves, it has something to do with their status as ..."


Didn't people way back when believe that our dearly departed were vampires as well?


Kristen Jesse wrote: "Kristen wrote: "We're told that they sparkle in light, if you can remember the line where it's explicitly stated that it's direct sunlight, then that would be great. But when they're described as sparkling like diamonds, the fact that they don't sparkle or shimmer in any UV light is extremely doubtful.

I haven't read them for several years now, so no I don't remember the line where it talks about it. I'm not sure there is a specific line that says 'direct' sunlight. But that is always the implication given.
But who says they're not affected at all? If we go with the Twilight vampires, human's senses are extremely dull. Lets not forget that the whole thing is from Bella's POV. And whenever you have a story that is from one person's perspective, you're not necessarily going to get a completely accurate assessment. For example, Edward is not the most beautiful creature in the world, but he is to Bella. So really, it's possible that the sun does affect them in the shade as well, but the humans can't tell.
But honestly, I think the idea of the sun being what exposes vampires has more to do with the actual light than anything else. Light is representative of "good" and darkness "bad". Even with traditional vamps, light is the thing that they shy away from. I really don't think they're worried about the UV rays.


"It all depends on what vampire you're talking of specifically. If you're talking of extremely traditional vampires like Lestat then he slept because the sun was out and it made him weak"

Again, my point was, that it's kind of wimpy to have a hugely powerful being, vulnerable to something like the sun. Particularly when they aren't necessarily evil like SM's vamps.
I don't think vampires should be able to sleep at all. Scientifically speaking, a species is usually only capable of doing something like that if they need to at some point. There's no real way to explain vampire's ability to sleep, other than it's just what the original vampire writers thought logical since sleep is a necessity to humans.
Edward driving isn't an exact comparison because that's a luxury thing, not a base need.


"Because it's biblical. It's not because it's wood, it's because it's a cross and it's Christianity."

No, it's not Biblical or part of Christianity. It's fictional beliefs about Christianity.
The thinking being the cross represents God and he is good and therefore hurts the demon vampires. The thinking behind it is alright, sure, but the cross in the Bible is not actually a weapon against evil. It wouldn't actually do anything to a real demon other than put him in a bad mood.
And actually I meant wood all by itself. As in a stake to the heart.


"Have you read of any of the blogs and the like that talk in depth of why Meyer's vampires shouldn't be able to move, let alone be out in the day? Very interesting stuff, seems like you should read it."

Not really, no.
I assume the thinking behind why they shouldn't be able to move is because they're "rock hard"?
Again, I say, the whole thing was from Bella's perspective. To a human they were that hard, but not to each other. To each other, they felt the way humans do to each other.



"Because of Meyer's explanations, her vampires can't exist. Can't move, shouldn't be able to reproduce, there's a lot that they shouldn't be able to do because of her 'scientific' explanations."

I'm not going to say there aren't any flaws, but specifically why can't they exist?
I get the thinking behind why they shouldn't be able to reproduce, but I didn't see it as a huge stumbling block to the series or science. There's an element of magic in the vampires, otherwise they wouldn't exist(like the wolves), and Bella was the one to have the baby, as a human. I'm not seeing a huge problem here.
I know there are other factors, but it's just not really a big deal. Vampires as a whole are scientifically impossible, no matter what the mythology. In vampire stories, you have to suspend reality somewhat.


"That's the great thing about fictional creatures, there are no rules! It's only when you take every recognizable thing about that creature that everyone has known all their lives and still say it's that creature is when everyone gets up in arms. there's only so much she can change before they're unrecognizable. The only thing that her characters have that make them vampires is because they drink blood. They aren't the only mythological creature that drinks blood. "

So, then I take it that you also despise the witches and wizards of Harry Potter? They're pretty much completely different from the classic idea of witches and wizards.

Just because you use the term vampire, does not mean you are obligated to stick to any of the rules. There's not a copyright on them, only people's fixed ideas of what they have to be.

But actually, I don't think SM would deny that they're almost unrecognizable as vampires. I seem to remember her talking about coming up with the idea and she said she just needed Edward to be something dangerous to Bella, basically. They were in love but he wanted to kill her, and so vampire it was.


Jessica Kristen wrote: "I haven't read them for several years now, so no I don't remember the line where it talks about it. I'm not sure there is a specific line that says 'direct' sunlight. But that is always the implication given. But who says they're not affected at all?"

Well, the fact that no one is pointing out how the Cullen's skin isn't refracting light like a diamond is a indication that they're not effected even though they're in daylight.

"If we go with the Twilight vampires, human's senses are extremely dull. "

How did you come to this? Do you remember a implication or indication that human's senses in Twilight are duller than the norm?

"Lets not forget that the whole thing is from Bella's POV."

How does this connect?

"And whenever you have a story that is from one person's perspective, you're not necessarily going to get a completely accurate assessment. "

You sure aren't. That's why I don't understand why people like Meyer's writing and Bella's narration. Her perception is screwed. On top of that Meyer lets Bella know of things she shouldn't know.

"For example, Edward is not the most beautiful creature in the world, but he is to Bella."

He might as well be, what with the way every female reacts to him. There is no in-between when a female reacts to him. They either want to take him from Bella, or hey want to kill him. There is no grey area with that. On top of that, being a vampire gives you beauty so it's kind of safe to say that he's very attractive to everyone.

"So really, it's possible that the sun does affect them in the shade as well, but the humans can't tell."

Ma'am, the connecting train has left and took the point with it. You have me confused as to your point. all I can gleam from this is that you're saying that the human eye can't pick up on shit. Which is kind of insulting and is only your speculation which makes no sense.

"But honestly, I think the idea of the sun being what exposes vampires has more to do with the actual light than anything else. Light is representative of "good" and darkness "bad". Even with traditional vamps, light is the thing that they shy away from. I really don't think they're worried about the UV rays."

UV rays ARE light. If they're hit by light they sparkle, that's why they shy away from it. The sun, UV rays, light, all the same thing. It makes them sparkle, that's why they shy away from it.

you have completely lost me on your point.

But, I shall keep responding to your post in another post.


message 33: by Jessica (last edited Sep 03, 2013 01:35PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jessica Kristen wrote: "Again, my point was, that it's kind of wimpy to have a hugely powerful being, vulnerable to something like the sun."

Then the whole point of flaws and vampires has been lost on you. It's not 'wimpy' it's the whole point. Otherwise you'd have a godmod vampire who is too perfect. It's the whole point of weaknesses, to not have a all powerful mary sue/marty stu character. What are the vampire weaknesses in Twilight? Fire. That's it. Which does nothing when no one is ever in any real danger that you know they will power through because they're the author's babies. What's the point of them being weakened and effected by fire if they never get caught on fire? It's like having flaws that aren't really flaws because they're never shown.

"Particularly when they aren't necessarily evil like SM's vamps."

So you're saying that if they're good they don't need to be effected by anything? That's like Meyer saying that all bad vampires are ugly and wild compared to her treasured Cullens.


I don't think vampires should be able to sleep at all. Scientifically speaking, a species is usually only capable of doing something like that if they need to at some point."

We are 7 billion strong and counting. There are countries where they have a population of 1 billion people. We don't need to have babies right now, but we do anyway. When someone/thing has the ability to do something, why shouldn't they do it?


"There's no real way to explain vampire's ability to sleep, other than it's just what the original vampire writers thought logical since sleep is a necessity to humans."

Like I said, there's all kinds of vampires. There are vampires who still function like a human and thus does need sleep, there are vampires who need sleep to regenerate, and vampires who do it because they want to. Vampires 'sleeping' isn't just so they can catch some Zzz, there's more to it than that that it sounds like you're missing.

"Edward driving isn't an exact comparison because that's a luxury thing, not a base need. "

And sleep to a vampire is a luxury. They don't need to, but they do it anyway. Everyone sleeps, even monsters. if you have a functioning brain -like the cullens- then you NEED sleep, otherwise you'd go insane and your body would shut down from lack of rest. This is another reason why her vampire's calm demeanor is silly and improbable, because they are forever awake, unable to rest. They should be crazy, if they lived what with all the sleep they're not getting. With them never sleeping because they're vampires, yet they're still functioning, their bodies should've shut down and they should've died long ago.


Jessica Kristen wrote: "No, it's not Biblical or part of Christianity. It's fictional beliefs about Christianity. The thinking being the cross represents God and he is good and therefore hurts the demon vampires. The thinking behind it is alright, sure, but the cross in the Bible is not actually a weapon against evil. It wouldn't actually do anything to a real demon other than put him in a bad mood.

And actually I meant wood all by itself. As in a stake to the heart."


And you would know what a cross does to a real demon, how? And you had it half right, till you started saying it was wrong. A cross has been used as a weapon against evil for so long, not even just on vampires.

As for stakes, this too has religious beliefs behind it, because that's where it all started. Religious people thought that corpses were being reanimated so they used types of wood mentioned in the bible and would stake them in various places, depending on where you were. The heart is the most common, then in Russia and North Germany it's the mouth, in north-eastern Serbia it's in the stomach. Vampires were pretty biblical creatures. Staking them was a method they used to make sure the corpse wouldn't rise and then it got transferred over into media. Stabbing them in the heart was a way of making the soul leave the body, killing them permanently. Staking them wasn't just for making sure the corpse didn't come back and so they would stab them to kill them, they would stake them to pin them to their coffins, another way of making sure they couldn't rise up from the dead. They used other methods to do this too, like pinning their clothing and them down into the coffin.


message 35: by Jessica (last edited Sep 03, 2013 02:16PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jessica Kristen wrote: "Not really, no.
I assume the thinking behind why they shouldn't be able to move is because they're "rock hard"?
Again, I say, the whole thing was from Bella's perspective. To a human they were that hard, but not to each other. To each other, they felt the way humans do to each other. ."


No, that's kind of it, but there's an actual explanation, putting actual science up to Meyer's fake science to explain why Meyer's science wouldn't work and because of it why they couldn't exist, even in their own realm.

Kristen wrote: "I'm not going to say there aren't any flaws, but specifically why can't they exist?
I get the thinking behind why they shouldn't be able to reproduce, but I didn't see it as a huge stumbling block to the series or science. Vampires as a whole are scientifically impossible, no matter what the mythology. In vampire stories, you have to suspend reality somewhat."


But when you give them scientific explanations, you have to make sure they hold up against people who actually knows science. As for explaining it, that is a long explanation that has sub-genres to completely explain why they can't exist. I'll just like you to some instead of typing for hours.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4962137/4... (I know it's FF.net but it explains a bunch of things there from the perspective of someone who doesn't like the series but likes logic (I hate the term anti-twilight or hater or twi-hater, so childish.))

http://applesparkles.wikia.com/wiki/S...

I want to throw in my own explanation as well, on the cells at least. Meyer explained it as this:

"However, the cells that make up their skin are not pliant like our cells, they are hard and reflective like crystal. A fluid similar to the venom in their mouths works as a lubricant between the cells, which makes movement possible (note: this fluid is very flammable)."

The problem with this is that if this flammable fluid is rubbing up against cells that without this fluid wouldn't be able to move at all, they'd catch on fire with every movement they made. The friction of the flammable fluid against these very hard, very dense cells would make them combust.

" There's an element of magic in the vampires, otherwise they wouldn't exist(like the wolves), and Bella was the one to have the baby, as a human. I'm not seeing a huge problem here. I know there are other factors, but it's just not really a big deal."

Bella shouldn't have conceived in the first place. Meyer's vampires are made up of 100% venom, with sub genres of it. This is apart of why they shouldn't exist, and why Nessie shouldn't exist. venom doesn't carry DNA so it's impossible for Meyer to say that there is sperm-like venom in the male vampires. Venom is used to make vampires, so when Edward came inside her it should've turned her, not impregnated her. there's inaccurate science behind Nessie too. The amount of inaccuracies is staggering. The second link I gave you should explain it as well.


message 36: by Jessica (last edited Sep 03, 2013 02:31PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jessica Kristen wrote: "So, then I take it that you also despise the witches and wizards of Harry Potter? They're pretty much completely different from the classic idea of witches and wizards."

Why would I when they can still quiet clearly be identified as witches and wizards? That is called adaptation, using what's there and making your own with it. This isn't what Meyer did.

"But actually, I don't think SM would deny that they're almost unrecognizable as vampires."

Then why are we not entitled to calling it out? What's the deal then? The only thing she has that makes them a vampire is blood drinking, you say she would admit to this, and yet I can't feel some kind of way about it? Why, what for?

I will now party since I'm done replying to you in full.


Kristen Jesse wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Well, the fact that no one is pointing out how the Cullen's skin isn't refracting light like a diamond is a indication that they're not effected even though they're in daylight.

Not really. If vampires are used to seeing it, they aren't going to say much about it. And if the humans don't notice, they aren't going to comment either.


"How did you come to this? Do you remember a implication or indication that human's senses in Twilight are duller than the norm?"

I didn't say duller than the norm. I meant in comparison to vampires.
My point being that there are alot of things that humans cannot detect without assistance. Like when a doctor uses a stethoscope. A vampire has no need of one and can hear alot more.

""Lets not forget that the whole thing is from Bella's POV."
How does this connect? "

Because you're saying that it's flawed when you don't really know if you're getting a complete picture since it's from one imperfect person's point of view.

"I don't understand why people like Meyer's writing and Bella's narration. Her perception is screwed. On top of that Meyer lets Bella know of things she shouldn't know."

People like things they can relate to. I prefer first person stories for that reason, but I know alot of people who don't.


""For example, Edward is not the most beautiful creature in the world, but he is to Bella."
He might as well be, what with the way every female reacts to him. There is no in-between when a female reacts to him. They either want to take him from Bella, or hey want to kill him. There is no grey area with that. On top of that, being a vampire gives you beauty so it's kind of safe to say that he's very attractive to everyone."

You're still only seeing how other girls react to him from Bella's POV. I don't believe for a second that if Edward walks down the street, he gets that kind of reaction from every single human female he passes. If he did, he would have been exposed as a vampire long ago and over and over.
On top of that, as you said part of being a vampire is that beauty and attraction to humans. That isn't to say that everyone thinks that Edward is the pinnacle of hottiness, but Bella sure does.

"Ma'am, the connecting train has left and took the point with it. You have me confused as to your point. all I can gleam from this is that you're saying that the human eye can'..."

No, I'm saying that humans cannot detect everything. That it's possible that the affect of the sun on vampires in the shade is slight and that humans don't notice unless they really know what to look for.
It's not really that far fetched of a concept. If a diamond ring is in direct sunlight, it's alot more obvious than if not. Chances are if you have a big diamond out in the open on a bright sunny day, it's going to be really hard to miss if you're around it. But if you put the same diamond in a room, out of the sunlight, it's going to look like a glass rock, unless you know what to look for to tell that it's a real diamond.

But this is all hypothetical guessing on my part. I don't think that the sun should have any affect on vampires other than in direct light, so I'm not going to debate this particular idea any further.


Kristen Jesse wrote: "Then the whole point of flaws and vampires has been lost on you."

Yes, actually. I don't see why some super powerful being should have so many weaknesses. That might be more exciting in fiction, but if we're assuming that vampires are real and that they are some species above humans, it makes more sense that to humans, they seem nearly invincible.


"So you're saying that if they're good they don't need to be effected by anything? That's like Meyer saying that all bad vampires are ugly and wild compared to her treasured Cullens."

No, I'm saying that I think it's dumb to make a super powerful being vulnerable to so much.
In any movie, any story, the best villains seem unkillable until you find that one thing that is their weakness. Fire in the case of SM's vampires.
And just a side note, the 'bad' vampires in SM's series are just as beautiful as the good ones. More so in some cases.

"We are 7 billion strong and counting. There are countries where they have a population of 1 billion people. We don't need to have babies right now, but we do anyway. When someone/thing has the ability to do something, why shouldn't they do it? "

Right now, being the key words. It's still a basic need for the survival of the human race. You don't always need to sleep either, but you can do it more than you need to. Or breathing, or eating, etc.

"Vampires 'sleeping' isn't just so they can catch some Zzz, there's more to it than that that it sounds like you're missing."

I guess so, yeah. I've never been big on horror, so I wouldn't know all the ins and outs of vampire specifics.
I can allow for the idea of a vampire needing 'rest' to heal or something, but I think it's contradictory for an immortal being to be able to go unconscious.
I know this is a little off topic, but I was watching Buffy not too long ago, and I noticed something along these lines.
Angel tells Xander that he can't administer CPR to Buffy because he "has no breath". And then later, Spike knocks Drucilla out by cutting of her air supply. It's completely contradictory. Why should she be affected at all if she "has no breath" and does not need air to survive?
It's sort of the same idea with them sleeping, to me. Why on earth should they ever need or be able to go unconscious? Even people can rest without going unconscious.


"And sleep to a vampire is a luxury."

Why? It seems tedious to me, if you don't need it.

"They should be crazy, if they lived what with all the sleep they're not getting. With them never sleeping because they're vampires, yet they're still functioning, their bodies should've shut down and they should've died long ago."


So basically the immortality thing is really only if they get their rest like good little vampires? Why should it matter? Why do they need rest?
Sounds very human to me.


"And you would know what a cross does to a real demon, how?"

Well, I know the Bible for one thing, so I know the kind of power that the cross has over demons.
I said it's not part of Christianity or the Bible. At best, you could say it's part of Catholocism. But the Bible gives absolutely no power to objects like the cross. It's all in what the cross represents.


"A cross has been used as a weapon against evil for so long, not even just on vampires."

Are you just talking in fiction? Because in reality, not really. In fiction, as I said before, the other vampire writers just happened to come before the current ones, making the "rules" for fighting them that people are stuck on.


"As for stakes, this too has religious beliefs behind it, because that's where it all started. Religious people thought that corpses were being reanimated so they used types a..."

It's all just religious superstition. I can see how it became the norm in vampire lore, but there's no real reason for it to be legitimate now. Assuming that your vampires are actually super strong, I mean.
Seriously, if there were real vampires, it seems pretty laughable to think that putting a stake in their heart is going to kill them. If humans could even break the skin, I mean. It's as ridiculous as the old beliefs like bleeding people for everything. The best they had at the time, maybe, but irrational once people know better.


message 39: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Jesse wrote: "Didn't people way back when believe that our dearly departed were vampires as well?"

Not that I'm aware of. There was a period in eastern Europe's history where there was a near-panic about the undead, and any suspicious death was attributed to vampires, succubi/incubi, etc. When you look at the signs of someone who has died of being "vampirized," though, it looks a lot like carbon monoxide poisoning.

It has been a while since I really got into vampire lore, so my memory on things like that are somewhat hazy. When I have time, I'll dig out my cyclopedia of vampires (a thoughtful Christmas gift from my grandmother) and see if I can corroborate it.


Jessica Kristen wrote: "Yes, actually. I don't see why some super powerful being should have so many weaknesses. That might be more exciting in fiction, but if we're assuming that vampires are real and that they are some species above humans, it makes more sense that to humans, they seem nearly invincible."

No matter what vampire you refer to, the vampires biggest weakness is their need for blood. They cannot go without blood or they will go into bloodlust and kill everyone and thing. Without it, they aren't so invisible. why should they be invisible anyway? What fun is that?

"No, I'm saying that I think it's dumb to make a super powerful being vulnerable to so much.
In any movie, any story, the best villains seem unkillable until you find that one thing that is their weakness. Fire in the case of SM's vampires.
And just a side note, the 'bad' vampires in SM's series are just as beautiful as the good ones. More so in some cases."


Do you remember Victoria, Laurant, and James' description? They weren't describe beautifully like the Cullens. None of the Volturi either.

Were you a BtVS fan?

"Not really. If vampires are used to seeing it, they aren't going to say much about it. And if the humans don't notice, they aren't going to comment either.

I didn't say duller than the norm. I meant in comparison to vampires.
My point being that there are alot of things that humans cannot detect without assistance. Like when a doctor uses a stethoscope. A vampire has no need of one and can hear alot more."


Why wouldn't one notice someone glittering like they fell into a vat of glitter? I don't need special oculars or to be a vampire to see someone sparkling. That's so silly.

You want to talk of what a vampire can and can't hear? Why didn't Alice and Jasper hear James talking to Bella? They can hear her heartbeat and can hear her fart but can't hear a whole phone conversation??

" Because you're saying that it's flawed when you don't really know if you're getting a complete picture since it's from one imperfect person's point of view."

It is flawed, and I'm not talking about what Bella tells us, practically everything is flawed in Twilight. But to make this make sense, you have to specify when I used the word flaw because I used it a lot.

"Right now, being the key words. It's still a basic need for the survival of the human race. You don't always need to sleep either, but you can do it more than you need to. Or breathing, or eating, etc."

How can I breathe more than I need to?

It's not a basic need for survival when we are 7 billion strong. We don't need to go through some paranoia filled theory of when the numbers will drop.

"You're still only seeing how other girls react to him from Bella's POV. I don't believe for a second that if Edward walks down the street, he gets that kind of reaction from every single human female he passes. If he did, he would have been exposed as a vampire long ago and over and over.
On top of that, as you said part of being a vampire is that beauty and attraction to humans. That isn't to say that everyone thinks that Edward is the pinnacle of hottiness, but Bella sure does."


How can Bella's POV be twisted and only what she thinks is happening? This is what Meyer has told us, that he is undeniably hot and that every one wants him. She's shown us that a lot of people want him, in and out of the school. What Meyer thinks is the prime cut of men and that lots of people want him?

"Why? It seems tedious to me, if you don't need it."

If that's you're view on it then everything humane should be tedious since they don't need it. They don't need cars, they're faster than them. They don't need an education, they're a frigging monster, why would they need a education? need money? Why would they Everything human is tedious when you're a vampire. Why eat human food? It's tedious. These things are what you'd call a luxury.

" So basically the immortality thing is really only if they get their rest like good little vampires? Why should it matter? Why do they need rest?
Sounds very human to me."


Because they are derived from humans. It's not just for vampires, it's very everything that can be immortal. Sleep is essential whether you're immortal or not. I you don't sleep you will die. My view on immortality is that you cannot be killed. if so then you're only alive till you die because you can die.

"Are you just talking in fiction? Because in reality, not really. In fiction, as I said before, the other vampire writers just happened to come before the current ones, making the "rules" for fighting them that people are stuck on."

The cross is also used on the antichrist, any demon derived from the bible. It's not just used on vampires.

"It's all just religious superstition. I can see how it became the norm in vampire lore, but there's no real reason for it to be legitimate now. Assuming that your vampires are actually super strong, I mean.
Seriously, if there were real vampires, it seems pretty laughable to think that putting a stake in their heart is going to kill them. If humans could even break the skin, I mean. It's as ridiculous as the old beliefs like bleeding people for everything. The best they had at the time, maybe, but irrational once people know better. "


Why not have it be legit now? It's apart of vampire lore because that's how it all started. Why rewrite vampires because you think they need to be super strong and invisible beings who can't be beat? Why godmod them? That is what's ridiculous.

What is 'know better' ? Fire and that's it. Why have only one way to kill a vampire and even then you'd have to be lucky to get them because they're super fast, strong, and unbeatable. No one likes this. That's like the final boss not being able to be beaten because the creator just liked them too much.


message 41: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Jesse wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Yes, actually. I don't see why some super powerful being should have so many weaknesses. That might be more exciting in fiction, but if we're assuming that vampires are real and tha..."

i think everyone on here, does have a good point here.
here i another one i found on wikipedia.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire)


Somerandom Just wanted to throw this into the mix. In the Western Civilization Vampires are very Bible based, as have been pointed out. They are supposed to represent our darker side, our lusts, desires and what we fear about ourselves.
The myths, like most if not all things mythical, have some semblance of truth to them. Demons possessing the dead and reanimating them at night. "Proof" of that used to be examining a corpse and finding that the nails had grown and the hair was longer. We know now why that is, but ye olde peeps didn't.


However, in something like the Hindu mythology a Vampire is literally a Goddess. The story being that the Goddess Kali (goddess of death) had to defeat a demon, who made copies of itself every time a single drop of blood was shed. Kali came down and relieved the demon of it's blood to defeat it.

So there are many different types of vampires, traditional or otherwise. It just depends on your interpretation, tradition, culture, folklore (and more often than not where you live.)


message 43: by Somerandom (last edited Sep 04, 2013 05:34AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Somerandom Just wanted to throw this into the mix. In the Western Civilization Vampires are very Bible based, as have been pointed out. They are supposed to represent our darker side, our lusts, desires and what we fear about ourselves.
The myths, like most if not all things mythical, have some semblance of truth to them. Demons possessing the dead and reanimating them at night. "Proof" of that used to be examining a corpse and finding that the nails had grown and the hair was longer. We know now why that is, but ye olde peeps didn't.

As have been pointed out, flaws are what make creatures interesting. No flaws make it boring or make it God (or a goddess.)

Like in the Hindu mythology. According to the myth a Vampire is literally a Goddess. The story being that the Goddess Kali (goddess of death) had to defeat a demon, who made copies of itself every time a single drop of blood was shed. Kali came down and relieved the demon of it's blood to defeat it.

According to Hinduism a Vampire took the form of a deity which is to be revered and worshiped. According to Christianity a Vampire is a demon of the night, representing temptation and may or may not need to be killed. Another variation is the tortured Vampire. This vampire is interesting because it delves into the consequences of the Vampire affliction as said Vamp struggles to gain (or contemplate the idea of) a soul. It's interesting because of the discussions and thoughts it can bring to the audience. Like what is a soul? If you're immortal, what does having a soul mean? Who gets one? And so on.

There are many different types of vampires, traditional or otherwise. It just depends on your interpretation, tradition, culture, folklore and more often than not where you live.

But I do have to agree with Jesse here. It's one thing to have a deity be flawless. They're supposed to be. I don't think one can relate to God, per say. Worship God, revere God, sure. But relate to a absolutely perfect being who created all life (according to religions). I don't think so.

In a book flawless characters or in this case creatures are kind of boring.
A vampire or werewolf or zombie etc has to have some weaknesses to even the playing field a bit. It gives hope to the humans. It also heightens the tension for the human characters to be around them.
Not only because the Vampires may eat them, but because the humans can actually fight back and pose a threat to Vampires. (This works for the real world too. Makes life with them a little more tense and unpredictable. Or exciting, if you will.)

It would also explain them hiding their entire existence from the human world. Otherwise you'd question why they just didn't rise up, take control of the world and use humans as rations or farm them sustainably for their population.
If they didn't, then you'd have very stupid, wimpy vampires, too afraid to follow through on their strength.
(I think the Volturi are hiding from the human world SMeyer's Universe. Sorry haven't read the book in years.)


message 44: by Gerd (last edited Sep 04, 2013 07:17AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Gerd Kristen wrote: "Angel tells Xander that he can't administer CPR to Buffy because he "has no breath"."

That scene actually already stopped making sense when he _spoke_, how, one has to ask, does he articulate words without circulating air?

But this wasn't the point to that scene - the point was to have an excuse for Xander to kiss Buffy (and for Angel to let him kiss her and still be heroic by doing so); besides only a fool would spoil a perfectly good scene by bothering with the "logic" of it (well, fools and Vulcans, naturally). :)


message 45: by Jurni (new) - added it

Jurni I really doubt that they could survive in Forks. I mean forks has all the seasons. The only reason the Cullens survived in Forks was because they're not a normal kind of vampire - I mean, Edward is married to Bella, it's pretty obvious that they're not normal! But the regular vampires would probably just turn into dust instantly there.


message 46: by M.R. (new) - rated it 1 star

M.R. Graham Worth pointing out that the purpose of human sleep is not rest, at least not in the sense of inactivity. The brain is just as active during sleep as during wakefulness, and sitting perfectly still for eight hours will not give you the same benefit as sleeping for eight hours. If we don't know why we do it, there's no way to say that a vampire wouldn't need to do it, too.

Also, hardness is an absolute quantity that can be measured on a scale. It is not as relative as Meyer makes it out to be. Durability might be, but she specifically describes vampires as hard and crystalline. If you press two hard objects together, such as chunks of granite, they do not deform one another; they break. So one chunk of granite, were it aware, would not perceive the other as soft relative to itself, but rather as hard and extremely breakable. Vampire muscular cells would not be able to change shape to cause muscular contraction. (And if there is a lubricant between the cells that allows them to slide past one another, they should actually just slide apart into a pile of cells.)

I didn't like Meyer's vampires, but I think every one of her ideas could have worked if she had not insisted so firmly that these are science vampires, not magic vampires. The hardness would have been perfect for some sort of earth elemental or golem, again without faulty science to make it confusing.

In answer to the OP's question, I think it depends on the vampire. A Hollywood vampire that only appears at night could probably go unnoticed indefinitely, assuming it was able to avoid killing indiscriminately. If it had to kill, I think the small population would either dwindle too quickly or else notice a trend and come hunting. A traditional vampire (that is to say, one more in line with Eastern European folklore than with media) might be able to go a little longer, since they typically feed on one individual for long periods of time before killing the victim and moving on to the next.


message 47: by Olivia (new)

Olivia M.R. wrote: "Worth pointing out that the purpose of human sleep is not rest, at least not in the sense of inactivity. The brain is just as active during sleep as during wakefulness, and sitting perfectly still ..."

that is one good long point that on there.


message 48: by Maya (new) - rated it 3 stars

Maya Umm....maybe if they only went outside if it was like pouring? But if we're talking traditional, then their eyes would be red no matter what, but there are always contacts. It depends.


message 49: by Bill (new) - rated it 1 star

Bill Golden Holy... has anyone who has responded actually read up on "traditional" vampire lore? It's like looking at a bunch of disjointed thoughts randomly thrown on the thread.

"Red eyes?" Where did that come from?


message 50: by [deleted user] (new)

I think so if they don't bite or whatever where they live If a person goes missing somewhere there will be a search/the door to door etc etc and if there were numerous people missing from a certain area - hello red flag.


« previous 1
back to top