What's up with all these vampires?

[Sharon]

Kelly wrote: "I think the story of Bella and Edward is a very moral story and if you don't think so then you haven't read it, and are just listening to the hype.
"

The moral of the story is just what one should expect from a book written by a Mormon housewife: as a woman, you are expected to lose your humanity as soon as you have sexual intercourse.

[Michael]

I must admit I am a bit taken aback by the current fascination with vampires. Stoker's "Dracula" made it a motif in literature but it has gone off the charts in popularity lately. There must be some underlying psychological connection with the current collective consciousness. Hmmm, I'll have to cogitate on that for a while.

[Lynn]

Don't be so surprised. THis is nothing new. If you google vampire and movies, you'll get tons of movies that have been made, from the earliest 1900's until Twilight. And books? Good grief!

The latest big upsurge is shifters. Not just werewolves, but ferrets, foxes, seals, you name it. It's really hot right now in the ebook world.

Thank God, cuz my werewolf series THe McCallan Legacy, McCallan's Blood, part 1, is doing very well.

As for Twilight. Bella is not someone I want my daughter to use as a role model. Ugh! If Bella was my girl, I'd hope she'd realize there's no future in not only Edward, but any high school age boy. I hope she's smart enough to avoid that broody, bad boy/loser and finish planning her college career.

But, as parents, we can but dream....

[Angela]

I wrote a vampire novel, BLOOD MOON RISING. It's not your typical vampire novel. What I discovered through writing the book is the freedom to explore the deeper issues of humanity that can be convoluted or covered up in a traditional novel about human beings. For example, Valkyrie is a vampire mother who has a dhampir son who needs his human father's blood in order to survive. I was able to explore the darkness of motherhood without the pressure I would have faced if I was writing mom-lit. The only unfortunate part was my publisher insisted on a sexual slant for marketing the book, which is there, but not prominent as in most vampire novels. Maybe that is why there has been less enthusiasm from readers who were expecting an erotic read, not a tale about motherhood.

[Mickey]

I just don't "get" vampires, werewolves or anything like that. Just not interested, rather repulsed, and have no clue why anyone else likes them. My thinking is, what's sexy or attractive about someone feeding off of blood?

[Jewel]

Uh . . . Sharon, would you care to elaborate on that statement?

[Sharon]

Jewel wrote: "Uh . . . Sharon, would you care to elaborate on that statement?"

I assume that you mean my comment about the "morality" of "Twilight."

Certainly.

Once Bella has a child, she becomes a vampire (loses her humanity). In order to become pregnant, she must have intercourse.

Mormon women are to be submissive to their husbands and to wish no greater calling than to have children. That's fine if you choose it, but to have it pushed on you by a religious body is to have that body take away your humanity.

[Jewel]

You know, the beauty of this life is that we all have our agency. We have the freedom to choose, think, and act as we feel. We have the freedom of respecting others or not. We have the freedom of religion, the freedom to worship any way we choose.
You give Mormon women far too little credit. I've found Mormon women to be some of the strongest women in the world, and being a Mormon woman MYSELF, and the mother of 8 awesome kids-kids that I would not have traded having for the world, I am one of the least submissive women you'll ever find. If you don't believe me, then ask my husband.
This started out as a discussion about vampires and authors of vampire series, yet you chose to bring religion into it. I could be very offended, but I'm not. It takes a lot to offend me. However, you would do well to remember, there are other Christian writers out there who are not Mormon yet choose to wait until marriage for sexual intimacy. So what if Stephanie Meyer gave her characters morals. That's not a bad thing at all. She doesn't slam others for writing sex in their books and neither do I, and just like me, I'm sure she would appreciate not being slammed because she chose not to put it in hers.

[Sharon]

Jewel wrote: "You know, the beauty of this life is that we all have our agency. We have the freedom to choose, think, and act as we feel. We have the freedom of respecting others or not. We have the freedom of r..."

Jewel, I have nice Mormon parents. I am far from ignorant about the matter.

I'm not slamming Stephanie Meyer for not putting sex in her books. If I was going to slam her for anything, it would be for the lousy quality of her work. The idea that these novels are "moral" was someone else's, not mine ... and I pointed out the origin of that "morality."

You are welcome to disagree with me. Isn't life wonderful?

[Lynn]

you know, aside from dragging religion into the mix, the question of morals is one, as a writer of gay erotic romance, I have to work around all the time.

There are such "rules" to romance. Like once the hero/heroine have met, they can't have sex with anyone other than the hero, not without serious repercussions, much as in real life. Readers don't want to read about "cheaters" or "adultery."

In my books, even though there may be sex between hero/heroine or hero/hero, in gay romance, since marriage for most is out of the question, a committment to each other is the best that can be done, verbally most of the time, with a "ceremony" other times, and rarely a marriage.

So, how do "morals" equate to vampires? Do they have them? Are they innately evil?
Depends on the writer and the world they'v created. Some vampires go about in the day, some sparkle, some burn like a piece of toast on the high setting. It's the world of the creator (the writer) and that's what makes writing paranormals so much fun, and so hard.

Once you've established rules for your world, you have to stick by them.
That includes sticking to the rules of romance, too. My vampires are good, evil and all shades of gray, mostly just trying to survive their world and the world of mankind, just like mortals.
With great power comes great responsibility? So, for my vampire Ivan, to reject what he has become, to find the way to be a better man/vampire, to win the love of the vampire he loves, he has to find his moral center, a place not often visited.
To me, that makes an interesting character and a great read.

[Arch]

I can read a book without sex. I can write a story without sex.

I read romance and when I read romance, I want romance. I want to see romantic stuff happending in the books.

I'm not into vampires, werewolves, but I have to say that I like the movie Once Bitten.

[Sharon]

Lynn wrote: "you know, aside from dragging religion into the mix, the question of morals is one, as a writer of gay erotic romance, I have to work around all the time.

There are such "rules" to romance. Like..."

I differentiate between morals and ethics. To me, morals are *externally imposed* and ethics are *internally imposed.* In other words, morality (or the lack thereof) is decided by an outside agency.

F'rinstance, some people might think that the mere fact that you write gay romance means that those stories are "immoral," because some external agency has told them that gay people are "icky" (for lack of a better word). Instead of considering the idea that gay people are no different from straight people (other than being attracted to the same gender) and want the same things from life as straight people, they point the finger and say "that's immoral."

Ethics -- how characters treat one another of their own volition -- are far more interesting to me than morality plays. I've listened to enough "preaching" to last a lifetime, LOL.

[A.F.]

One thing is quite clear from this discussion: reading is highly subjective. We've had debate about ethics, morals, role-models for teens and writer intent.

I would like to say a word about writer intent. Reader speculation on the intent of a writer is just that, speculation. Only a writer knows the whys and wherefores of their book, because it is based on their own vision; a reader's experience is at least in part their own view.

[Lynn]

Morals are what determine right or wrong in a framework of society, ethics are used to understand moral values and how to apply them.
In both cases, they're dependent on the society they're within.

[Sharon]

Lynn wrote: "Morals are what determine right or wrong in a framework of society, ethics are used to understand moral values and how to apply them.
In both cases, they're dependent on the society they're within..."

I disagree that ethics are dependent upon the society in which someone happens to live -- but I can see how you would reach that conclusion. My ethics do not change if I am in Indiana from what they are in California. However, if I am in Indiana, because the "morals" of that area, I cannot buy a beer on a Sunday because they have imposed "blue laws." (At least, that's how it was when I lived there in 1990 while attending a school.) Why? Because someone (or someones, since it's a law) decided that their morals were offended by beer being sold on a particular day of the week (which is not even the Sabbath for all faiths).

Now, if we take the same beer analogy (I am not a beer drinker, FWIW) -- it is *unethical* of me to drive under the influence (as well as illegal) because someone else could be harmed by that action. Part of my code of ethics involves not taking an action that can cause harm -- even while understanding that inadvertent harm is a possibility, and at that point I prepare to make amends.

Drinking a beer is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply consuming liquid carbohydrates. Some people argue that consuming beer is immoral, but that is because some outside agency told them so.

So, to bring this back full circle -- morals are externally imposed. In Indiana, it is "immoral" to sell beer on Sunday ... and this morality has been enacted into law. Laws serve to preserve the civil rights of all citizens (e.g., murder is against the law because it violates the civil rights of the victim). Morality is indeed relative to the society in which it is found; ethics are with you all of the time.

I didn't mean to get on this particular philosophical soapbox, but it is something that I find myself considering frequently when people talk about what is or is not "moral." Morality is absolutely subjective.

[Sharon]

A. F. wrote: "Only a writer knows the whys and wherefores of their book, because it is based on their own vision; a reader's experience is at least in part their own view.
"

I concur with this idea; everyone filters ideas and communications through what they have experienced.

[Lynn]

Those laws may have been based one time on certain religious views about right and wrong, but the laws themselves are not moral, they're laws enforcing religious beliefs of a majority.
In some societies it's fine to eat your enemies. In some it's okay to marry your sister or brother.
To us, in our society, those are not moral and definitely illegal (in some states).
Ethics is the discussion of how those morals can be applied to a certain situation. Both are subjective to the society in which the person finds themselves.

[Jewel]

Sharon wrote: "Jewel wrote: "You know, the beauty of this life is that we all have our agency. We have the freedom to choose, think, and act as we feel. We have the freedom of respecting others or not. We have th..."

Yes, life is very wonderful:-)
I guess it all boils down to which direction we choose to take our writing. I just try to remember when I'm writing that every choice I make when it comes to my writing will affect something or someone, and there is always a consequence attached to it. There's no way around that fact for any of us.
And no, I'm not trying to judge anyone. Those are just my personal feelings.

[Sharon]

Lynn wrote: "Those laws may have been based one time on certain religious views about right and wrong, but the laws themselves are not moral, they're laws enforcing religious beliefs of a majority."

Law in this country is based on the second of Locke's

Two Treatises of Government. There is no state religion. With reference to "blue" laws, certainly they are religious in nature -- and impose one religion's "morality" on everyone, regardless of whether they practice that faith. That's why there is no state religion -- our founding fathers a) recognized the pluralistic nature of the country and b) knew first-hand the dangers of a theocratic monarchy.

Edited to change my analogy, as I thought of one more apt:

There are people who practice polygamy (whether polygyny or polyandry) in a very ethical fashion. All parties are "on the same piece of paper," as it were ... they are all aware, and there are ground rules involved in the relationships. This behavior is not illegal (unless one considers that plural marriage is not permitted). However, plenty of people external to the situation would say that it was immoral because someone, somewhere, told them that having more than one partner is wrong. Biologically speaking, monogamy makes little sense; it limits the gene pool. However, somewhere along the line in history of Western civilization, monogamy became the "moral" order of the day -- primarily for women. Men had mistresses with impunity throughout much of history; it was a given. The actual reason for this was "mother's baby, daddy's maybe," when you get right down to it ... an infant's mother was obvious, but a father? Not so much. Biology was not as well understood as it is today.

So, to go back to my original point ... who is to say that the ethical polygynous family relationship is "immoral"? Is it because society says otherwise?

Again, we are far afield of the topic. However, I am interested in your premise that my ethics changed once I arrived in Indiana because I was now in a different society (to stick with my original premise). Perhaps you could elaborate on how that was.

[Lynn]

No, your morals didn't change when you moved unless you moved to where gay marriage is now legal.
And maybe like many others, you once thought homosexuality was immoral, but now, for whatever reasons, you've changed your idea. It's no longer immoral to you or to the state in which you live.
Now, how you use ethics to determine how that new moral decision is used in your life doesn't change either.
Ethics is morals applied.

[Sharon]

Lynn wrote: "No, your morals didn't change when you moved unless you moved to where gay marriage is now legal.
And maybe like many others, you once thought homosexuality was immoral, but now, for whatever reas..."

How would my "morals" have changed? I have already stated that I don't depend on "morals" to make my decisions.

Here's what I do: I ask myself, does this "thing" harm me or anyone else? No? Then, hooray. If you want to stick with homosexuality for the discussion, then I would say that laws that bar my gay and lesbian fellow citizens from fully participating are immoral -- because they are harmed by them.

My ethics travel with me. If I still lived in Indiana, or in Oregon (where I'm from), I would find laws preventing gay men and lesbians from fully participating (marriage, renting a home, adopting a child, etc.) "immoral." I would not suddenly change my mind because of where I lived. I would not say, "Oh, I'm in Indiana now, so barring gay men and lesbians from adopting, or marrying, is okay because its 'moral' here."

[Lynn]

But we all use morals to make decisions - like I said, by definition, ethics is morals in practice.

I said, if you believed one way, for moral reasons. And if you lived somewhere where you're now exposed to more gay couples, to see how they live and love, then you might indeed change how you think of them.

If you lived in a smaller society, where those people were held up as immoral, and you didn't know them as people, you might go along with the thinking.

Our society is a conglomeration of a myriad of smaller societies, with city/state/federal laws, which sometimes counter each other.

I'm from New Orleans, and I've been around gays for a long time. To me, there's no question about right or wrong, moral or immoral. Love is love and you should be able to marry who you love.
However, if I had grown up somewhere else, and my experiences or lack of had been different, that would shape how I believe - my morals - and my ethics in how I would parlay those morals into actions.

Actually, the case for your morals changing is more likely to broaden, not lessen, with your growth in experience and years.

But I can also see examples when it can narrow, or flip-flop, as in a religious conversion, or having something monumental happen to you.

Still, as much fun as this has been, we should problably stick to talking about vampires.

In my book, Warriors At Heart, their society works with morals that wouldn't work in the mortal world. Rule by the strongest, change in their government is more likely to be affected by getting your head cut off or a stake in your heart. Mortals are dinner and treated like cattle within territories deeded to vampires.
Ivan falls in love with a newly turned vampire, who still holds herself to the morals of her former world, she's determined no retain her humanity despite being a vampire. No killing mortals. Fight against the ruling vampires. And she demands if he wants her, he must change, or at least wake up and take action.
So, he's put into a dilemma. And his choices aren't good. What's a vampire in love to do?

[Sharon]

Lynn wrote: "But we all use morals to make decisions - like I said, by definition, ethics is morals in practice.

I said, if you believed one way, for moral reasons. And if you lived somewhere where you're no..."

While it is far afield of the original discussion, I do appreciate your clarification. I was not being deliberately obtuse, I promise you ... I really could not get where you were coming from.

From what you shared of your plot, it seems to me that your character's newly-awakened ethics are in diametric opposition to his society's morals. That is an interesting twist on the usual vampire tale.

[Jerrica Knight-catania]

I would just like to say that I'm a married 31-year-old woman, my husband is 30, and we have just, in the last year, caught on to the vampire craze. We loved The Twilight Saga - it was great fun to read together, and we dressed up as Edward and Bella for Halloween last year. We're now big fans of Vampire Diaries. And we also read the Gardella Vampire Series together (though that's vampire slaying in the Regency era...how can you go wrong???) And frankly, we're both proud and happy for our silly school-girl obsessions with stuff like this. It keeps us young, and it's super fun to be a part of. Not everything has to be serious or realistic, and not everyone has to like the same things in life. That's what makes the world go 'round, isn't it? There are lots of crazes that I don't get either, but I don't go around tearing them down and making accusations about the people who do enjoy them. And I certainly am not going to hate on the people who have found a way to make a career out of anything. I would much rather learn from their good business/creative sense.

So, I hope everyone has a wonderful day going about the doing the things they love to do, free of judgement or criticism :)

[Sharon]

Princessjewel wrote: "I would just like to say that I'm a married 31-year-old woman, my husband is 30, and we have just, in the last year, caught on to the vampire craze. We loved The Twilight Saga - it was great fun to..."

You're right; not everyone has to like the same things. That does not, however, equate to "hating on people who have found a way to make a career out of anything," IMO. ::shrug:: It's a difference of opinion, nothing more.

[Jewel]

My sentiments exactly, Princessjewel:-)

[[deleted user]]

Katie wrote: "I love vampires. I tend to call myself a "vamp freak" from time to time. I love vampires for the darkness, mystery, and all the flaws. Very interesting. I love reading about characters who are supp..."

I agree.

[Kaila]

I Do Love Vampires. But I Have To Say The Whole TWILIGHT Thing Is Starting To Drive Me Crazy!! Don't Get Me Wrong, Twilight Is An Awesome Book And The Movies Aren't Too Bad, But I Just Can't Seem To Stop Running Into Books That Somehow Compare Their Vamps To The Saga. And That's Just Not Right. Another Thing That Urks Me Is All These New Teens Saying Old Vampire Books Remind Them Of Twilight, Such As, LJ Smith's Vampire Diaries. I Think That People Are Trying To Cash In On The Whole Vampire Thing.. Nonetheless, I Think People Should Just Move On!!

[Dellani]

I'm not a big fan of vampires. I refuse to read the "Twilight" series and I haven't read Ann Rice books either. I always held with the idea that vampires were "bad". The only books I've read with vampires were two by Christopher Moore "Blood Sucking Fiends" and "You Suck" - both very very funny, with some vampire stuff thrown in.

[Brett]

I may make a few enemies with this but I truly feel that the Romantic writers have nearly destroyed the Vampire myth. More power to any and all Romantic authors for seeing a vacancy in genres and filling it. But this trend of Paranormal Romances lessens some of the genres it has taken.

Vampires, werewolves and so on are monsters. There isn't anything romantic about them. They are cursed and many times just plain evil.
I blame Ann Rice for starting this madness! -grin-

Then there are the Romantic Science Fiction stories out there. Ugh!

I know, I am biased as I really don't care for the Romance genre. There can be romance in most any story, but when romance IS the story you loose my interest at light speed!

Again, even though I personally don't like it, I am not dissing the Romance genre. There are some great authors out there writing great stuff. I will even admit to reading a few. If in a Paranormal Romance it is more Paranormal than Romance, I can usually get through it and even enjoy it. -grin-

Case in point;
Laurell K Hamilton and her Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter series.
I read the first 12 books but I was not enjoying them past number 6 or so. If I want porn, I'll buy it. When I want to read a fantasy story, that's what I want. not thinly disguised porn which is exactly what the series turned into.
I nothing against the author in any way. She is a good writer, but, in my opinion, she took the easy way out and instead of continuing with good, innovative stories, she just turned to steamy sex.
It's a popular series and that's great for her. I was disappointed because it started out much better than it has finished.

But Vampires as nice people? Uh! Uh! No way.

Now recently, there have even been a few Zombie novels where the Zombies aren't so bad! Talk about using your imagination!

I love how creative and inventive writers can get. It will never stop amazing me how some writers can change, create or adapt something and come up with something entirely new.

[Pleasures Chest]

With authors such as Sherrilyn Kenyon (Dark Hunter series), J.R. Ward (Black Dagger Brotherhood),Lynsay Sands (Argeneau series), some of us can't help but to like vamp stories.

Fiction books are afterall just that, fiction. They are written to offer the reader an escape from the reality of everyday life.

When well written they are very enjoyable.

[Nicholas]

Don't know why. Don't care why. Don't read them.

I prefer stories with a few more toes standing at the edge of reality. The world seems fascinated with immortality.

There was a fascination with them in the ‘60’s when I was a kid. I wasn’t interested then.

Anybody remember the soap ‘Dark Shadows’? My friends, girls included, spent that first summer laughing at all that happened at the Collins’ estate, Collinwood, in Collinsport, Maine. But I do have to give them credit, they lasted seven years despite the over-acting. We all vowed then and there never to name any of our children ‘Collin’ or use derivates there of.

[Christine]

I liked the old vampire movies, but haven't read any contemporary stories--someday!