Breaking Dawn (The Twilight Saga, #4) Breaking Dawn discussion


229 views
Do vampires exist?

Comments Showing 1-40 of 40 (40 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jael ~ *~ Syhren ~* ~ (last edited Aug 21, 2008 03:11PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jael ~ *~ Syhren ~* ~ I've been reading alot of reviews on BD and find it so funny that people keep saying " Vampires can't sire children, it goes against science" It leaves me wondering What science? Sure they're dead but if you look at it from reality the dead stays dead. I don't believe that vampires are walking among us so there for why is their any precedent on what a vampire can/can't do in a fictional series. Meyers isn't the first author to write a series where vamps have children. Ever heard dhampirs and a funny/enjoyable writer called Lynsay Sands or a great series by Barb Hardee called Noble Dead. So my question is do vamps exist in your world and if not why are you so angered by Bella being pregnant?


Lebbano Everybody is so upset over Bella being pregnant because SM had previously stated it was impossible for vampires to reproduce. Even male vampires, because all of the bodily fluids were replaced with venom. Yet, in BD she completely changed her story and then tried to explain it in the book. My big hang up with it is the lack of consistancy in this world. You cannot set up 'rules' to a fictional universe and then change them as you see fit... well, i guess you can, but as you see there will be a lot of complaints. Do you get what im trying to say?


Christopher what i think is that we forget we are reading a fantasy..though edwards fluids were replaced with venom, isnt that a possiblity of why the baby was half and half?i dont know that vampires exist in my world or not.. but if they are all like the cullens i'd rather replace half the people i know with vampires, and if they all are like edward, we should take lessons


Shannon The acceptance of vampires is a suspension of reality. In the logic of the real world--the one where I get up and go to work everyday--I have no expectation of meeting a vampire on the street. That would not be logical. In Stephenie Meyer's world, vampires are creatures that exist, as are werewolves. So, if I run into one of the aforementioned creatures in the woods in one of SM's novels, THAT would be logical. I am suspending reality (my real world) because I exist (mentally) in her world while I read. We play by the rules she makes up, not the rules we live by in the real world (the one we suspended to read).

The problem with the pregnancy is that Stephenie violates the rules (express and implied) of her made-up world to work the story out. That is NOT LOGICAL. She has given us many clues about the uses of vampire venom in the first three books and in interviews. Vampire venom, once introduced to the human blood stream, creates a new vampire. So, logic in Stephenie's world would dictate that the moment Edward released venom into his wife, Bella would begin the process of transforming into a vampire. Instead, this venom created a baby. That does not make sense based on what we know (because the author told us) about vampire venom.



message 5: by Kat (new) - rated it 2 stars

Kat Helgeson Shannon, you said it all. "Because it's fantasy" is no excuse.

Jael, no vampires don't exist, but then, neither does Bella Swan. We accept them because Meyer tells us they exist. She lays it out for us. We are told certain things ABOUT both Bella and the vampires which we take to be "true" in the context of the story. If these facts are later contradicted, we're going to want an explanation.

As an example, we are told that the story takes place in Forks, Washington. If we turned the page and found ourselves in Bangor, Maine with no explanation, would we shrug and say "it's fantasy!" or would we want to know why the rules as we thought we understood them suddenly don't apply?


Jael ~ *~ Syhren ~* ~ Well I appreciate your comments. I was unaware of what SM had said about her series and just couldn't get why people continued to say " Vampires can't have babies" like it couldn't be written in any fictional story that vamps can't have children. That was really bothering me because like you said it's a suspension of reality which means if the author makes it anything goes as long as it's consistent and a good story, why not believe. Anyway if SM went back on her word about the vamps in her story then I can see what all the hoopla is about. IMO it was a mediocre series to begin with and it ended exactly on that note.


message 7: by PandaRanda (last edited Aug 22, 2008 08:07PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

PandaRanda "Most human fluids are absent in my vampires. No sweat, no tears, no blood besides that which they ingest–they don’t have their own blood. They do sort of have saliva–the venom makes their mouths wet, at least. When they drink blood, it runs through their body and makes them strong. It floods through their old blood ways, though they don’t have circulation anymore. It lightens their eyes* and flushes their skin slightly."

Ah she said most fluids in vampires are absent, not all. She also said venom was one such example of a fluid still present in vampires, not that it replaced all other fluids in vampires.

And the fact that it is fantasy is a legitimate enough explanation to justify why Bella having a baby through a vampire is not incorrect. It is supernatural fantasy, and supernatural fantasy does not cohere with science, which is why it is fantasy, not science fiction. The fact that vampires can move when they're supposed to be dead is already scientifically incorrect, as living cells are needed to conduct cellular respiration which utilizes the energy needed to move muscles needed to move your body. The energy that the vampires use for everything they do supposedly comes out of nowhere. Why? Because blood can't be the energy source as all the cells in vampires are meant to be "dead and hard" and as aforementioned, cells need to be alive to conduct cellular respiration which changes the glucose extracted from consumables (i.e. blood, in the case of vampires) into energy usable to cells (i.e. ATP). Therefore the energy that vampires use comes from nowhere. But, because Twilight is a suspension of reality, that idea of energy coming out of no where defies all the laws of nature. The energy must come from some scientifically-incorrect source in order for it to cohere with her suspension of reality. The only explanation is that it is a supernatural source, that source being some kind of magic, because science cannot explain why vampires are dead but still alive. They also have fully working sensory organs and an active peripheral nervous system! How do you explain that? All of these things have been inconsistent with the extension/suspension of reality since the very beginning, unless MAGIC explains it. Because it's fantasy, right?

That same supernatural magic that moves vampires when they're dead can be used to explain Renesmee. Because if magic can keep dead people alive, then why can't it bring dead people alive through living people as well? Magic, right? Stephenie didn't say venom created Renesmee...in fact she never explained it fully, which is why she obviously didn't think it through well enough, but the idea of it being fantasy is still reason enough to explain Renesmee. Not enough to explain all her silly ideas but enough for vampire pregnancy. Maybe she did think of it and thought it was implicit enough for people to get it, but whatever I'm not going to defend her anymore than that, she isn't my personal friend or anything.

Obviously no one actually believes that vampires exist just because they've read Twilight...well I hope no one does because that's rather delusional. But I understand that people are irritated with the book because of certain inconsistencies in the book. But vampire pregnancy is not an inconsistency because Stephenie Meyer never actually stated that it was impossible for vampire babies to happen. Just that it was impossible for female vampires to have babies. Stephenie Meyer made the mistake of involving scientific ideas (i.e. no. of chromosomes in vampires, werewolves and humans, which IS an inconsistency in logic/fantasy/science) but failing to reinstate the ideas of supernaturality into her books, as well as loosely throwing in ideas that she did not justify.

Still vampire pregnancy is not an inconsistency and is fully explainable by the fantastical/supernatural aspect of the books. It explains why vampires can exist, and it can do the same for vampire pregnancy. Either way the idea that magic explains it all is a deus ex machina, but hey, that means that all fantastical books involving supernaturality are deus ex machinas too because magic is used to explain things in those worlds too. So I'm fine with it. "It's fantasy!" after all. =P That is what I believe.


message 8: by Toni (last edited Aug 22, 2008 09:07PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Toni @ PandaRanda

The problem with your explanation is that Meyer HAS introduced science, and once you do that, "fantasy" as an excuse goes out the window...not that it was ever a valid excuse anyway because as others have stated (so many times it should be on a T-Shirt), the argument is irrelevant if the problem people are having is with the canonical inconsistencies within the story and not the genre of the story.

Ah she said most fluids in vampires are absent, not all. She also said venom was one such example of a fluid still present in vampires, not that it replaced all other fluids in vampires.

Actually, the implied exception was saliva (which is venomous). Interestingly enough, seeing as humans are over 60% water, I'm curious as to why her vampires always look like shiny pretty stone and not prunes. I wonder if water changes to venom when one is changed into a vampire in her universe.

Also, If sperm remained, it would either (1) be human, and you only get one "load", since nothing grows or changes post transformation or (2) venom, which raises the question as to why Bella didn't change when she and Edward had sex, at least if Meyer bothered to adhere to her own canon. She really should have introduced incubi as a separate entity. THAT would have made things interesting.

And the fact that it is fantasy is a legitimate enough explanation to justify why Bella having a baby through a vampire is not incorrect.

NOT if the canon of said fantasy has already stated that such a thing is impossible. That would be like Bambi's mom getting shot and killed and then being around at the end of the movie. It's not a real story, but if that had happened at the end of the movie, I'm sure there would have been a lot of people looking like "O_o".

It had already been established that the mother was dead, just like it had already been established (by the author, in her own words even) that such a thing was not possible, for a female OR male vampire. Fantasy or not, once something is written in stone, you can't just un-write it without a logical explanation. It would have been ideal if she had done so BEFORE writing the book or even releasing it, rather than simply relying on everyone to completely overlook all the plot holes and inconsistencies.

The only explanation is that it is a supernatural source, that source being some kind of magic, because science cannot explain why vampires are dead but still alive.

I honestly would like Meyer to have said "MAAAGIIIIC!" early on in explanation of her characters. Unfortunately, she doesn't.

She gives her vampires extra chromosomes in such a way that it's expected to explain their uniqueness, and when you bring biology (read: science) into the picture, magic can no longer be a valid explanation, because science must now act as an explanation because as you yourself said, it cannot cohere with "magic".

However, I say this in the sense that unlike magic, science requires specific explanations that make sense to the reasonable and logical person. When you say magic, it is a wonderful disclaimer that can make anything be true. I sincerely wonder why she didn't go this route.

That same supernatural magic that moves vampires when they're dead can be used to explain Renesmee.

Forgive me, but oh hell no it can't. Even if we were to throw out the canon-crushing conception, we still don't know why Edward's sperm wasn't pure venom, since that's what literally should be the only liquid in his body and Bella didn't begin changing post sex, or, forgetting that, why the human sperm that is "magically" still there isn't human, since that was his species before the change (unless his mama did something she shouldn't have), and why the pregnancy is accelerated (see previous reply as to why "magic" is not a valid explanation), or why Bella's baby is vampiric because human sperm + human egg = human baby.

Also, if the baby WAS vampiric (and I still can't believe NOBODY has brought this up, self included), why the hell didn't Nessie's venom change her mom? Is it selective venom?

This isn't a case of "supernatural elements" explaining all...it's bad writing. Period.

But vampire pregnancy is not an inconsistency because Stephenie Meyer never actually stated that it was impossible for vampire babies to happen. Just that it was impossible for female vampires to have babies.

Wrong, she said that vampires of neither sex could procreate. She only explained the female part of the problem in more detail because it was pertinent to the actual question. However, it was made clear that it was true for both males and females. If it weren't the case, then she should have said so and let it only be true for female vampires.

Without that, the implication for male vampires is that the reason they cannot procreate is because sperm is incapable of growing due to the body not changing and or sperm being incapable of swimming since everything is frozen in place. Or, that like other living tissue, the sperm was destroyed by the change. At least, that is the logical implication that must be made with the information provided and her failure to explain in more detail is what lead to people going "O_o" at the pregnancy.

Still vampire pregnancy is not an inconsistency and is fully explainable by the fantastical/supernatural aspect of the books. It explains why vampires can exist, and it can do the same for vampire pregnancy.

Nope, the existence of vampires can be treated scientifically, because the belief of her fictional society is that they do not, and for scientific reasons. The mythology and folklore is non-scientic, and here is where the supernatural element is. How one approaches the situation depends on who they are: Bella, knowing first hand the existence of werewolves and vampires would be more likely to see the supernatural than say, her science teacher, who would think she was nuts if she attempted to explain their existence without any scientific proof.

Whereas the means of explaining vampiric existence in Meyer's world is debatable, the issue of pregnancy is not; it purely is a scientific one. Why? Because of the introduction of science. She both attempts to treat her vampires as another species and as human by saying that nothing changes. She says vampires humans in suspended animation in one breath and then starts handing out additional chromosomes in the next. She never actually treats the existence of the baby as magical, it is merely poorly explained using mythology, mythology I might add, that is irrelevant to her vampires as she made them. So then, we are left with science as the only means of explanation, and science says, "LOL WUT?"

Nothin' doin. Meyer should have either made vampires another species altogether or made everything magical and left the science the heck alone. Since she didn't, fantasy/magic is no longer the be all end all explanation.

Which, again, makes me wonder why she brought science into the picture in the first place.



message 9: by PandaRanda (last edited Aug 22, 2008 10:21PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

PandaRanda I agree with your last statement entirely. My opinion on the whole supernatural magic idea may be weak and slightly delusional on my part, because of my evident obsession with the series, but that is what I am going to believe in order to refrain from being totally hypocritical and contradictory, as so many people have been including Stephenie Meyer herself.

But then, the science was there from the beginning, regardless, whether she decided to mention it in the end of her series or not. It was there from the minute she placed vampires into her world, her "suspension of reality", because science and all logic straight away goes "LOL WUT?". =P Maybe if she did not throw in the vampire procreation the science debate would've been left untouched, but it was still always there. She just shouldn't of brought it up. Like pointing a gun to her head. But what's done is done, she's already placed the gun in front of her and everyone is dashing to get a hold of the trigger. I'm going to stand back and believe that MAGIC will happen...and she won't end up killing herself/setting up for her own murder.





message 10: by Lori (last edited Aug 22, 2008 10:42PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Lori Holy crap your posts are sooo long I don't even want to start reading. Maybe later



message 11: by Toni (last edited Aug 22, 2008 11:38PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Toni @ PandaRanda

That comment is both endearing and frightening at the same time. :D The only thing magical I can believe in at this point is that the guide that Meyer intends to release will completely fill in the holes in her canon and explain everything definitely once and for all.

Also, in regards to the science of vampires in Meyer's world, like I said, people don't believe in them because in her fictional world, there's no scientific basis...no KNOWN scientific basis. There must be, or they wouldn't exist, now that we have introduced the wonderful world of science into a fantasy novel. (yay?) Why oh why did she have to add chromosomes?

First she gives us this great werewolf legend, and then she goes on about biology. Ugh...




message 12: by Toni (new) - rated it 1 star

Toni @ Lori

TL;DR: You can use science to explain why something doesn't make sense of science is introduced into the story, and problematically.


PandaRanda If you read my comment in "Do you like the book?" uh...it kinda goes on about the whole science/vampire dilemma. The dilemma which is...you can't use science to explain vampires and what they are...dude why did she bring up science? Surely she brought up in the first book already...when they talked about what vampires can and can't do...shouldn't we have been complaining about the science ordeal from the beginning...huh?


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

Penny @ PandaRanda, That's everyone's problem with the weird things that went on in this book. You'd think Edward would have mentioned to Bella, the science nerd, that she'd be getting 2 extra sets of chromosomes when she became a vampire. That's ALL SM needed to do, in the first book, so that I could have been disappointed with the series from the get go. That way, I wouldn't have read the rest of the books.

Seriously, why did she need to bring in the science? SO LAME! I would have preferred if Carlisle had just said, "WE'RE MAGIC! There is no reason as to why we exist. We just do. Perhaps we're the puppets of satan. I have no other idea as to why we are here. TOTAL MIND TRIP, HUH? Here Bella have some 'shrooms, it makes it easier to wrap your mind around the whole thing"


PandaRanda Yes! Exactly! That's what she should of done! Magic should explain it all, heck nothing else really does, can't think of any other plausible solution. But meh, I'm all for taking the shrooms and making it easier to wrap my mind around the whole thing. ^^


message 16: by Diabla81 (last edited Aug 28, 2008 11:20AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Diabla81 In my world I think that vampires are different race than humans and they might share enough chromosomes to be able procreate with humans. (Yep I am that crazy).
In Meyer's world I just think that the idea of Bella getting pregnat angered me because Bella was a stupid immature kid who had no time to grow up (mentally, that is) and see the world outside Edward. Meyer just gave her no choice, she didn't let Bella grow as a person, as an individual. The fact that wether it was possible for Edward to get her pregnat is totally irrevelant. Meyer can have Bella pop flowers for all I care because after all is the world that she created. Now that goes the same way with my complaints, it is her world and her characters, so I just have to get over it.

p.s. I belive in vampires,witches,wizards,ghosts, faires, angels and aliens, so there, I AM A HUGE DORK/GEEK!


message 17: by Penny (new) - rated it 1 star

Penny I don't think the issue is about Bella having a baby, at least not necessarily. For me it's more about the fact that Meyer did a horrible job setting things up so the book would seem more credible and realistic (as realistic as you can get when you're talking about vampires), especially after spending the last 3 books telling us that it's impossible for vampires to make babies.
Heck, that's even less of an issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't mind a good plot twist every now and then but the plot twists need a good explanation, especially when said plot twist is going against all canon originally set up by Stephenie Meyer. I don't like that she tried explaining it away in less then a few short sentences. It didn't work for me and a lot of other people.

In my opinion there were far too many plot twists in this book considering it's length and the fact that the last three books didn't throw surprises at us, left and right. There was just too much going on for it to work for me. I was willing to accept the baby, willing to accept the disgusting imprint (begrudgingly) and I was set for some sort of final battle. But you add the fact that Bella was the most powerful, amazing, sexy, smart, in-control vampire of all time...well, I thought it was a cop-out and a pretty lame one at that. Then she brings Charlie back into the story and he's totally cool with werewolves and some other type of creature running around Forks. It's amazing that he doesn't even question the complete makeover Bella underwent (*cough* new face, new voice *cough*) and the fact she has a toddler when he only gave her away two months previously. The fact that said toddler can read 'War and Peace' at the tender age of 2 months (I still don't get why she was so blasted smart, but whatever) Then, add in the sex-lust Bella can't seem to control (even though she CAN control her blood-lust), The tons of vampires with mad skillz in various fields (when Edward himself says in TWILIGHT that vampires are rare and vampires with magical powers are really rare). Then add the anti-climatic battle...well, I just couldn't like this book. It was lame.


Lauren I think that if I were SM I would maybe have done the same thing with the plot twists. Bella had to have Renesme because Jacob had to imprint her if they were going to stay in Forks. I think the ending is too happy, but if you wanted an ending like that, SM chose the best path to it. Would youn have prefered that the wolves suddnely recovered from their animosity and let the Cullens stay after having bitten Bella? A less happy ending wiht fewer strange twists would have been preferable, but writing a book is hard, and the twilight series started out as a dream, not as an ambition to write a bestselling novel supposedly. Well it ended up one, and for that I think SM deserves some credit. :-D


Danica I just wish she added more. I mean just because they're happy at the end doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. I liked this book, I just wish SM would continue on. I mean, what happened to the Voltri? Sure they left, but does that mean they will never come back? What will happen when Renesmee grows up? I guess my questions will remain un answered because the series is over. Oh well. I just wish there was more to look forward to.


Lamia i think vampires excist i really do and no matter what people tell me i will never stop hopping for that to be true and i will always want to be one and excape realitty.


PandaRanda Bella's perspective is over, her series is over. But it isn't the end of the Twilight world. Stephenie Meyer said she might come back to it later on in other novels. I think she purposely left it sort of open so she could write spin-offs on the Twilight series, in the distant future. But meh.


message 22: by Ranata (new) - added it

Ranata Clark Vampire venom, once introduced to the human blood stream, creates a new vampire. So, logic in Stephenie's world would dictate that the moment Edward released venom into his wife, Bella would begin the process of transforming into a vampire. Instead, this venom created a baby. That does not make sense based on what we know (because the author told us) about vampire venom.


Shannon, well put. That's exactly why it makes no sense. Bella would have turned. She was about to turn in Twilight after what's his face bit her but Edward sucked it out and she didn't. If he skeeted (excuse the language) inside of Bella, wouldn't it work the same?


message 23: by PandaRanda (last edited Sep 18, 2008 11:48PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

PandaRanda "Vampires are physically similar enough to their human origins to pass as humans under some circumstances (like cloudy days). There are many basic differences. They appear to have skin like ours, albeit very fair skin. The skin serves the same general purpose of protecting the body. 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). A fluid similar to the same venom lubricates their eyes so that their eyes can move easily in their sockets. (However, they don't produce tears because tears exist to protect the eye from damage, and nothing is going to be able to scratch a vampire's eye.) The lubricant-venom in the eyes and skin is not able to infect a human the way saliva-venom can. Similarly, throughout the vampire's body are many versions of venom-based fluids that retain a marked resemblance to the fluid that was replaced, and function in much the same way and toward the same purpose. Though there is no venom replacement that works precisely like blood, many of the functions of blood are carried on in some form. Also, the nervous system runs in a slightly different but heightened way. Some involuntary reactions, like breathing, continue (in that specific example because vampires use the scents in the air much more than we do, rather than out of a need for oxygen). Other involuntary reactions, like blinking, don't exist because there is no purpose for them. The normal reactions of arousal are still present in vampires, made possible by venom-related fluids that cause tissues to react similarly as they do to an influx of blood. Like with vampire skin—which looks similar to human skin and has the same basic function—fluids closely related to seminal fluids still exist in male vampires, which carry genetic information and are capable of bonding with a human ovum. This was not a known fact in the vampire world (outside of Joham's personal experimenting) before Nessie, because it's nearly impossible for a vampire to be that near a human and not kill her."

Was something that Stephenie Meyer said on the FAQ on Breaking Dawn. It makes sense, I guess. Obviously fluids are needed in a vampires body to do those extra things, which they wouldn't be able to do without...like moving (not that that explains how they're able to move, since their cells are technically dead and incapable of producing the energy needed for movement...but I suppose that's something you accept since they are vampires, supernatural and all) and being highly flammable...infallible, with the exception of fire... Not a sound scientific explanation, but reasonable enough, unless your scientific knowledge could better explain/rebuke her vampire science...if there is such a thing...O_o


message 24: by Feliks (new)

Feliks I can't imagine anyone seriously asking this question. Do people have such a faint grasp on reality these days?


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

"oh no have we been found out?!" (stops draining latest victim and speeds into the night to warn the others)


message 26: by M.R. (new) - rated it 1 star

M.R. Graham Actually, this was one of the things that never bothered me all that much. SM sort of retroactively explained the pregnancy in a way that really does mesh pretty well with science.
Science does not produce statements of absolute fact, but rather statements of what we know currently, which might change at some point in the future. Since all of our information about vampire reproduction came from characters within the Twilight world, it's entirely possible that they just passed on the information they had at the time, which was subsequently proven wrong.
The hard-cells-with-venom-lubricant thing doesn't ACTUALLY work (because as far as I can see, there's nothing to prevent these lubricated cells from sliding right past each other like marbles, making the vampire disintegrate into sparkly cell-dust [unless venom-lube is adhesive, in which case vampires would feel at least a little sticky and still wouldn't be able to move under their own power]), but if we just roll with that, the pregnancy is at least feasible.


message 27: by [deleted user] (new)

Peace wrote: "here is q for anyone. does even vamp exsite at all?or are they just some made up thing, that from the book?"

are you for cereal right now? the question of the existence of vampires is what this discussion is all about.


message 28: by [deleted user] (new)

sorry i just didn't understand why you were restating the question


message 29: by M.R. (new) - rated it 1 star

M.R. Graham Because that wasn't what this thread was about, despite the title. Peace had actually brought up a new question.


BubblesTheMonkey When they refer to science, I think they're talking about how they can't age, and thus, can't go through mitotic or meiotic division, which means Edward can't have children. They are going off Meyer's take on vampires because you can apply science, in a way, to what she said. Maybe not specifically about vampires, but about how they can't age, never change.


message 31: by [deleted user] (new)

*blink blink*
This thread is getting kinda gross. :P


Shawn Isn't that what the whole last book is about..."How did this happen?" and "now we must protect her"? You guys are so serious about a work of fiction.


message 33: by D.R. (new) - rated it 4 stars

D.R. Me thinks everyone is over thinking the whole thing. Its all fiction and written to be enjoyed. If you try to dissect every point, you can't really enjoy it. There are lots of questions we don't know the answer to in reality, but we can still enjoy life. In science fiction, you try to stay with science, but in fantasy, vampires, you can pretty much write what you want. Who wants the old time vampires that we saw on the black and white TV screens years ago?


Lamprini THEY HAVE AN OLD SAYING IN GREECE THAT: IF IN A PLACE THERE IS SMOKE, THERE IS ALWAYS A FIRE.


message 35: by [deleted user] (new)

Are vampires real?

I don't WANT to live in a world where sparkling vampires live so I seriously hope not.


Lamprini SPARKLING?


Lamprini are we talking only for those in twilight? because all the others do not.


Sarah There are many different kinds of vampires. In every myth and story about vampires its different. In some stories vampires can have children and in others they cant. Its not that hard to understand.
And I sure do hope that vampires exist I would love to meet one


message 39: by [deleted user] (new)

Peace wrote: "Sarah wrote: "There are many different kinds of vampires. In every myth and story about vampires its different. In some stories vampires can have children and in others they cant. Its not that hard..."
Yeah...and probably not live to tell the tale.


message 40: by Dawn (new) - rated it 4 stars

Dawn Well if you think about it, we have myths of all types of vampires dating back to earlier than Vlad the Impaler. We have myths about all kinds of things that we no longer believe in. As christians we believe in one god, but were we Greek centuries back we would believe in multiple gods. Witches are a myth in the form of doing magic and casting spells, not like some wiccans today. Yet there is still the basis of witchcraft in our current world. So maybe, just maybe, the myths we've heard growing up are true, or were at one point. Maybe there are vampires out there, and maybe we interact with them without even knowing about it. As logical creatures who depend on science without proof, we don't believe it. I prefer to look at the world as "what if". However I don't believe vamps sparkle. Just saying.


back to top