Vampires

[Marquel]

I like mystery books and scary books. So out of my choices I choose these one because it like awesome. Blog when im done.

[[deleted user]]

Good choice....

But one comment, just to say...











Twilight has ruined vampires forever....=(

[Lindis]

I loved Vlad! It was nice to see a Vampire story from a boy's point of view! I loved Snow! The idea of the Pravus was interesting. Specially the fact that that person would not be a full vampire. And the tube thing that shot through everything. (I've forgoten the name of it) That was cool. I want one of thoes!!!

I love every vampire book I've ever read. Those of you that say that Twilight ruined vampires, need to have an open mind. The "rules" of vampire literature are not set in stone. There is no "right or wrong". Meyer just added her own twist on it. You don't have to like it, I understand that alot of people don't, and I respect that. But try to have an open mind. : )

[Madeline]

fine see i deleted my twilight vamp thing

[David]

Well I like Vladimir Todd because it differs from the twilight books in many different ways: POV of a boy, not really much romance, realistic school drama and stuff that the author describes well. And plus it has tons of action and its really dark at times. I do not like twilight, I kinda think it ruins the vampire genre a little bit just because every other vampire book take for instance vampire diaries or other vampire books copy twilight in being the same type of love trangle. You find that in most vampire books. Its nice to have a change in vampire books (such as Heather Brewer or Darren Shan).

[Jaz]

*♥Nemonica♥* ~*Lost in this love*~ wrote: "Good choice....

But one comment, just to say...
Twilight has ruined vampires forever....=("




YOUR SO RIGHT
TWILIGHT SET HORRIBLE EXPECTATIONS AND MADE PEOPLE THINK VAMPS CAN ONLY BE ONE WAY
THEN WHEN THEY SEE ONE THAT'S DIFF THEY HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN
THEY DO THIS TIL THE ONLY BOOKS LEFT ARE THE STUPID, WHINNY, ROMANCE, VAMP BOOKS.

It's good to have a change in talk about whts wrong and whts right and whts just plain weird










Twilight has ruined vampires forever....=("

[Yasmeen]

I agree..in twilight, vampires were just like Fairies which they are NOT..VladTod shows how vampires are:not sparkly..

[[deleted user]]

twilight vamps are OVERESTIMATED. They're sparkly, and not awkward. Umm... reality check! Vamps burn in the sun sweetheart, not sparkle. Vlad totally shows that vamps are awesome. Heather Brewer completely captures the image of a vampire. The secret vampire society, the irresistable thirst for the red rubies that lurk in our veins, the constant elongigating of fangs, she captures all of it!
By the way,
Stephanie dear,
I know your books and movies are like stars on pages and screens, but get your information correct please!

[Saki2143]

vladimir todd is a good story and a good vampire so i would really want him for my boyfriend!

[Alex]

i agree.twilight has ruined vamps...until i read vladmir tod. i mean- why the hell would vampires sparkle!!!

[[deleted user]]

Saki2143 wrote: "vladimir todd is a good story and a good vampire so i would really want him for my boyfriend!"

Yes, yes, yes. I easily fell in love with him. The books too. :)

[Anthony Gangaram]

It's pretty hard to even consider Twilight had "vampires" I mean they might as well be a whole different species of supernatural. For example, take a cat. A cat has retractable claws, meows/purrs, land on their feet, furry, territorial, independent, etc. Now a dog, has to maintain it's claws, bark/growls, fiberous, protective, loyal, etc. Lets look at those differences and call the dog a cat anyways. Thats what Myer's "vampires" are. You take away the distinguishing factors such as fangs, garlic, cross, ultraviolent rays, stake, holy water, inability to breed, etc and still call it a vampire. No that is not a vampire, what you're left with is a human shaped disco ball that will cause health insurance to raise due to the increased risk of faggot induced seizures.

[[deleted user]]

^^ Whoa. Agreed

[Gabby]

Anthony wrote: "It's pretty hard to even consider Twilight had "vampires" I mean they might as well be a whole different species of supernatural. For example, take a cat. A cat has retractable claws, meows/purrs, ..."

More like birds.

All species of birds are different and some don't even fly. Stephanie Meyer's vampires are different to others and that's what makes them cool.

[Anthony Gangaram]

Gabby wrote: "Anthony wrote: "It's pretty hard to even consider Twilight had "vampires" I mean they might as well be a whole different species of supernatural. For example, take a cat. A cat has retractable claw..."

Cool is subjective. Bird species are only categorized as "birds" due to genetic make up. As birds they still have common and necessary feats which universally bounds all birds.

Meyer's created her own beings and something that they are not nor have anything in common with. Vampires are more than just blood based. If that were the case vampires from Stoker to Rice could have just said oh blood hunger = vampires, but they didn't which is why you don't really see much arguments behind true to the lore vampires. You don't really see much of Dracula, Nosferatu, and even Rice's romanticized vampires being outcast as much as Meyer's "vampires".

It's almost consensus to those familiar to vampire legend and mythology that these Twilight vampires are not of the same species. They've been stripped of all features of what makes a vampire and if blood is the only link then you might as well consider Elizabeth Bathory a vampire as well, or those recent bath salts junkies.

Hell even the Vultori called themselves "immortals" rather than "vampires"