What could the vampires do instead of sparkle?

[Shamma8]

How about it's just a rumor they themselves spread to lull humans and others into a sense of safety

[Heidi]

You can do what Jim Butcher did and take things like a succubus/succubi and say they were a different type of vampire. Any monster or creature that feeds off a humans, blood or other wise is in itself a vampire. (In Jims world)A succubus is a vampire of the white counsel, who can walk in daylight and who can also pass for human. There true power is to seduce and manipulate and feed off of human emotion. There is also the old fashioned dracula vampire who is the black counsel and the bat like vampire who is the red counsel.

[Jenna]

Bk70lvr wrote: "Yeah, you just can't make "sparkle" sound tough, and that's what vampires are. Besides burning up [cause SM wanted to go a different route], I'm not sure what else the sun can do but cause reflecti..."

isnt that what the guy done who wrote the Abreham Lincoln book> (been awhile since i read it) but couldnt they go out in the sun just had to wear sunglasses....maybe im wrong it has been awhile

[Heidi]

Jenna wrote: "isnt that what the guy done who wrote the Abreham Lincoln book> (been awhile since i read it) but couldnt they go out in the sun just had to wear sunglasses....maybe im wrong it has been awhile "

So I totally haven't read the books, just have seen the super cheesy movie. And it was my impression that they just wore sunblock.

[Jeni]

Heidi wrote: "Jenna wrote: "isnt that what the guy done who wrote the Abreham Lincoln book> (been awhile since i read it) but couldnt they go out in the sun just had to wear sunglasses....maybe im wrong it has b..."

Actually, the older a vampire gets (in the Abraham book), the more they can tolerate the sun on their skin. New vampires must stay hidden. The sunglasses is because their eyes are still sensitive after hundreds of years.

[Noelle]

Hoola-hoop

[Stéphanie]

well.. i always thought, that, as vampires are dead. i think that they would just rotten in the sun. like dead meat does in the sun. you have to keep it cool, right?

[Heidi]

Bk70lvr wrote: "Heidi wrote: "super cheesy movie"

Was it? I haven't seen yet. But I'm sure I will eventually. Now that you have me thinking about it, I didn't really hear a lot about it after it came out..."

It should be considered a B movie. Had I of gone and expected a B movie, I would of liked it more. :( It was meh.

[Erin]

How about their feet grow massive if they stand in the sun long.

Or they could shrivel up and turn into Gollum (from LOTR).

OR their noses grow really long!

[Justine]

Jenna wrote: "i thought the sparkeling was rather stupid only because im obsessed with Vampires, grew up reading Anne rice so to me yes they should burn up and turn to ash and die. But for her to make them spark..."

i never even thought of it like that

[Jenna]

Jeni wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Jenna wrote: "isnt that what the guy done who wrote the Abreham Lincoln book> (been awhile since i read it) but couldnt they go out in the sun just had to wear sunglasses....maybe im ..."

i knew it was something similar to that like i said its been a while since i read it and i didnt like it so it didnt stick with me much haha but yea i didnt go see the movie since i didnt like the book i didnt wanna spend 8.50 for a movies i knew i wouldnt like

[kpopfan]

Well there was this show called Moonlight the main guy Mick St. John used to sleep for the better part of the day but when he does go out into the sun it barely hurts him just loses energy so he mostly stays under shaded areas.
I really miss the show Mick St John was played by Alex O' Loughlin he currently stars in Hawii five-0

[S.L.J.]

The sparkling was SM's flight of fancy that just didn't work just like many parts of the Twilight series didn't work because she never even attempted to give a reasonable explination for the vampires. I.E. how Edward could get Bella pregnant, their skin being like diamonds and yet fire can kill them, their blood lust being so strong but they can't die from starvation etc.

Magic venom...really?

I liked Richelle Meads idea for her 'nice' vampires. They do weaken and eventually burn in the sunlight but it takes quite a while. They have a very low tolarence for UV and their undead counterparts can't stand it at all. They go up in smoke.

It would have been intresting if the sun made them appear as horrible ugly monsters, sort of like in Pirates of the Caribbean where the moonlight shows the pirates as skeletons.

[Missyb]

Kristen wrote: "Like most people, I think the sparkling in the sun is kind of stupid, but I also like that they're not that vulnerable either. Vampires are supposed to be these nearly indestructible creatures, and..."

I like that idea (the sunlight shows their dark side). It would be a good twist, and much better then the sparkle.

[Kristen]

Missyb wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Like most people, I think the sparkling in the sun is kind of stupid, but I also like that they're not that vulnerable either. Vampires are supposed to be these nearly indestructibl..."

Probably wouldn't have made a great love story though...lol

[Kristen]

S.L.J. wrote: "The sparkling was SM's flight of fancy that just didn't work just like many parts of the Twilight series didn't work because she never even attempted to give a reasonable explination for the vampir..."

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I just think that alot of those explanations you felt were lacking - as I'm sure many people did - are all because you have this preconceived idea of what vampires have to be. And the great thing about fantasy is that there aren't any limits. There's nothing that a vampire has to be to be plausible because the entire idea of the vampire is completely made up in the first place.
I sort of like how it's treated in Twilight because she does address all the stereotypical vampire stuff, but it's mostly all myth. Which actually makes more sense to me because after centuries and centuries, people are bound to get some misconceptions. Especially when anyone who knows any real vampires are either killed or turned into one.

I'm right there with you, wanting things to make sense, but there's more leniency in fantasy. It doesn't all have to be scientific and fitting into what we know, to work. Because then, logically, you should be demanding how vampires can exist at all.

[Amy]

S.L.J. wrote: "The sparkling was SM's flight of fancy that just didn't work just like many parts of the Twilight series didn't work because she never even attempted to give a reasonable explination for the vampir..."

You see, I thought the explanation was reasonable enough for me as fantasy novels go. The venom and the transformation itself changed the molecular/cellular structure of the vampire's whole body, making each cell into a substance like rock. Some rocks have shimmery qualities (like diamond and some rocks have flecks of shiny). I bought it more than the "burn to ash" scenario because vampires are supposed to be inhumanly strong and hard to kill. Burning up just from sunlight seems pretty weak to me. Of course, the only vampire book I had ever read before Twilight was Interview with a Vampire, so I was probably able to suspend disbelief a little easier with Twilight.

[Mickey]

I'm not sure how much scientific explanation would organically fit into Twilight. Bella isn't a scientist, nor is she really interested in the mechanics of vampirism. (Then again, neither am I. It doesn't enhance the story for me to hear a scientific explanation as to what happens to vampire skin in the sun. What just registers with me is something like, 'Oh, their skin sparkles. Okay.' I think people are expecting too much explanation, as if this was a science fiction book in which the ideas rest on the soundness or plausibility of the science. This is a romance novel which features mythical creatures. It's exploring other venues than science. It's a lot like the Harry Potter books. Why do brooms fly? We never get a scientific explanation from the book, mostly because Harry is not interested in knowing. They fly. It's magic. In some ways, it's more convincing and realistic not to know. How much science knowledge do most people have about the world around them? I'd venture the answer would be "not much".

[Moor.]

I think Stephanir Meyer didn't give her vampires the same characteristics as traditional vampires out of sheer laziness. The story would have been a lot more interesting if Edward had to have been invited in, if the risk of him stepping out into the sunlight would have been death or if that redhead (sorry, I forget her name) hadn't been able to cross water. I'm all for creativity but I think Meyer took it too far and I would have enjoyed the books more if she had stuck more to the 'rules.'

[Moor.]

*Stephanie

[em (lattereads)]

I don't like how vampires can be killed by the sun, or is it get hurt with garlic. Why? They're freaking nearly indistructable!

[Kristen]

Mickey wrote: "I'm not sure how much scientific explanation would organically fit into Twilight. Bella isn't a scientist, nor is she really interested in the mechanics of vampirism. (Then again, neither am I. It ..."

I feel like you can always explain what I'm trying to say so much better than I do, lol But yes, exactly!

[Elizabeth]

Tenma wrote: "I've heard that Stephanie Meyer got the idea of Twilight from a dream, but I have also written a book based off a dream. And mine did not contain sparkling vampires. So, I'm wondering if anyone has..."

Their eyes do glow red if they drink human blood, but the Cullens are vegetarians. (You probably already knew that but still.)

[Elizabeth]

I don't know I thinkit was fine the way she did that.

[Mickey]

Moor. wrote: "I think Stephanir Meyer didn't give her vampires the same characteristics as traditional vampires out of sheer laziness."

I'm not following your reasoning here. Usually, it's lazier to follow tradition than to come up with something on your own.

Some of the traditions I don't like. The whole "having to be invited into the house" thing isn't a biologically based characteristic. How can a place be forbidden if you do not have permission from the owner? How is this internal law enforced and why does it exist? This adds a non-scientifically based restriction that doesn't really make sense (unless you think in terms of traditional religious thinking of sin needed to be "invited in" or otherwise encouraged). If you are looking to construct more science-based vampires whose characteristics make sense to the ideas of natural selection and evolution, that would have to go, along with burning in the sun. Burning in the sun reduces vampires to one of the weakest and most vunerable species on the planet. Burning and dying in the sunlight (a condition which would mean that they are vunerable much of the time) would be too much of a handicap. In pre-science times, it would make sense. I think the message being that vampires are evil and that a condition usually thought of as life-affirming and necessary is deadly to them. It's another indication of the un-naturalness of vampires that all other things need sunlight while it destroys them on contact.

I prefer a condition which reflects a difference between humans and vampires that becomes apparent in strong sunlight. This doesn't mean that I'll turn my nose up at more traditionally based stories, but I think that the sunlight burning is too often used as a lazy plot device to destroy the vampire at the last minute. It's like the Wicked Witch of the West suddenly melting from water. It's an "easy out".

[S.L.J.]

The burning in the sunlight lengend bascially came around from the notion that vampires are evil creatures of darkness and therefore live in darkness. And people having a low tolerence for UV is nothing new.

You can roll science and magic into one with any supernatural creature. The La Push wolves don't get scrutinized as much as the vampires because their existence is explained as being part magic part genetics.

SM tried to go all science with the vampires which was a bad idea. And I've always wondered why the vampires in Twilight never tried to take over the world. If they're so indestructable and humans are so weak it would be easy for them.

[Gabby]

In Vampire Kisses, The vampires can't go out in the sun because they are afraid of it. They don't burn up; they just automatically find shade.

[Mickey]

S.L.J. wrote: "SM tried to go all science with the vampires which was a bad idea. And I've always wondered why the vampires in Twilight never tried to take over the world. If they're so indestructable and humans are so weak it would be easy for them."

What do you mean when you say she "tried to go all science with the vampires"?

I don't think that "taking over the world" would really fit into the ambitions of the vampires. What would taking over the world get them but headaches? Their food (humans) do all the work of maintaining things. There's no need to step in and take over. What would be the benefit of that? Humans are not a threat to vampires, particularly since most have no idea of the actual situation and there is no threat of the food dwindling or becoming aware.

[Heidi]

S.L.J. wrote: "The burning in the sunlight lengend bascially came around from the notion that vampires are evil creatures of darkness and therefore live in darkness. And people having a low tolerence for UV is no..."

Even Bram Stokers Dracula could go out in the daylight. The fact that vampires can burn in daylight was someones twist or addition to that "legend". Someone just made it up. Dracula could be killed by silver bullets. Something that is refered to more in killing werewolves. He was also hypnotic and had telepathic abilities. Most vampires now a days arent telepathic and its a total toss up if they can hypnotise or not. Dracula could shape shift into a bat, dog, wolf or fog. If we were to talk about legend, you can see parts of one of the original and I would venture to say one of the most well known vampires has been cherry picked apart. Some of it has been cherry picked and added to an entire different species.

The fact that more things that are being made up about vampires to this day isn't so unbelievable. Is venom such a far fetched thing from the already made up version that if a vampire bites you and drains your blood and shares theirs they can turn you? Venom makes more sense to me. It's certainly more effient and less magical.

[Jenna]

Mickey wrote: "Moor. wrote: "I think Stephanir Meyer didn't give her vampires the same characteristics as traditional vampires out of sheer laziness."

I'm not following your reasoning here. Usually, it's lazier ..."

okay i didnt read all ur comment but just a few sentances. u said u didnt like the whole gotta be invited in the only reason that theory has became so popular it gives ppl the sense of protection

[Jenna]

The Half-Blood wrote: "I don't like how vampires can be killed by the sun, or is it get hurt with garlic. Why? They're freaking nearly indistructable!"

i agree with the garlic thats the one i never liked

[Mickey]

Jenna wrote: "the only reason that theory has became so popular it gives ppl the sense of protection "

Protection from what? Vampires aren't real.

[Jenna]

u are takin it to litteral

[Bill]

I see a lot of people are trying to think scientifically about this, but somehow missing a key point:

First, every vampire myth in the world agrees that vampires prefer to hunt humans. That makes them, in effect, apex predators in our ecosystem.

These predators would hunt at a time when we're at our most vulnerable: night. Our eyes aren't as adapted to the darkness, and we sleep at night. Burning in sunlight actually works here, because an aversion to sunlight might develop after a time due to prolonged avoidance of daylight hunting, which could make skin increasingly vulnerable to UV rays.

Being predators, vampires would do everything possible to adapt to our environment so as to blend in and avoid detection. That way, they can continue to hunt and survive.

So, using that rationale, any adaptation they would make that stands out would get that particular mutation hunted down, staked and burned as rapidly as possible.

All of that feels perfectly rational and reasonable, right?

Therefore, an adaptation/mutation that causes vampires to sparkle in sunlight, and therefore stand out from their prey in any way, would get them hunted down and killed as fast as possible, making Meyer's vampires some of the juiciest Van Helsing fodder ever created.

...which makes Meyers one of the stupidest vampire "authors" ever. Scientifically speaking.

[Gabby]

Okay. No one's writing is stupid. People write so they can enjoy themselves in reading, and when it gets published and other people read it, that is a bonus. I don't know very many authors that write just so their writing will get published and read. No, they write because they have writing that they are proud of and want other people to read it, too.
I may not like some books, but every piece of writing is important. writing takes time, and i hate it when people say that they have no idea how something got published because it was stupid, it's not. someone must've liked the book and writing for it to get published! People don't just publish books, they read it first!
And people can joke about books and not mean it, and that's okay, but when someone says something like someone's writing is stupid, do you know how annoying that is! A lot of people should know what i'm talking about. Because no one's writing is stupid it might not be your kind of book. enough said.

-Not directing this at one person, just saying in general.

[Kirby]

Bill wrote: "I see a lot of people are trying to think scientifically about this, but somehow missing a key point:

First, every vampire myth in the world agrees that vampires prefer to hunt humans. That makes ..."

well, you do understand that neither adaptation nor mutation has anything to do with a "species" that doesn't reproduce? (yeah, yeah, I know- renesmee...but, as a rule, they don't reproduce)

you do not have a situation of generations of vampires being subject to natural selection- they're turned, not born. so, while reasonable and rational in a discussion about tigers, I don't think your argument holds water when it comes to vampires.

[Bill]

Kirby wrote: "well, you do understand that neither adaptation nor mutation has anything to do with a "species" that doesn't reproduce? (yeah, yeah, I know- renesmee...but, as a rule, they don't reproduce)

you do not have a situation of generations of vampires being subject to natural selection- they're turned, not born. so, while reasonable and rational in a discussion about tigers, I don't think your argument holds water when it comes to vampires. "

Why aren't you considering that turning a human to a vampire is their form of reproduction?

No matter which mechanic you use to explain it (supernatural or scientific), you are basically making a new vampire, with certain innate traits and abilities derived from the parent vampire. Passing on traits that will get the fledgling leech stake'n'baked won't do much for the continuation of the species... something that Meyers was just too lazy or stupid (I'm voting option b) to take into account.

[Mickey]

Bill wrote: "I see a lot of people are trying to think scientifically about this, but somehow missing a key point:

First, every vampire myth in the world agrees that vampires prefer to hunt humans. That makes ..."

Bill, you make an interesting point, but your conclusion is faulty. I've never heard of an adaptation as extreme as dying in sunlight. Adaptations help to adjust to the environment. If you set side by side the adaptations of burning (and dying) in the sunlight and sparkling in the sunlight, the former is obviously a bigger weakness. I could see, if the development was a reaction to the sun, that the skin might sparkle, not that it would burst into flames.

However, Kirby makes an excellent point about natural selection not applying because becoming a vampire is more like a virus (which mutates in order to survive). This leads to the idea that, perhaps, in Meyer's world, there were two separate sets of vampires: the burning ones and the sparkling ones. It stands to reason that the burning ones, with an adaptation that causes such an extreme reaction, probably died out, leaving the sparkling ones. Or another scenario, if all the world had burning vampires and the virus mutated to lessen the severity of the reaction (from burning to sparkling), such a thing would obviously be a benefit to the species, causing them to survive longer and to infect more people with the mutated virus, leading the vampire traits to change over time. In these scenarios, Meyer's vampires are actually an improvement on the original, a mutation that helps them survive better in their environment than the ones that die.

[Kate aka Katniss marie swan]

Hey peeps you should join my group alpha acedmey (the one with no pic)

[Mickey]

Another thought about the idea that sparkling wouldn't work because it would show a difference between predator and prey, predators (particularly ones gifted with enormous advantages in strength and speed) do not generally have to avoid detection, it's the prey who seeks to camouflage. The sparkling can actually work in the vampire's favor (especially as long as it is "off the grid") as the act of sparkling can distract and disorientate the prey long enough (particularly at their speeds) to achieve their aim. I'm sure there is a different reaction time in detecting a threat from something that looks human and something you have to take a few seconds to identify as a human whose skin is sparkling. This is an advantage.

[Heidi]

And to totally go off into another though process, there are predator and prey in the animal kingdom that is nocturnal. Lets say owls for example. Just because they have an advantage and prefer to hunt at night, doesnt mean they spontaniously burst into flame during the day. Bushbabies and some bats only function/hunt at night. That being said, they dont burst into flame either. So the thought vampires burst into flame because they hunt at night is.. well, lame.

[Mickey]

Now that I think about it, barring SM's official explanation, the sparkling can be explained as an adaptation on the old-style vampires. At some point, the vampire virus mutated to lead to the development of a protective coating on the surface of their skin which reflects the part of the sunlight that kills the vampire, preventing that part from "soaking in". Because of this deflection of the harmful part, these rays are reflected outward, resulting in sparkling.

[S.L.J.]

Heidi wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "The burning in the sunlight lengend bascially came around from the notion that vampires are evil creatures of darkness and therefore live in darkness. And people having a low toleren..."

The Dracula legend is 100 years old. I think you'll find vampire legends are a little older than that.

There is not a single plausable reason for vampires to sparkle in sunlight. For undead monsters to have a weakness of some kind works. Some authors have said that the reason vamps don't like silver is because Judas was paid 30 silver coins to betray Christ. Even that doesn't mesh completely but at least it's a reason.

Twiligh vampires never had a real reason for sparkling. Their skin is said to be like granet but with a diamond quality to it. Why don't they then sparkle under normal lights? Why don't they get sparkly if you shine a torch on them or when they're around fire?

If it's only UV rays that effect them, does that mean they'll sparkle if they get close to a bug zapper or into a club under the UV strobe lights?

Let's face it. The 'sparkling' was just another way of SM making Edward seem beautiful. She invented him in a dream, I'm sure all things sparkle in her dreams.

Or as Dean Wichcester would say: you know what, there's a ton of lore on unicorns too. In fact, I hear that they ride on silver moonbeams, and that they shoot rainbows out of their asses!

[Kirby]

Mickey wrote: "The sparkling can actually work in the vampire's favor (especially as long as it is "off the grid") as the act of sparkling can distract and disorientate the prey long enough (particularly at their speeds) to achieve their aim."

oh, just like a cuttlefish! they hypnotize their prey with crazy (dare I say dazzling?) color displays...very similar idea, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHnm4I...

[Kirby]

Bill wrote: "No matter which mechanic you use to explain it (supernatural or scientific), you are basically making a new vampire, with certain innate traits and abilities derived from the parent vampire."

I don't at all understand that idea that innate traits and abilities are being passed on during the turning process...there is no passing of genetic material, so the parent vampire only has a nurturing influence on the "child." genetics has nothing to do with it, even if it IS their form of reproduction. that seems kind of like someone thinking that by picking and adopting a child, they're passing on their DNA. they may have chosen the child, but he/she still won't inherit any of the parent's genes.

and, even if that DID make sense- as mickey already explained, burning in the sun is a much bigger disadvantage than sparkling.

[Bill]

(Uh-oh... an intelligent discussion about Twilight is occurring... next thing we know, someone will divide by zero and the world really will end.)

I'm not going to go back and quote each person, I'll just save time and try to address some points:

1. Camouflage: Someone suggested that a predator with significant advantages in speed and strength doesn't need it to hunt prey. In nature, this doesn't exactly follow: consider a house cat hunting a mouse, with those advantages over its prey. It does hide and allow its prey to come to it, and the most successful hunting cats are the ones that blend in best with their environment (such as grey tabby cats... I had a Maine coon cat that never failed to bring home a fresh kill each night after he went out hunting).

This is just one example out of many. The most efficient strategy for catching food is to let the food come to you, and you're not going to do that by sparkling in the sun and sending up a flare that you're in any way, shape, or form different from your intended prey.

2. The Virus Theory: If a virus can evolve to survive longer in a host (made more antibiotic-resistant, for example), why can't a vampire?

As far as the burning-in-sunlight question... yes, it is an extreme mutation that can limit survivability, if the vampires that have it wander in the daylight. However, again, humans are more alert during the day, so remaining awake at that time to feed would be counter-productive and limit survivability anyway. On top of that, effective sunscreens are relatively inexpensive and provide excellent protection.

Oh, and before I forget... redheads. I've known red-haired people who can spend 3 minutes in the sun and come away with brutal sunburns. It's not exactly unprecedented that sun can be extremely damaging, yet not affect survival.

Just remember: I'm more a proponent of the "vampires rendered powerless in daylight" school of thought. Given that they would hunt when their prey is at its most vulnerable (night), it makes more logical sense than "vampires turn into freakin' disco-balls in daylight."

[[deleted user]]

But who does not want a guy and a disco ball all in one?PARTAY!!!!

[Heidi]

S.L.J. wrote: "The Dracula legend is 100 years old. I think you'll find vampire legends are a little older than that."

Just to requote myself --
"If we were to talk about legend, you can see parts of one of the original and I would venture to say one of the most well known vampires has been cherry picked apart."

[Shari-amor]

I dont really have a theory to add but my momma made a point while reading this thread. If SM's vampires didnt sparkle, they would be down right terrifying. In most other vampire books, humans are capable of killing them. Stake through the heart, taking them into sunlight, some kind of weakness. The only ones capable of killing Sm's vampires are other vampires or werewolves. They dont sleep, sun doesnt hurt them, skin is too tough to penetrate, and they're bites are posionous and painful. Sparkling aside, I wouldnt want to cross that fiend.

[S.L.J.]

If a big wolves teeth can get through their skin then it obviously isn't diamond. If they burn to death when thrown onto a make-shift bonefire then they obviously arent indestructible and they're definately not immortal.

I hate all these vamp novels where they talk about immortility like it's something you can buy off ebay.

Immortaility means immunity from death. In other words; something that will never end. And yet, a little naplam will end a vamp in SM's universe. So the sparkling, the powers, the so called immortaility is all just superficial.

It's basically a book of teens deluding themselves.