Twilight
discussion
What could the vampires do instead of sparkle?
S.L.J. wrote: "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 d..."well, I see your point. but that would also mean that your traditional stake-through-the-heart vampires aren't immortal, either, right?
Kirby wrote: "S.L.J. wrote: "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 indestructibl..."Obviously. Nothing lasts forever. Eventually, we all meet the reaper. A vamp may live 3000 year but then get hit with a 40mm grenade and there goes their immortaility in an instance.
Not ageing and living forever are very different things.
S.L.J. wrote: "Obviously. Nothing lasts forever. Eventually, we all meet the reaper. A vamp may live 3000 year but then get hit with a 40mm grenade and there goes their immortaility in an instance.Not ageing and living forever are very different things. "
*properly chastised*
Bill wrote: "(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..."
im a redhead :) and i dont burn :D (my face does but the rest does not i tan) and i didnt read ur full comment just seen the redhead part and didnt understand why they were thrown into it vs vampires and the sun sorry just didnt think it was a good comparison
What if they exploded? Or just started to swell (the swelling would eventually lead on to exploding)? That would be kinda awesome...
I'll get back to this a little later. Busy week ahead. I just don't want anyone to think I'm dodging the responses... this is getting to be too much fun to drop.Jenna wrote: "im a redhead :) and i dont burn :D (my face does but the rest does not i tan) and i didnt read ur full comment just seen the redhead part and didnt understand why they were thrown into it vs vampires and the sun sorry just didnt think it was a good comparison "
I do know redheads that burn pretty badly, though. I had one friend who, unless she put on heavy sunblock, would get 2nd-degree burns just from 10 mins. or so of sunlight.
I didn't mean it as a sweeping, "all redheads burn" statement; I know some of you do tan. If it came across that way, I do apologize.
Bill wrote: "I'll get back to this a little later. Busy week ahead. I just don't want anyone to think I'm dodging the responses... this is getting to be too much fun to drop.Jenna wrote: "im a redhead :) and ..."
no i wasnt offended or anything like that i just didnt understand the comparison to vampires
I think the (Twilight) vampires should begin to fade away when they're in the sun...like a ghostly apparition. They are actually dead after all.
for me, the fact that they sparkle in the sun connected with the fact that they are hard as stone/crystal and shatter like crystal when crushed. What I'm referring to is say, the scenes from Eclipse (movie) when Edward is fighting Victoria and he breaks her - she kind of breaks like something made from crystal or diamond would and so sparkling like diamonds doesn't seem so strange for me.Saying that I quite like Beth's idea about them fading away when they are in the sun
Well instead of looking like some disco ball they should do something that is much more vampiry. Like if they have special powers let them be weaker in the sun. Or let them get a headache if they walk around in it for to long.
They could have a crazy seizure
Thomas wrote: "Burn - plain and simple!"agrees
Instead of being sparkly, I think the vampires should've been Time Lords. That would've been a gigantic improvement.
Okay, in all seriousness, I think the idea of them fading in the sun sounds cool. Burning is best, though.
Well, absolutely anything else would be an improvement.
I'm really surprised at how many posters are such traditionalists. There are so many creative reinterpretations going on lately that if you are truly unable to "roll with the changes", I imagine that reading such books will continue to be very frustrating for you. (I think the trend is going to continue to be in reinterpretation.)Look at the Harry Potter books and the liberties that Rowling took with that series. I think what Rowling did was even more extreme. She took wizards and witches and completely divorced them from their traditional role as being in league with the Devil and using dark forces. She sanitized the entire population, changing them into a funny, eccentric subset of humanity with just a few bad eggs. Meyer, on the other hand, kept vampire's badness, but focused on a small family that lived in a different way. Despite this, people seem able to swallow Rowling's depiction, although it also goes against the traditional "badness" of wizards.
I don't even know how you can say that burning in the sun can be translated into an area that shows a vampire's "badness". It's a huge and debilitating weakness. Almost anything would be better than burning, if seen through the vampire's eyes.
Mickey wrote: "I'm really surprised at how many posters are such traditionalists. There are so many creative reinterpretations going on lately that if you are truly unable "roll with the changes", I imagine that ..."Absolutely agree with you.
Eris ~ I am Nemo wrote: "Instead of being sparkly, I think the vampires should've been Time Lords. That would've been a gigantic improvement."I want to vote this up so hard.
...But The Doctor shouldn't have to put up with Bella.
...But The Doctor shouldn't have to put up with Bella.Right you are! That's why we'd put Bella with the Master.
Mickey wrote: "I'm really surprised at how many posters are such traditionalists."I have 2 unrelated responses to that:
1.) What's wrong with being a "traditionalist?" Old-school leeches were bad-ass villains. You actually needed to think to take them down. Now, they're weak and "sensitive" (won't drink human blood?!? Get the **** out of here!!!... you're not a vampire, you're a fairy), and truly unworthy of respect.
2.) Read The Last Vampire. Best new vampire novel I've read, and Miriam is far from the traditional leech. I don't have an issue with retelling myths... unless it's by a hack writer like... oh, I don't know, Meyers.
Well, Bill, I'll respond to your responses...I don't see how "bad-ass" vampires would be hard to take down. Sunlight is hardly rare.
Everybody has different likes and dislikes as far as portrayal of supernatural creatures. That's why I dislike it when people decide that only "their" version of vampire or werewolf should be allowed to exist. It's just selfish and arrogant.
If you're referring to the Twilight vampires, you do understand that the Cullen family is unusual, right? Most vampires in Meyer's world drink blood, the majority of those that don't hunger for it painfully and fight against the urge.
I guess I'm one of those who is not terribly interested in the traditional vampire. I've always preferred a monster like Frankenstein's monster, who has some depth and pathos to him as opposed to a monster that seems to function as more of a ideal fantasy image to people, particularly the more Byronic vampires. My personal preference would be to feel a sympathy and a revulsion. If Dostoyevsky had written supernatural creatures, I'd be all over that. I think probably my other favorite monster comes from the book Watchers by Dean Koontz. The Outsider is a creature that is pulled between child-like love and a murderous hatred.
I don't share your knee-jerk hatred of sensitivity, nor do I need human blood to be drunk in order to provide proof of a certain necessary machismo. I've already discussed the idea of sparkling and the negative reaction to it as part of a general trend of seeing anything that is associated with femininity as being degrading. I don't find fairies to be lesser or more ridiculous creatures than vampires (although I'm not terribly interested in them either).
While I appreciate the reading suggestion, from looking over your books and from reading your posts, I don't think we would gravitate towards the same things.
Eva wrote: "Uh, they burn up and die? Like they do in most vampire books."^
Meyer must have been on some kind of drug to even dream up something as ridiculous as sparkling vampires.
Mickey wrote: "Well, Bill, I'll respond to your responses..."Contrary to Hollywood, leeches don't burn up in sunlight... I'm sure that was added to make for spectacular death scenes. Dracula wandered around by day, for example, but without most of his abilities.
The trick was to catch them sleeping (meaning you had to outsmart them by finding their hiding place) and stake 'em. Hollywood apparently felt that wasn't "cool" enough.
If you want a monster with depth, try Miriam Blaylock in The Hunger and The Last Vampire. She's non-traditional, sympathetic, and repulsive.
It's not a "knee-jerk reaction," by the way... I don't read horror novels (or novels with horror themes) just to have the antagonist whine and moan about his fate. Lestat made for an amazing anti-hero (at least, he did for 3 books) because he embraced his nature; Edward disgusts me because he rejects his. In essence, he's not a vampire, but some pseudo-magical entity flitting about the forest saving young girls (or "fairy," as I put it... what were you thinking I meant?).
I still think you should give Strieber's vampire novels a try, at least to broaden your horizons as leeches are concerned.
So, what did you end up deciding (Instead of sparkling)?
I loved Whitley Streiber's take on vampires
and agree that Miriam is multifaceted,repellant and and compelling at the same time.Worth a read for vampire fans.
That's what I've been saying, Bill. We don't care for the same kind of creatures ultimately. A creature who "embraces his nature" and isn't conflicted (particularly if he started out human) isn't really interesting to me. If other readers like that sort of thing and want to explore the idea of being a shadowy figure with primal urges, I don't begrudge them that at all. But I'd rather read a novel about Remus Lupin than one on Fenrir Greyback (to throw in a little Harry Potter reference). I prefer more of an internal struggle than a focus on special effects and wish fulfillment.If you are interested in broadening horizons, maybe you should look at what underlies your own prejudices. You seem to take it as a personal offense that a vampire would be anything but a representation of hyper-masculinity. If it stopped you from enjoying Twilight, then you missed out.
Mickey wrote: "You seem to take it as a personal offense that a vampire would be anything but a representation of hyper-masculinity."You're going to have to explain how you came to this conclusion, because I sure as hell never said anything of the kind, or even tried to imply it.
Bill wrote: "You're going to have to explain how you came to this conclusion, because I sure as hell never said anything of the kind, or even tried to imply it."Bill wrote: "Old-school leeches were bad-ass villains. You actually needed to think to take them down. Now, they're weak and "sensitive" (won't drink human blood?!? Get the **** out of here!!!... you're not a vampire, you're a fairy), and truly unworthy of respect."
Bill wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I'm really surprised at how many posters are such traditionalists."I have 2 unrelated responses to that:
1.) What's wrong with being a "traditionalist?" Old-school leeches were ba..."
Whoa, calm down.
I am probably more of a traditionalist on the spectrum of things, but I am also open to new ideas and spins on old myth and tale. I merely ask for consistency and plausibility. Vampires need rules. Make your rules for your vamps and keep to them.I confess, I would truly like something I can recognize. Meyer's vampires are a bit bizarre to me. They are granite-skinned, no fangs, mouth full of venom to moisten their mouths (she really said that in an interview, which begs the question: If Edward was so against turning Bella, why did he keep kissing her and put her at risk? But, I digress.), and that granite skin sparkles in the sunlight, which doesn't seem as feral and wicked as I'm used to.
Having said that, I can comfortably argue that Meyer's vampires weren't too bad--the plot holes in the story and the inconsistencies (see previous parenthetical statement) make them less believable.
So, give me a vamp and give me the rules, then give me a reason to want to care about them. That's what I really would like in a vampire.
Also, fangs. I just feel like vamps deserve fangs.
My two cents.
Mickey wrote: "Bill wrote: "You're going to have to explain how you came to this conclusion, because I sure as hell never said anything of the kind, or even tried to imply it."Bill wrote: "Old-school leeches we..."
I'm still not seeing "hyper-masculine" from that.
Bill wrote: "Old-school leeches were bad-ass villains. You actually needed to think to take them down. Now, they're weak and "sensitive" (won't drink human blood?!? Get the **** out of here!!!... you're not a vampire, you're a fairy), and truly unworthy of respect."Your problems center around Meyer's vampires having traditionally female traits, which makes them "unworthy of respect". You call them fairies instead of vampires and that term is often used as a pejorative because of its association with femininity. You use it as an insult. You object to vampires playing any sort of role outside of villain.
It all points to an intolerance for experimentation as far as vampires are concerned. It's absolutely fine for people to be traditionalists, of course, but just because you can't handle a vampire that doesn't drink human blood or that sparkles, this does not mean that everyone else has the same hangups. The genre is big enough for accomodate everyone's tastes.
The vampires I have created can't be in sunlight for extended periods or, yes, death is eminant. The sun also cause an immediate sun burnmy mythology of vampirism has been called shoddy, but I think that we lost traditional vampirism mythology, when they began to sparkle. I want my stories to be different, and shoddy or not they are my vampires, and only one person has expressed a negative view of them :)
Mickey wrote: You call them fairies instead of vampires and that term is often used as a pejorative because of its association with femininity..."I call them "fairies" because they flit around the forest like Tinkerbell, instead of drinking human blood like vampires do. It has nothing to do with them being feminine, and everything... everything ... to do with the fact that they are NOT vampires. I don't respect them because they simply are not vampires.
Louis from Interview With A Vampire was sensitive, and in his own way kind, but hey? Guess what? HE WAS A VAMPIRE and drank human blood.
If you don't drink human blood, you cannot (repeat that: CANNOT) be a vampire. It's the freakin' dictionary definition of a vampire.
Next time, instead of calling out traditionalists, try reading a novel with actual VAMPIRES in it. You might not see Meyers' insult to vampire literature in the same way.
Ugh. Look, Meyer never claimed to be making a typical vampire book. She didn’t do any research because she wanted it to be her own interpretation. I think her mythology makes sense. And they don't just sparkle for kicks, they sparkle because they are made of stone/crystal. There for when you put a crystal in the sun, it sparkles. She basically came up with logical explanations if vampire beings existed. If something that powerful was real, they wouldn’t let it be common knowledge what their weaknesses are, they would spread lies to make it easier to hunt. They aren’t clear cut vampires, just like how Jacob isn’t a werewolf; he’s a shape shifter (this is mentioned in the fourth book). I never understood the burning in the sun thing, or the garlic. That seems silly to me. To have this super strong, super sight, super hearing, super everything, and then be able to hold up a piece of garlic and crumple in pain. Or have monsters that can only come out at night. That’s a scary story, but Meyer’s vampires are nightmares. They can get you any time, and you have no way of stopping them. The fact that the sparkling is attractive to humans only makes it worse.
Bill, This conversation is starting to get boring. Exactly why are you throwing a fit? It seems very staged to me.
Sentient beings often make decisions that go against their biological nature. For example, many people are vegetarians even though humans are naturally carnivores. They don't lose their humanity because they make a choice to eat salads or beans instead. It's the same way with the Cullen family. They do not lose their vampireness because they choose to drink animal blood instead of human blood.
Vampire legends heretofore may have concentrated on the impact on humans that vampires had, but that does not mean that a writer cannot tweak things and tell the story in a more vampire-centered way or explore a different interaction between vampires and humans than predator/prey.
My main problem with traditionalists is that they seek to shut down all creativity from the genre. If you like the traditional vampire stuff, then good for you, go and read some. But don't tell me that vampires can't do this or be like that. You don't have the right to police the genre as if you own it. If you don't like a depiction, so what? Move on and get over it.
Typical internet troll: someone disagrees with you, and suddenly they are "throwing a fit."I'm not feeding you anymore. If you don't have anything to contribute to the original discussion (what leeches do in sunlight), there are hundreds of threads where you can kiss up to your fellow Twi-tards... just leave this one.
There's no lack of creativity in the genre, by the way. However, thanks to talentless hacks like Meyers, there's plenty of horrible, soulless, imitation "vampire" novels to crawl through to find a decent one. Here's hoping she gets hit by a truck before she utterly destroys bloodsuckers for good.
Now, Bill, how do you expect to contribute to intelligent Twilight discussions if you write such immature and silly posts?
Bill wrote: "There's no lack of creativity in the genre, by the way. However, thanks to talentless hacks like Meyers, there's plenty of horrible, soulless, imitation "vampire" novels to crawl through to find a decent one. Here's hoping she gets hit by a truck before she utterly destroys bloodsuckers for good."never mind. argument withdrawn.
HEY! No fighting on my discussion thread. I have a serious issue with trolls. Trolls shall be killed if they venture here. So STOP arguing. The End.
My thoughts on Meyer's take on vampires? Why not. Some points seem plausible to me.No fangs but insanely sharp teeth? That seems pretty logical to me - that would create a pretty vicious bite if all the teeth sank in. Pretty scary monster in my mind. It seems to make more sense than the vampire conversion creating long fangs that may or may not retract.
Sparkling? Well considering the sparkling is because the cells of the vampire are stone-like in structure, it can make sense to me. If a vampire is supposed to have super-human strength and be nearly impossible to kill, it makes more sense than burning to ash just from sunlight.
No stake in the heart to kill them? Again, makes more sense that a terrible, immortal creature can't be easily killed by a human.
The fact that the Cullens don't drink human blood does not mean they are no longer vampires, as someone suggested. It means they made a choice in how they wanted to live/exist. The "normal" vampires in Meyer's novels are very vicious. In fact, more so than the vampires who take "sips" from humans, leaving them alive. With Meyer's vampires, it is extremely unlikely that the human would be anything but drained to death.
I happen to think that Stephanie Meyer did an excellent job of creating her own unique brand of vampire lore. The sparkling in the sun didn't bother me. It fit into the Twilight world....which was written for a YA female audience. Teenaged girls like sparkle. But to answer the original question of what else they could do besides sparkle? Some ideas....
1) The sun causes them to age rapidly to the point where they shrivel, turn to ash and die. The older the vampire, the faster they age.
2) The sun saps their energy and causes them to suffer a form of heat stroke. They have to quickly get out of the sun and feed to regain their energy.
3) The sun makes them overheat and they sweat blood which would be a tip-off to humans as to what they really are.
4) The suffer a type of sunburn where it fries their skin so badly that smoke and steam start to rise off of them.
5) The sun doesn't actually hurt them at all. They just hate it and prefer not to go out in it.
6) It is easier to kill them in sunlight because the sun makes them mortal and they can be hurt or killed just like a regular human when they are out in sunlight.
That's all I have so far. I have to think on it a little more.
Some literary research holds that a lot of vampire lore is inspired by Syphilis (a communicable and sexually transmitted disease of the blood), which was rampant in Europe at the time of Bram Stoker's classic book -- thus the classic sensitivity to light, among other symptoms/characteristics. The sparkling thing in Twilight is pretty lame but so is Twilight, so it fits.
Alternatively, Anne Rice handled it much more interestingly in her books, which are far more entertaining, with much more memorable characters and better-written stories in general.
The most interesting vampire interpretation would be in the Hellsing (manga/anime) stories and artwork -- particularly when Alucard rocks out his vampire powers. The fearsome demonic insanity of true vampiric existence as depicted in those stories is on another level entirely. Edward would run screaming.
In response to the question posed above: the sun could expose a vampire in a variety of ways that do not involve sparkling. Bursting into flame is a popular and classic effect of sunlight though not necessarily the case if a vampire is powerful enough. The sensitivity to light could be a giveaway, along with other signs like casting no shadow or reflection etc. Vampire lore is pretty solid so no need to reinvent the wheel, but if you want to have your own unique interpretation of the effects of sunlight, have fun and be creative with it. Maybe their flesh starts to rot when exposed to sunlight...perhaps they wear a lot of makeup to cover it when out running errands during the day -- maybe something with a really high SPF, like SPF1000, or white face paint, giving them that Emo/Geisha look, perhaps...?
David wrote: "Some literary research holds that a lot of vampire lore is inspired by Syphilis (a communicable and sexually transmitted disease of the blood), which was rampant in Europe at the time of Bram Stoke..."+1 to your whole comment, and I now definitely have to check out Hellsing. A Goodreads buddy is a big fan of the series and recommended them to me, and seeing the series mentioned again makes me want to give them a go even more. Thanks!
I've heard the makeup/sunblock idea floated around, but given that usually every part of the vampire burns so intensely that they turn to ash, I don't think you could cover up everything. It wouldn't just be skin, it would be hair, eyeballs, outer lining of the eyelid, the part of the ear canal that receives sunlight, fingernails, etc. Also, seeing as how each layer of the vampire reacts the same way, one small section that is left untreated will set off a full burning. It will not just be localized to that area, but spread from the inside, perhaps leaving only the outer skin layer untouched.
MickeyDo you think it's just a movie device then, when we see a Vampire briefly and partially exposed to sunlight, that they just suffer a "superficial" burn to the exposed body part (that then heals with vampiric swiftness), to demonstrate vunerablity to sunlight, and that it takes a longer (slightly), full exposure for the combustion to take place?
David wrote: "Alternatively, Anne Rice handled it much more interestingly in her books, which are far more entertaining, with much more memorable characters and better-written stories in general."That's a matter of subjective opinion.
Eris ~ I am Nemo"Thanks, Eris. :) The books/manga are great and the anime and OVA works are really cool as well...enough that I have bought two different versions of the DVD box sets along with the books. Lots of fun. Enjoy.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Hunger (other topics)
Watchers (other topics)
The Last Vampire (other topics)
The Light at the End (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Of Saints and Shadows (other topics)The Hunger (other topics)
Watchers (other topics)
The Last Vampire (other topics)
The Light at the End (other topics)
More...
On the contrary, I've participated in many intelligent discussions about Twilight. This thread isn't unusual. A thread is usually as intelligent as the thought people put into their posts and in furthering the conversation by responding as fully and completely as possible.
Bill wrote: "I'm not going to go back and quote each person, I'll just save time and try to address some points:"
Oddly enough, these all seem to be responding to my post, so I'll just make some responses...
Some animals use camouflage and some do not. I don't think you can call it "the most efficient" way to catch prey. It's a way that works for many animals, but not all animals use camouflage. Others use different techniques. The idea that you would want to look like a man when hunting a man doesn't make sense, given that men do not necessarily trust their own kind much either.
You completely misunderstood my point about vampirism being like a virus. Viruses adapt much like animals adapt in order to continue. Therefore, the characteristics of a vampire can change through the mutation of the virus. A vampire that sparkles is an improvement over a vampire that burns and dies. It's possible that the virus changed in order to strengthen the host, thus ensuring its own survival. (Or it may be that the mutation happened spontaneously and was so successful that it spread.)
The idea that burning in sunlight is not a severe handicap is not taking into account how limiting such a situation would be. As long as vampires didn't go outside or near windows the majority of the time, they could survive.
Also, I'm not so certain that humans are necessarily the most vunerable at night. It seems to me that, given the secrecy that the Volturi enforces, it would be better to do what many predators do and pick off people when they are alone or in small groups. People tend to congregate at night and stay put (for the most part). You can catch far more people hiking or boating or swimming during the day. Those people can disappear and people are less worried than if groups of people are missing from their houses. A rash of people disappearing from their houses would likely spread panic, whereas a person or two disappearing from a hiking trip has a built-in story that allows people to feel safe (as long as they don't go hiking).
I don't understand your point on redheads. To have a sensitivity to the sun is different than bursting into flames or turning to ash on contact.
I don't believe there is a consensus about what exactly it is in sunlight that causes such a severe reaction for vampires. It's most likely something that sunblock can not prevent, so you are still talking about one of the most restrictive handicaps to an environment possible. The idea that a vampire would adapt by creating a protective coating on the skin that repels the parts of the sun that are fatal to him, thus creating a sparkling effect while in the sun would be a suitable and almost necessary mutation. It would definitely be preferable to the alternatives.