Twilight
discussion
What could the vampires do instead of sparkle?
Mickey wrote: "That's a matter of subjective opinion."Yes it is...though is there any other kind?
David wrote: "Yes it is...though is there any other kind?"Sure there is. There is acknowledging that people have different tastes and that words such as "interesting", "entertaining" and "memorable" vary from one reader to another. It's entirely possible that people do not agree with your statement finding Anne Rice's work to be superior to Meyer's. You offer no evidence or reasons for your statement, so you aren't trying (or trying very hard) to persuade or explain. You aren't making a case, in other words. It's just your subjective opinion.
The deeper idea that I think might be interesting to discuss is this idea some people have that vampires should only be written in a certain way, as villains or as hypermasculine fantasy creatures. Some people might like that sort of thing, and that's absolutely fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I've never gone on an Anne Rice thread and wrote that I hoped she would be run over by a car simply because I personally don't like her works. I can look beyond myself and my own subjective tastes and realize that other readers enjoy her works. It's the intolerance of people who can't see past their own likes and dislikes and want to get into hysterics over it.
Kirby wrote: "never mind. argument withdrawn."Awwww, Kirby, I really liked that post. I especially liked the part where you made the point that Meyer and Rice could coexist writing in the same genre and that it's not necessary to get rid of one or the other. That was a good point and well-written, too.
Mickey wrote: "David wrote: "Yes it is...though is there any other kind?"Sure there is. There is acknowledging that people have different tastes and that words such as "interesting", "entertaining" and "memorab..."
Hilarious, Mickey. Opinions are opinions. They are all entirely subjective. In my opinion, Stephenie Meyer is an atrocious writer who has had a few good ideas and a lot of luck. It's an opinion. As per the question posed above, Rice is a better author in the contemporary vampire genre and has handled the question of 'what could vampires do instead of sparkle?' with far greater skill. Another opinion.
Do I wish Stephenie Meyer were run over by a car? No. I applaud her success as her career is proof positive that just about anybody can be a successful novelist. Furthermore, on a personal level, I would not wish that upon anyone, except perhaps Hitler if he were still alive, or possibly Stalin.
Is this thread entitled "Let's all worship Stephenie Meyer like mindless Twilight drones and get really offended if someone says anything not 100% super worshipful of our goddess Stephenie Meyer who is an uber-genius, yah!"? No. It is not. So I don't understand the need for the "hysterics" and "intolerance" when someone expresses an opinion about different authors in the vampire genre. Again, it's an opinion. No evidence required for an opinion, especially when people can easily pick up both authors' books, find out for themselves and form their own opinions.
On a related note, I prefer chocolate ice cream over strawberry and think vanilla is a waste of time unless there is pie involved. What!? Vanilla a waste of time? How could you!? How dare you!? Poor, poor vanilla...I'll protect you! Just because you don't like vanilla doesn't mean you should say so!
Thus, according to you, if someone doesn't agree with the group/herd, then that person should not express an opinion... Do you know what that's called? I'll give you a hint...two names mentioned above were perfect examples of it, one really obvious at the time, the other a little less obvious.
You might want to re-read your own post and see who is being intolerant.
Ciao, bella! ;)
PS. Vampires are rarely depicted in literature as hypermasculine. If anything, they are often portrayed as effete, if not effeminate in many ways.
David wrote: "On a related note, I prefer chocolate ice cream over strawberry and think vanilla is a waste of time unless there is pie involved. What!? Vanilla a waste of time? How could you!? How dare you!? Poor, poor vanilla...I'll protect you! Just because you don't like vanilla doesn't mean you should say so! So, according to you, if someone doesn't agree with the group/herd, that person should not express an opinion..."
Let's use your ice cream example. I'm not sure if you've read this thread, because you are creating a scenario that doesn't jive with what's going on. I'll use Bill as an example. Bill likes only a certain flavor of ice cream, but it's not enough for him to just order it and enjoy it. He goes on a crusade seeking to ban all other flavors. He calls anyone who likes another flavor a variation of retarded. He wishes violence on those who provide different flavors. He hates choices in ice cream because he likes only one. This is intolerant.
When you discuss following a herd, I hate to tell you that the Anti-Twilight herd is just as large as the Pro-Twilight herd. People who don't like Twilight are not less mindless. Maybe reading more threads, or even reading this one thoroughly, will give you a more accurate perspective on this.
Who is wishing violence upon Stephenie Meyer? Saying Twilight is lame is not hate. It is a statement of opinion. Meyer's stories are entertaining, but not very good. Opinion.Fact: This thread is 'What could the vampires do instead of sparkle?' Offering up notes, options, opinions on a) the sparkling and b) what other writers have done and c) what other alternatives are possible is perfectly appropriate for this thread.
Comment: Mickey, you're obviously an intelligent person and, based on your command of the English language as evidenced by your posts, a better writer than Stephenie Meyer. Step back for a second and let people disagree, debate, discuss, like, dislike, and share opinions. If you think Meyer is brilliant, that she sparkles in the sunlight, then say so. However, utilizing your obvious intellectual capacity in defense of a writer who has mountains of fans and does not need defending is a waste of time. Perhaps you should write your own vampire stories, which (in my opinion, based on your demonstrated ability to write) would probably be better-written than Twilight and, depending on your own creativity and logic, might be better stories. However, there will be people who like your work and those who don't and they all have the right to express their opinions. It's part of life. In all sincerity, best of luck to you.
Stephenie Meyer's interpretation of vampires actually reflect on Real Vampires that are currently established within society. ( And no they don't bite or live forever) If you want some insight on it you an go and look at this interview I did with a group called SAVA and Real Vampire News. http://my-addictionbooks.blogspot.com...
Most writers base their images on things they have experienced. In fiction though the idea is to create something of your own. When it comes to vampires and werewolves I think most avenues have been explored.
David wrote: "Who is wishing violence upon Stephenie Meyer?"You really haven't read this thread, have you? How can you expect to have an informed opinion about this thread if you haven't bothered to read it?
Bill wrote: Here's hoping she gets hit by a truck before she utterly destroys bloodsuckers for good.
This is just intolerant and hysterical and I can have an opinion about that. I don't think any person has the right to decide how vampires should be portrayed. I prefer variety and innovation myself and I think the trend is for a more creative approach. If people are tradtionalists, there are plenty of vampire books for them. I don't like when they decide that there is only one way to portray vampires or that one person's tastes should be elevated to such a degree that no one can try anything else.
No one is paying me for my opinions, although I'm flattered you think that's a possibility. I wish I could return that compliment, but I don't think your posts are showing any degree of "professionalism".
Mickey, first of all, the topic is 'What could the vampires do instead of sparkle?' I answered that with comments/opinions of my own, attempting to answer Tenma's original question, which is the purpose of this thread. As for the 'thread' itself and the ensuing discussions, I read some of the comments and then threw in my two cents worth to Tenma and anyone else interested, with some recommendations of other literature. One is not obliged to pore through every comment before posting...or is that some new rule you have made?Also, I automatically ignore ridiculous comments like Bill's and it is illogical of you to attack my comments on the basis of what someone else has said. I offered an opinion about the thread topic, some opinions on the existing literature and some suggestions about that question.
Again, it's the thread topic.
In other words, you can have an opinion about whatever you like -- please extend the same courtesy to others.
As for Bill...that's not a very nice thing to say about a human being who is hardly going to ruin the vampire genre. If you want to call Bill out on that...go right ahead, but don't paint me or anyone else with the same brush just because I'm not a fan of Stephenie Meyer's writing.
As for the paid-posting comment -- I removed it as I thought it was unfair to you and replaced it with one that I thought to be more constructive. See above.
Sparkle if you really want to.
Best.
I love Anne Rice she is my favorite author!! I love Stephenie Meyer too!! They both write in such different ways, how can you even compare them besides the fact that they both have written about vampires. "WHAT COULD VAMPIRES DO INSTEAD OF SPARKLE?
ANSWER: Whatever the imagination can make them do!!
David wrote: "Who is wishing violence upon Stephenie Meyer? Saying Twilight is lame is not hate. It is a statement of opinion. Meyer's stories are entertaining, but not very good. Opinion."If I had to choose, I'd rather read an entertaining story that wasn't very good. Then read a good story that wasnt very entertaining. But its all relative and subjective ;) And to point out what Mickey was talking about with violence.
Bill wrote: " 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. "
Bill wrote: "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."
That could be seen as hatefull or spitefull. But maybe Im sensative? Btw Bill, if you want to go to the dictionary meaning of vampire it is this:
vam·pire /ˈvæmpaɪər/ Show Spelled[vam-pahyuhr] Show IPA
noun
1. a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night.
I don't see where it says theres an exclusively feeding on humans, just commonly. Even Wikipedia definition says:
Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person/being.
Living creatures to me are also animals. Which as humans we are animals. Vampire bats aren't any less vampire because they drink cow blood.
David wrote: "Mickey, first of all, the topic is 'What could the vampires do instead of sparkle?' I answered that with comments/opinions of my own, attempting to answer Tenma's original question, which is the pu..."Nobody would be faulting you for not reading this whole thread, David, except for the fact that you are offering opinions about what is going on in the thread. You characterized fans as not allowing people to express contrary opinions, when there have be dozens of contrary opinions that no fan has responded to. Many fans are offering suggestions themselves, so your analysis isn't accurate.
I always to back to Dresden file vampires, in terms of anything but sparkling. There isn't one type of vampire. There are also many different types of werewolves as well. I like that there are 4 counsels of vampires Red, White, Black and Emerald (which the books havent gone into Emerald yet). I like that there is no exclusive thing that all the counsels are all weak to as well. I even like the twist that a white vampire is a Succubus/Succubi.
Heidi wrote: " I like that there are 4 counsels of vampires Red, White, Black and Emerald (which the books havent gone into Emerald yet)."Its not color per sey, more counsels.
Peace wrote: "i wonder if some vam cant go into the sunlight at all then what do they do all day?""Traditionally " wouldn't they stay in their coffins?? Lol
Peace wrote: "i wonder if some vam cant go into the sunlight at all then what do they do all day?"Sleep? If you cant sleep Id say read or watch TV. Hell now you can play video games if you dont sleep lol.
David wrote: "Also, I automatically ignore ridiculous comments like Bill's..."What's so ridiculous about it?
There are dozens of excellent authors out there who deserve accolades, huge fan-bases and lucrative book deals... authors that have 1000% more writing talent than Meyers.
Instead of movies about Logen Nine-Fingers/Bloody Nine, Monza Murcatto or Bayaz, First of the Magi (all of whom have more character depth in one line of dialogue than Edward, Bella and Jacob have combined), we get... Twilight.
Instead of casting for a good vampire novel like Of Saints and Shadows, we get news about Kristen "Wood-face" Stewart cheating on Generic Movie Hunk #31,415,927.
We get to hear about how Twilight is great for the vampire genre, when in reality it's made the genre a laughing stock. Instead of the creative use of vampires in The Dresden Files, we get sparkling faeries (the classical ones, not the ones Mickey keeps trying to pin on me).
Oh, you don't believe the "laughing stock" part?
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-horror-...
Number one on that list, kids.
So, yes... Meyers absolutely needs to be stopped from writing, for the sake of vampire readers everywhere. If it takes a truck to do it, I won't shed a tear. Hell, getting hit by one actually saved Stephen King's career.
Kristen wrote: "Kirby wrote: "to be fair- sunlight doesn't kill me, either, but fire sure would! :)"Well...if exposed to sunlight long enough, it would. ;)"
I'm curious, how long would one need to be exposed to sunlight to die? My grandfather was a farmer, and often spent the entire day working in the Georgia sun, and he didn't die. (Well, eventually he did, but it was not from the sun!)
Perhaps think out these things before posing an argument!!
Hey - I stay in RSA - around here a lot of people actually suffer from sunstroke in summer. depending on the exposure - I've heard of people that died from it.
Bill wrote: "David wrote: "Also, I automatically ignore ridiculous comments like Bill's..."What's so ridiculous about it?
There are dozens of excellent authors out there who deserve accolades, huge fan-bases..."
Bill -- it's ridiculous to call for Stephenie Meyer to get hit by a truck (even a theoretically therapeutic one) and to think she is somehow ruining the vampire genre. That's all.
The rest of your comments are perfectly valid opinions.
I can actually let the sparkle thing pass - I really can. It's Meyer's interpretation and it's a free country, so as much as the idea makes me snigger, I don't care. What I care about (aside from the fact that Edward is a manipulative stalker, Bella is a whiny, self destructive brat, and the book needs a more interesting plot), is that this is revolting:
Annie wrote: "I think it would be kind of exciting if they blew up"hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I love it
Bill wrote: "Oh, you don't believe the "laughing stock" part?http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-horror-...
Number one on that list, kids.
"
Ok, so I'm going to state the obvious here. Who cares what people think? I certainly don't care that a bunch of people (I don't know) think Stephanie Meyers is a laughing stock. And if being a laughing stock means I'm going to be successful in doing something I enjoy, then I pray to be a laughing stock. If laughing stock meant being a millionaire we would all want to be one. Stephanie Meyer was/is The Greater Fool.
If the author really wanted them to be safe in the sun, I'd be okay with glowing, but the sparkling is ridiculous. Or, what if their skin was translucent in the sun and you could see their cardiovascular system? Just a thought.I am personally a fan of traditional vampires...you know, burning, melting, turning to dust.
Lindsay wrote: "If the author really wanted them to be safe in the sun, I'd be okay with glowing, but the sparkling is ridiculous. Or, what if their skin was translucent in the sun and you could see their cardiov..."how cool is that.
hell yes !!!
Eris ~ I am Nemo wrote: "I can actually let the sparkle thing pass - I really can. It's Meyer's interpretation and it's a free country, so as much as the idea makes me snigger, I don't care. What I care about (aside from t..."Okay, even though I did enjoy Twilight as a complete fluff read, as an English teacher, I had to laugh about this! Good old sentence diagramming - and what a monster to diagram to boot!
Mickey wrote: "Kirby wrote: "never mind. argument withdrawn."Awwww, Kirby, I really liked that post. I especially liked the part where you made the point that Meyer and Rice could coexist writing in the same ge..."
ah, thank you! it helps to know that it wasn't all for naught! :D
I just felt a little attacked, or "called out," by the post right after mine, so I just erased the whole thing...
Katniss Marie wrote: "What if there eyes turned there human forms color when they touch sun"That is an awesome side effect i really like that its awesome
Michael wrote: "Rip out Bella's throat on page one, drain her dry, and leave her a shriveled husk on the floor."
ROUND OF APPLAUSE! What a boss!
ROUND OF APPLAUSE! What a boss!
Peace wrote: "why do they make vam sparkle in the sun, while others they just burn in the sun instead?"SM says that the meadow scene from the first book came from a dream that she had...and the vampire was sparkling in the dream, so that's what she went with.
Addie wrote: "Katniss Marie wrote: "What if there eyes turned there human forms color when they touch sun"That is an awesome side effect i really like that its awesome"
thank you
I am wring a book about vamps and that's what happens
I admit that Twilight will probably always be close to my heart.
The sparkly thing however, kind of creeped me out. I mean seriously - oh look at me, I'm a vampire! I'm a lethal bloodsucking creature of the night that could snap you in half and drink you dry, but look, I sparkle!!!
It's kind of like Tinkerbell and the Dracula hooked up and Edward is the result. Again, I love S. Meyer's idea of being different and not following the typical vampire stereotype, but sparkling?
The sparkly thing however, kind of creeped me out. I mean seriously - oh look at me, I'm a vampire! I'm a lethal bloodsucking creature of the night that could snap you in half and drink you dry, but look, I sparkle!!!
It's kind of like Tinkerbell and the Dracula hooked up and Edward is the result. Again, I love S. Meyer's idea of being different and not following the typical vampire stereotype, but sparkling?
Why is sparkling so upsetting to people? We always seem to be focusing on the fact that Edward sparkles, but every vampire in Meyer's world sparkles. The only thing I can conclude is that sparkling is considered "girly" and having a man who sparkles is seen as demeaning to him because it's associated with females and females are lesser beings. I think Meyer must have grown up in an environment where there wasn't this knee-jerk negative reaction to femininity that mainstream culture at large has developed. I could argue that there are plenty of strong and durable things that also sparkle: diamonds and concrete come to mind and that I don't think sparkling has to be associated with weakness, but what disturbs me more is this hatred and contempt for anything other than masculinity.
Peace wrote: "just thought here. why would they make some vam sparkle in the sun, while in the VD they would just get steak or just burn up in the sun, while they go out?"2 Different authors. 2 Different worlds. 2 Different opionons. There are hundreds of vampire myths. Sparkling in the sun vs being able to walk in the sun vs burning in the sun. Holy water doing nothing to holy water turning them into the witch on wizard of oz. Having fangs always or having fangs that click out when excited. Being unable to hurt other vampires vs being a slave to only who sired you vs being on your own. I could sit here for hours and give examples of what different authors have written as myths and another has broken that myth. Such is the life of creativity.
How about not having a shadow when exposed to the sun?
you know what if they turn human and have agonizing pain in the night when they change and as soon as it turns dark they change back
Mocha Spresso wrote: "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 wa..."
Nice ideas you have there, Mocha!
Nice ideas you have there, Mocha!
Mickey wrote: "Why is sparkling so upsetting to people?"
TBH, I don't think it's just the sparkling. I think they're upset that Meyer's vampires are nearly unrecognizable as, well, vampires. Kind of like, well, let's say this. Someone says, "Okay, there's a creature in my head right now. He/she sparkles in the sunlight. Each one has a special superpower. Each one is marble hard and cold. Each one has super strength and super speed. Each one is stunningly beautiful. Each one drinks blood. Guess what the creature is."
If I were the guesser, I'd be like "um...POSSIBLY a vampire? Maybe?"
Obviously there are some similarities, but perhaps some people don't think there's ENOUGH similarities, like Meyer isn't paying homage to vampires. They're saying, "if you want them to sparkle, then don't call them vampires."
Anyway, I'm no taking sides on this, this is just my hypothesis of the reasoning behind sparkle-hate.
TBH, I don't think it's just the sparkling. I think they're upset that Meyer's vampires are nearly unrecognizable as, well, vampires. Kind of like, well, let's say this. Someone says, "Okay, there's a creature in my head right now. He/she sparkles in the sunlight. Each one has a special superpower. Each one is marble hard and cold. Each one has super strength and super speed. Each one is stunningly beautiful. Each one drinks blood. Guess what the creature is."
If I were the guesser, I'd be like "um...POSSIBLY a vampire? Maybe?"
Obviously there are some similarities, but perhaps some people don't think there's ENOUGH similarities, like Meyer isn't paying homage to vampires. They're saying, "if you want them to sparkle, then don't call them vampires."
Anyway, I'm no taking sides on this, this is just my hypothesis of the reasoning behind sparkle-hate.
Peace wrote: "i heard that if a vam has some type of special ring, would that work & still walk in the sunlight, without gerting burn up?"I think you are thinking of a ring that appears in an episode of Buffy and Angel :)
Mickey wrote: "Why is sparkling so upsetting to people? We always seem to be focusing on the fact that Edward sparkles, but every vampire in Meyer's world sparkles. The only thing I can conclude is that sparkling..."
BECAUSE SPARKLING IS FUCKING RETARDED.IT LITERALLY HAS NO POINT. Vampires are the perfect predators even Edward says it, so why do they sparkle?What purpose does it have?Does it help them catch prey?Why is it needed?It's not it's random. It would be like telling everyone that Bella has 3 more pubic hairs than is normal. Does that enhance her character?Does it do anything? UM no...unless you know something about pubic hair that I don't.
BECAUSE SPARKLING IS FUCKING RETARDED.IT LITERALLY HAS NO POINT. Vampires are the perfect predators even Edward says it, so why do they sparkle?What purpose does it have?Does it help them catch prey?Why is it needed?It's not it's random. It would be like telling everyone that Bella has 3 more pubic hairs than is normal. Does that enhance her character?Does it do anything? UM no...unless you know something about pubic hair that I don't.
Peace wrote: "i heard that if a vam has some type of special ring, would that work & still walk in the sunlight, without gerting burn up?"
YES!!VAMPIRE DIARIES VAMPS!!WHOOP!
YES!!VAMPIRE DIARIES VAMPS!!WHOOP!
She has made them sparkle because if they were to burn and die like other vampires.... the characters would die to quickly and make it more complicated. They aren't even allowed to go IN the sunlight which kind of sux. They would have to avoid heaps. Their home would have to have curtains everywhere. I like how she made them sparkle. I dont like the whole vampire sleep in coffin and die in the sun thing. Her version is way better
That's still not a reason. I mean vamps can't go into the sun usually because they will burn up yes, but that is their weakness, it keeps them from completely ruling us all. Sparkling isn't a real weakness. More like a mild inconvenience.
Burn. Simple as that.
I've read a lot of books about vampires and they've had so many different powers and vulnerabilities. Some can walk in sun using heavy sunblock and clothes for covering, others fall dead asleep when the sun comes up, some cannot go out into the sun but don't fall asleep when the sun comes up, some silver saps their strength, others age determines the amount of sun they can take. Some creepy as hell, or can turn into other things. None have sparkled until Edward, and that's about a stupid a thing as you can have for a vampire. Luckily it was not something that was brought up over and over in the books or movies.I like that they each have different "powers", I like vampire books like that.
Sparkling should be left to childrens books and jewelry.
Baylor wrote: "BECAUSE SPARKLING IS FUCKING RETARDED.IT LITERALLY HAS NO POINT. Vampires are the perfect predators even Edward says it, so why do they sparkle?What purpose does it have?Does it help them catch prey?Why is it needed?It's not it's random."I take it that you didn't read the thread? People were offering ideas about this. I ventured that it could be an adaptation that blocks out whatever is fatal in sunlight and reflects it outward, resulting in sparkling. It's a positive mutation in order to deal with the vampire tradition of burning.
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...
I'm not sure what you mean? will you clarify? :)