Twilight's Vampires

[bookworm438]

I know there are so many people that liked twilight's vampires. Personally, I thought they rather killed the term vampire. They just can't compare to vampires like Lestat. I mean these vampires aren't even the sadistic mindedness that has come to the term vampires.

So do you agree, Twilight killed the term vampire or are the Twilight vampires the best vampires out there?

[Emi]

Well, first of all, I think you can make your own version of anything if you set your mind to it.

Stephenie Meyer had no previous experience with vampires, so she didn't know what the "standards" for a vampire should be. It wasn't until after she wrote the first book that she read a vampire story.

I love her version of a vampire. I mean not EVERY vampire has to be this sadistic masochistic (okay I'm being redundant but you get the picture) vampire. And it's nice to see that they really wanted to be good beings. They didn't ask to be a vampire... well except for Bella... but that's besides the point. I like the Twilight vamps.

[Jacq]

I think turning sparkly in the sunshine is the stupidest thing ever.

They're supposed to vampires, not geodes or unicorns or whatever.

[Emmy943]

Ha ha, that is pretty true! But come on! I really don't like the "Blowing up" vampires! It scares me! I think that Stephanie Meyer got really creative with these vampires!

[Daylily]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saga_of_Darren_Shan

*Looks back at... lets just call it an essay...*

Does this clarify anything? In my opinion, the only bad vamps are ones that either are all saint-like [unlikely] or completely and totally evil, with no possible shot at goodness, and are completely characterless. I try not to judge vampires for previous standards.

[Jacq]

Excellent work! *thumbs up*

I've always been fond of Christopher Moore's vampires.
(As seen in Bloodsucking Fiends and its sequel, You Suck: A Love Story)
The poor protagonist will never lose that last five pounds now. Heh.

But seriously, I also dig the vamps portrayed in Humberto Ramos' Crimson comic series. It takes a biblical bent. (bear with me, it's been quite a few years since I dug out my backissues.)
Vampires started as the offspring between Lilith, the failed first human, and Ekimus, the failed first man. All vampire can make new vampires, but that means creating competition, which isn't desirable most of the time. Alex Elder is "accidentally" made into a vampire but it turns out he's like a new breed, with powers that other vamps don't have (like firestarting and flying). Ekimus (who's still alive and kicking) takes him under his wing to train him, and it turns out his extra abilities are god-given so he can bring about the apocalypse. Oops.

Emmy, I love things that blow up. No exceptions.

[Septimus]

Twilight DESTROYED vampires... i mean come on! do vampires really sparkle like al little child's night light? And what kind of vampire goes around making out with human girls instead of taking their lives.

Twilight redifined the term "Vampire" this isn't necassarily a bad thing just a different one.

[Zirsta]

I think Stephanie didn't necessarily "destroy" vampires. She just made a new kind of vampires. Of course, since they're called vampires, not something else, these days when someone mentions vampires most people think Twilight, Edward, or something along those lines. I think that's grated on the old definition of vampires, and made them so much less of what they were before, as representations of horror and darkness. Now, the redefined Twilight vampires create a whole new side to vampires, but everyone just sees them as vampires, and they don't stop to think that the twilight vampires are not the vampires of old. They really shouldn't be called vampires, but too late... Too many fans of Twilight see the Cullens and all as vampires, when really they aren't.

So, essentially what I'm saying is that the "vampires" in Twilight aren't really vampires, but a type of mythical being made like vampires, but not, and the old vampires from before Twilight are actual vampires, and the whole thing is just a huge mix-up that is too far gone to save.

Does that make any sense?

[Septimus]

I understood but i wouldn't bet my money on anyone else understandin...

so your saying twilight redefined vampires. while still keeping the essential, the basics???

[Zirsta]

Exactly! They are a new kind of vampires, and the old vampires are, in a sense, a completely different species. Like how the Chinese and Europeans both have dragons, but they are completely different. Same kind of creature, but different species.

[Emi]

Zirsta I agree with you. The Twilight vampires are a different species.

I just think that we don't have to stick with just one thing... one way a species has to be based upon. Authors or people change the species of "wizards" from Hogwarts' wizards to Young Wizards' wizards. I just personally think that Twilight just modernized vampires. Personally, I'm getting sick of the blood and gorey stuff.

It also might be that I never really liked stories or movies about vampires until I read Twilight- one exception is Spike from Buffy. Haha. That's it.

[Dragon Writer]

I think she made a reasonable twist that just happens to go against the common view. No, vampires dot sparkle - but why would skin that hard have normal qualities? HOW could it have normal qualities? And why would the ultimate hunterbe designed to burst intoflames, or be slowly killed by something as simple as sunlight? Everything she uses makes sense, and worms withing general boundaries set up by the past legends.
It's just so different that ninety percent of the non-groupees will forever resent the change.

[willowtree]

I don't know about you, but when I hear 'vampire', I think of Count from Sesame Street. Or the guy from the Red Bull commercial. Or Dracula. But when some one says 'superhuman' that's when I think of the Cullens etc. 'Cause their 'powers' remind of a comic book. Especially Batman. (Don't ask me why. It just does.) Although the whole sparkly skin thing is soo weird. But I was thinking... their skin is supposed to be cold and hard like stone, and stone sparkles, so why not? Like I said, though, their ability freaks me out. Any thing else strange... *thinks* Oh, yeah! their super strength and fast running thing. The strength I understand, but running? Strange. Unnatural. Ab-normal. Not cool. Whatever you what to describe it as.

So a summary of my rant is Meyer didn't change vampires, she just created a new brand with very strange qualities.

[bookworm438]

About sunlight: without any melanin in your skin, you cannot survive in the sunlight. Now them automatically bursting into flame from going into sunlight I've always disagreed with that. For me, when I hear the word vampire I instantly think of Dracula or Lestat.

[illiriam]

There should have been a third option on the poll... like: While not the BEST, I still enjoyed Meyer's take on vampires... or something like that. The poll answers are black and white, while I feel that my view is a little grayer.

I enjoyed Meyer's vampires, just like I enjoy Amelia Atwater Rhodes' vampires (my personal favorite I think) and Charlaine Harris' (Sookie Stackhouse novels) and those from Buffy (esp. Spike. He just amazed me.) I feel that she took the idea of what a vampire "should" be and gave it her own twist. And it's not like she didn't really give a reason for any of the attributes she gave them. Strength and speed, impenetrable skin, venom and extra gifts... all combined make the perfect predator with one prey in mind... humans. They draw them in with their beauty and with their abilities it is ensured that that won't escape. They really do make the perfect predator.
And I'll admit, that the sparkly skin does seem a bit much, but as they pointed out, their skin is as tough as diamonds, it kinda makes sense it would shine like them as well. My thought is that since she hadn't really read vampires books, she realized that there had to be a reason that they couldn't just walk around in the daytime with humans, and either she didn't like the whole catching on fire thing, or she didn't know about it and came up with her own idea. Which, you have to admit, is pretty original. I have never read another vampire books where they are dazzling in the sun.
As for the evil, violent vampires. Twilight has them. James, Victoria, and the Volturi to some extent. In Amelia Atwater Rhodes' books, she describes that the vampires are so dangerous because they have the instincts of an animal (i.e. the vampire) but the mind of a human. They can think rationally even when their hunger and instincts threaten to take over. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. Super strong and hungry creatures who still think like humans? Humans think up the most sadistic punishments, and that's without an insatiable thirst for blood. I think that the same goes for Meyer's vampires: they have animal instincts to feed (I think they describe it as a feeding frenzy that sharks go into) with all the memories and thoughts and feelings of a human. In order to not go insane, they must detach themselves and see humans merely as prey, they way we view cows and chickens. The Cullen's simply refused to do so and became "vegetarians." Even Angel, from the Buffyverse, fed on rats and criminals once he regained his soul, showing the vampire instincts with his human mind and conscience.
Hope that wasn't too rambly. I enjoy vampire books, but I like to have some depth to the vampires, rather than them just being the soulless bad guy, mindlessly feeding on people as if they were happy meals with legs. I feel that Meyer adds dimensions to her vampires that are original, but also relate to other authors, once you look past their sparkly surfaces.