Twilight's Vampires

[NitaEmmaYW]

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?

I must admit I don't love them but they are pretty ok type of books. I guess logically Twilight isn't really about vampires. Twilight mostly focus on that romance between teenagers...... I think adding vampires in it just gives it a twist. I would rather watch something action packed but yet there is some comedy of romance and love in...

[elzefa]

I appreciate all types of vampire fiction. I've read everything from Twilight to Dracula but frankly I'm more of a fairy/fey girl. However what I've always wanted to know was: who would want to go to highschool that many times!?!?!?!?! And what the heck is up with the sparkling?!
Dai
elz

[Ink.Knight]

The TwiVamps...Or as I've heard them described 'Sparkle-fairies'. It's a charged subject to be sure. Sadly, Twilight's what started reading vamp stuff. I didn't like the first book all that much. In fact, if my friends hadn't told there were werewolves in the second one I would never have picked it up. Yes, I know they're shapeshifters and all but we didn't know that. Oddly enough though, when I read Amelia Atwater Rhodes' vamps, that's when I seriously started looking into vampire stuff. Those are the ones that fascinate and entrance me. And there is a precedence for a human-vamp romance. Just not that submissive...least I don't think. I've never read the 'classic' vampire literature. Just Twilight, Atwater-Rhodes, and yes I've read the House of Night books. Though I don't even see those guys as vampires, since blood isn't even really required. But yeah, that's my take on it.

[Nights Mistress]

I thought that the vampires in Twilight were all the more creepy because the narrative took a turn into soulless fangirling of Edward whenever he appeared. Bella would go from being annoyed at Edward's obsessive stalking to being reasonably okay with the whole idea, and it seemed to depend on how close he was to her as to how she'd react.

When I read it, I thought it was the most chilling first person account of having one's personality slowly broken by a possessive, absurdly powerful boyfriend who not only will stalk you, but you'll want it and be broken when he leaves.

[Deus Ira]

I personally think that twilight has destroyed the term vampire for a whole generation. The Sookie Stackhouse series is a much better representation of the whole supernatural genre.

[crazy_bookworm]

I personally don't like the Twilight vampires, although I have read all four books and the first 12 chapters of Midnight Sun (Breaking Dawn was just painful to read, and the others, in general, to reread). I think the whole reason I don't particularly like the Twilight vampires is because they seem too perfect. I haven't read any other vampire books, besides the Vampire Kisses series, but those vampires are more "traditional". The fact they're virtually indestructible is also annoying to me. Tearing them from limb to limb and setting them on fire? That's a pretty limited way to die. There should be at least a couple more ways they can die.

[dorotheia]

The truth is that I like Meyer's vampires better than the conventional ones like Dracula & Co. The fable roots just don't make sense to me. There's no reason for them; they grew up by tradition and have little substance beyond that. Like faeries and iron, etc. Meyer's vampires have every rationality they need.

Except for "sparkly" skin, as you have all pointed out, but there are superficial reasons as well. Meyer's vampires are made for taking out their prey, humans. Humans probably would find their skin attractive/surprising. The skin is the source of the some of the myths that grew up around vampires in her universe, such as bursting into flames in the sun. I'd say that if I was too busy running away to look closely either!

For this reason I don't think about it much. It's just the weak point in some very good worldbuilding. "Sparkly" = "glamorous," and then on to...something worse (fake, maybe?). Depending on your POV that is exactly what Meyer's vamps are. But not in my opinion.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?