VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE discussion

8.)VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's FAIRIES that sparkle?



9.) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP COMAPARING THIS THING TO HARRY POTTER! Now, I'm not really a big Harry Potter fan...but I think the comparison doesn't make sense. Vampires and wizards have nothing to do with each other. And Stephenie Meyer is definitely not J.K. Rowling. Well, as far as the comparison is concerned, I think this pretty much explains it all...

"Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend."---STEPHEN KING

Also, Please stop comparing it to The Hunger Games and Lord of the Rings!

10.) Native Americans. It is my opinion that Stephenie Meyer has bastardized the culture of Native Americans. Around page 119 of Twilight, Meyer has Bella meet Jacob Black. Jacob is a member of the Quileute Indians. Upon meeting Jacob, he begins to tell her ancient legends about werewolves and vampires. Instead of laughing at him, or shitting her pants, Bella being the idiot she is is just like “Oh Okay.”. Now, I did a little research on these people. Yes they are a real people, and they do hold the belief that they were “descended from wolves”. However, there is nothing about them being werewolves or having an ancient feud with “The Cold Ones” or “Vampires”!

If I were one of these people I would be pisssed off. In my recent research I was able to find very few information on them being offended by Twilight. However, when I did start originally writing this, there was a website stating that they condidered what Meyer did to be “A slap in the face”.

11.) Originallity. Vampires vs. Werewolves? Hmmm…where have I seen that before?



12.) On page 293 Edward tells Bella that he’s been breaking into her room at night and watching her sleep. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STALKERS DO!!!!!!!!


That’s all for now. There is more I want to add to this list, It will come to me soon.

It's seems EVERYTHING somehow gets compared to Twilight. And yeah it's annoying.

Sadie wrote: "It's seems EVERYTHING somehow gets compared to Twilight. And yeah it's annoying."

What do you mean? Everything today gets compared to Twilight?

As in I've seen books in different genres compared to Twilight way too much :o

Sadie wrote: "As in I've seen books in different genres compared to Twilight way too much :o"

Oh I know what you mean now. Like they compare The Hunger Games to Twilight?? That's just rediculous.

Wait did you read the other books?? I like reading these. I want more. haha

Katharine wrote: "Wait did you read the other books?? I like reading these. I want more. haha"

No, I refuse to read the other books. I could barely get through the first one. Thank you.

Dan wrote: "8.)VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's FAIRIES that sparkle.





9.) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP COMAPARING THIS THING TO HARRY POTTER! Now, I..."

I loved Stephen King's response to the comparison between the Harry Potter books and Twilight. I was never a Harry Potter fan. I was thirteen the first time I saw one of the books and I had moved beyond stuff like that. But my baby sister loved the books very much and I've read every one to her except the last one. While I may not have enjoyed the books myself, I can admit that the writing was exceptional. The concept was brilliant for that reading level. Everything about the books, from the plot to the character development, was well done. Because J.K. Rowling, though she wrote for younger kids, is still a writer. A real one. With real talent. Unlike Meyer's, she earned every penny of the money she received from her books and all that came from them because she had more than a good marketing scheme. She had talent and stories that made sense.
And it is absolutely faeries that sparkle. But don't tell Meyer's that. She may create a series about faeries that stalk human lovers and erupt into flames in the sunlight....lmao

LOL...I think for her next book Meyer will write about zombies that sing and dance..

I read all of harry potter and all of twilight and the reason I read potter was because I really enjoyed it I finished twilight because I had started it and was always hoping it would get better when just like the films it only got cheesier and cheesier as it went along anyways there are some great points on here on the difference the best being they are two totally different genres but the most important to me was the level of writing skill between the two authors harry potter seemed to mature in storyline as the books went along going from a children's book to a young adult book seamlessly and each book was very well paced and with meyer her books just seemed to be a giant blended slurpy of pop fiction regurgitation with a little sprinkle of some perverted Shakespeare spice thrown in the mix then splashed instead of written on paper lol not saying Shakespeare was perverted just saying she perverted his work by including it in hers

It is odd indeed that anyone else's work would be compared to The Twilight Saga except maybe 50 Shades of Grey which was spawned from it...

On the subject of vampires and their shiny skins being annoying, is that really all that annoys you all about Twilight in particular, and many vampire films / books in general? To be honest, whilst I love the genre, and general horror at large, I do think that there are various things that are just a little annoying. I mean, firstly, let's accept that we are discussing creatures that do not actually exist. Nevertheless the author needs to treat the reader with an amount of respect. Readers, in general, are not fools. If you are going to have something happen in your book that contradicts the laws of physics, then in my opinion it should be explained, and not just put down to 'magic' - unless the book is based on magic, in which case, away you go.
Usually vampire novels take place in the 'real world' - ie the laws of physics apply, etc etc... So, for instance, why is the ONLY way to kill a vampire by staking it through the heart? What about decapitation? Or an acid bath? Or an Uzzi 9mm, for that matter? And why would a vampire NOT cast a shadow or a reflection? They are, after all, tangible creatures that should obey the laws of physics, et al... Better, I think, to say perhaps they avoid mirrors - maybe they don't like the subtle changes that have happened to their bodies having been made vampyric, and that, over the aeons, has changed into the belief that they cast no reflection. That, to my mind, would seem to be a reasonable explanation for their avoidance of mirrors... Etc etc etc for many of the other typical traits of vampires in book 'n' film which annoty me more than a light glow to their skin... But sparkly vampires, to my mind if that's what the author wanted then so be it. That was my thoughts when I set out to write my books anyway, but that's just me...

Antony wrote: "On the subject of vampires and their shiny skins being annoying, is that really all that annoys you all about Twilight in particular, and many vampire films / books in general? To be honest, whilst..."

No, it's not just the sparkly skin that annoys me (although that really is pretty damned stupid). If you've read that whole thing you should have seen that there are other things about Twilight that I have issues with. But, yes, it is Meyer's take on vampires that pisses me off the most, and her general attitude towards other vampire stories. I believe that the real problem is that what Meyer really did possibly ruined the whole vampire genre for us people who enjoyed vampire stories years before Twilight came out, and also may have possibly ruined it for generations to come. Getting back to the whole sparkling issue....their skin only sparkles when they go out into the sunlight. A lot of people hate that part, not just because it's stupid, but because there is this popular idea that vampires always burst into flames and die when the sun hits their skin.

There is this very popular 1922 silent film directed by F.W. Murnau called Nosferatu. Marnau originally wanted that film to be an adaptation of Dracula, but Bram Stoker's widow would not give him the rights to do it. So he just changed the name of the movie along with names of the characters and had the story set in different locations. This led to a long legal battle between Stoker's wife and the movie company, which resulted in an attempt to destroy all copies of Nosferatu. Anyway, in the end of that film, the Dracula like vampire, Count Orlok, is killed by exposure to direct sunlight which reduces him to flames. And that is where the idea of vampires dying in the sunlight came from. Before that vampires never really had much of a problem with the sun, for instance if you go read the original Dracula novel by Bram Stoker, you will see that he can walk in the sun. The thing is that most people embraced that idea of sunlight being fatal to vampires so much that it was incorporated into countless vampire stories including books, movies, TV shows, etc and people love it. So, Meyer making vampires sparkle in the sun is a total bastardization of all of that. It's basically a slap in the face to us fans as well as all the great writers and filmmakers on her part. It's almost like she secretly hates vampire stories and planned to ruin the genre.

As far as the comment about the only way to kill a vampire by staking it through the heart...yes there are other ways like decapitation, fire, garlic, etc. which come from actual myth and it has been cleverly done in so many books and movies. Usually in a lot of vampire stories holy water acts like an acid to vampires. However, it seems like the crosses, the holy water, and other religious items used as weapons are being done away with in most of the vampire stuff that has come out over recent years. I guess I can understand why, but I think it's a shame because I like the idea. I suppose you could use actual acid in a story to dispose of a vampire if you wanted to like the way Walter White and Jesse Pinkman do to rival drug dealers and enemies in Breaking Bad. As for the thing about Uzzi 9mms, go watch the Blade films where he uses guns that fire silver hollow point bullets that are filled with garlic extract to kill vamps. This can actually be done, if you go and watch the beginning of Jaws 2, there is scene where Roy Scheider's character fills hollow point bullets with cyanide and then seals the tips off with wax. The idea is that if he fires them into a killer shark the wax seals will break open and release cyanide into the shark's blood to kill it. As for mirrors, well I like that idea too but I'm at a loss for a scientific reason why vampires would cast no reflection. I know that that vampires in The Strain don't like silver mirrors because their reflections vibrate in them. The ancient belief is that vampires cast no reflection because they have no souls. However someone not too long ago made an interesting point to me about the mirror bit, that an object like a vase or a chair which both have no souls show up in a mirror, therefore if it's because vampires have no souls then why do they not cast a reflection and other soulless things do. I don't know, but I miss the time when all the classic ideas were used and no one really questioned it.

You know, Antony, considering your thing about the laws of physics applying to vampires, you might want to check out The Science of Vampires. I personally think that the author is a flake, not because of the book but for another reason concerning "vampires". However it's worth checking out.

Hi Dan, that's a really interesting, considered and erudite reply, and alas I am not going to do it justice with my paltry response, but wanted to say something before time ticks too much... Clearly you know your onions on the subject of vampires (although I fear that using 'onions' and 'vampires' in the same sentence might be considered blasphemous, for which I do apologise.) I know what you mean about the 'shiny' issue of Twilight's vampires ruining the genre - personally I think (hope) that those who like that kind of thing, are more than welcome to it, those who prefer their vampires a little more gritty will still do so, and the genre in general has not been brought into too much disrepute by the Twilight series. Again, it's ultimately up to the author, and then the reading public. Genres can evolve and this is a clear example of that... I will personally continue to read vampire novels etc unabashed, and I am sure you will too. And as you are clearly one of some significant vampyric learning (and enthusiasm), if you did happen to read my book "Once Bitten, Twice Die", I'd really love to know what you think... I hope I have remained true to the genre and not offended any die-hard fans...

Thank you Antony. LOL...that comment about onions is funny. But how is it blasphemous? Are onions somehow related to garlic? LOL. Well, I'll try to check out your book when I get the chance. It does sound very interesting.

However, my stance on what Twilight and what it may have done does not change and will never change. Twilight is so horrible that it should not even exist. If it were in my power, the whole thing would be erased from human history.

Thanks Dan, that's made me chuckle... It'd be interesting though to see if Twilight fans may one day develop a darker and grittier appreciation of the vampire genre. As though Twilight is a vampire training ground, some kind of kindergarten for the college of Bram Stoker et al...

And ps... if you do check out my book, then a) it's on discount at the mo, and most importantly b) clearly you are extremely enthusiastic and learned on this subject - I'd love your feedback on my book, especially the vampyric parts. I think it is probably a bit different from most other books in the genre, but I hope it will appeal to old school fans who want something a little grittier, darker, but also more realistic than the shiny vampires might provide... Let me know...