Vampirism

Freakazette!:

Yeah, what character traits, abilities etc?

I realize that most of it is rooted in ancient myth, but I think that the modern "beauty" that they have. I love the fact that they invite you in. It's like a dangerous beauty. If you've ever read Twilight you'll know what I'm talking about. They're like carnivorous plants, even their smell is inviting.

^ Ah. Twilight.

I love nearly everything about vampires except from what they became in Twilight :)

It's In The Blood.:

^ Ah. Twilight.

I love nearly everything about vampires except from what they became in Twilight :)

Agreed...even though renesmee is interesting...

^ The mythology behind her is interesting. Meyer's version, less so.

It's In The Blood.:

^ Ah. Twilight.

I love nearly everything about vampires except from what they became in Twilight :)

How so?

What exactly don't you like about them?

I don't like that they don't drink human blood - I never like it when vampires don't drink human blood. The idea is that they need our blood to survive, not just any old blood. They're our predators.

I don't like that they smell so lovely. No smell I could handle, or normal smells, or maybe something slight and interesting. The original vampires had breath which smelled so bad it could kill in itself. The sweet breath isn't really to make them better predators, it's to make them better love-objects.

I don't like that they sparkle. But then, not many people do. Does Meyer explain why they sparkle? It seems like pointless love-object making.

I also don't like their super-hard bodies. Anne Rice started that, I believe. I didn't like it when she did it either.

It's In The Blood.:

I don't like that they don't drink human blood - I never like it when vampires don't drink human blood. The idea is that they need our blood to survive, not just any old blood. They're our predators.

Not all of them drink animals blood, that's just the Cullens. I'm guessing that you've read some of the series, if you have then you know that it doesn't keep them fully satisfies. It just keeps them alive. It's an abnormality, not the norm for the vampires in Stephenie's world.

It's In The Blood.:

I don't like that they smell so lovely. No smell I could handle, or normal smells, or maybe something slight and interesting. The original vampires had breath which smelled so bad it could kill in itself. The sweet breath isn't really to make them better predators, it's to make them better love-objects.

I like that. As I've said before, in an interview Meyer said that it was to increase their ability to hunt. Humans are attracted to things that smell good as opposed to things that smell bad. She got her inspiration from the venus fly trap, it smells good which invites flies in.

It's In The Blood.:

I don't like that they sparkle. But then, not many people do. Does Meyer explain why they sparkle? It seems like pointless love-object making.

In the myths do they ever explain why they burn in the sun? I mean besides them being "dark evil creatures". It's just something that their bodies do to make them look appealing to humans. Another way to attract prey... It makes perfect sense to me.

It's In The Blood.:

I also don't like their super-hard bodies. Anne Rice started that, I believe. I didn't like it when she did it either.

I like this part too... The chemical change that goes on when they transform makes them hard and nearly indestructable.

I can see why you don't like the new ideas because they make them seem like pleasant, attractive things but if you put that aside most of the chamges make sense. They make them better predators.

I disagree. I think these changes make them better love-objects - more attractive to teenage girls (and adult women). I think that in reality hunting has little to do with it. Dracula had little trouble hunting after all, with his bad breath and inability to go out in the day without bursting into flames.

They burst into flames because they had no soul, I believe. Or because their bodies dried out without the moisture of human blood? And what is the science behind the sparkling? Meyer claimed there was some.

The animal blood part you missed the point of. I don't like that these vampires can survive like that. Vampires need human blood - it's part of the reason we've been scared of them for so long. Kelley Armstrong's vampires drink human blood. They kill. And they're still pretty different and fun and interesting.

I don't like this turning vampires into love-objects. If an author is so desperate for something that's unearthly beautiful, smells good and sparkles... why not make something up? If she wants to base a predator on a plant, how about a triffid? The fact remains that the older vampires were perfectly good hunters without sparkling, smelling nice and looking really pretty.

It's In The Blood.:

I disagree. I think these changes make them better love-objects - more attractive to teenage girls (and adult women). I think that in reality hunting has little to do with it. Dracula had little trouble hunting after all, with his bad breath and inability to go out in the day without bursting into flames.

Why can't the thing that makes them beautiful make them better hunters? The whole point of them being beautiful is to attract prey, so yes, it does make them love-objects. That's just it, it isn't reality. It's a story. There are no rules that say that Meyer had to stick to the myth of the vampire.

It's In The Blood.:

They burst into flames because they had no soul, I believe. Or because their bodies dried out without the moisture of human blood? And what is the science behind the sparkling? Meyer claimed there was some.

The science behind the sparkling, as I've said, is that it helps them attract prey. This is Meyer's science behind it. I don't really know how else to explain it.

It's In The Blood.:

The animal blood part you missed the point of. I don't like that these vampires can survive like that. Vampires need human blood - it's part of the reason we've been scared of them for so long. Kelley Armstrong's vampires drink human blood. They kill. And they're still pretty different and fun and interesting.

But Meyer isn't Kelley Armstrong. She didn't think that a vampire could be moral if it was going around murdering people. Do you?

It's In The Blood.:

I don't like this turning vampires into love-objects. If an author is so desperate for something that's unearthly beautiful, smells good and sparkles... why not make something up? If she wants to base a predator on a plant, how about a triffid? The fact remains that the older vampires were perfectly good hunters without sparkling, smelling nice and looking really pretty.

This may be true but I don't see how it takes away from the validity of my post.

Older vampires could hunt without these things but Stephenie wanted something different and that's what she created. She didn't just "make something up" because that's not what she wanted to do. It is in fact her fantasy. She should be able to write about what she wants instead of having to make up a completely different creature just to avoid breaking the "rules" of Vampirism.

I really don't get the point in debating about the changes Stephenie made with her vampires.

People have been giving vampires different characteristics for ages.

My cousin sent me a video where this guy and his friends rented a theater and handed out "free tickets for the midnight release of New Moon." When all the people got there - adults included - and were all excited to see it, the dude came out into the front and started ranting at them about how Twilight vampires aren't real vampires and real vampires don't sparkle, real vampires can't go out into the sun, real vampires smell bad, real vampire do this, real vampires do that...

Uh, first of all VAMPIRES ARE NOT REAL!

Second of all, like I said, people have been giving vampires characterstics other than the "original" characteristics for years and years and years.

It just doesn't make any sense to argue about which characteristics are true and which aren't. In reality, none of them are true because vampires are fictional characters.

Some vampires drink only human blood and can survive on nothing else, yet others can survive on animal blood, and others on Tru Blood.

Some vampires can't go out into the sun, although some can due to certain aspects or because that part is just a "myth" in their stories. Dracula couldn't go out into the sun without bursting into flames, neither could Anne Rice's vampires, but when Lestat drank Akasha's blood, he was able to. When Angelus found that magical ring or necklace or whatever it was, he was able to go out into the sun as well. True Blood vamps can't go out into the sun, but if they do, they don't automatically burst into a pile of dust, they start burning like humans would if we got too close to a really big open flame (burning building, etc.)

Some vampires can be killed by stakes, some can't.
Some vampires do not have a heart beat, whereas some do.
Some vampires don't breath. Some do.
Some vampires do not have a reflection. Some do.
Some vampires are effected by holy objects such as holy water and crucifixes, yet some aren't.

The list goes on and on and on.

And when I think of a vampire, I think of a creature of the night that has some sort of characteristics that allure and seduce a human, whether it be their looks, their smooth talk, or something else, or all those together.

I think I've made my point.

hephaestus:

Why can't the thing that makes them beautiful make them better hunters? The whole point of them being beautiful is to attract prey, so yes, it does make them love-objects. That's just it, it isn't reality. It's a story. There are no rules that say that Meyer had to stick to the myth of the vampire.

But I didn't say that beauty wouldn't make them better hunters. I said that I didn't think that was the reason they were beautiful. Edward and the rest of the Cullens aren't hunters - it's said many, many times that they're scary and dangerous but all that's ever proved is that they like to talk about how scary and dangerous they are. They're love-objects. Pretty, smelly love-objects. There's nothing wrong with that, but that is very much how it looks.

hephaestus:

The science behind the sparkling, as I've said, is that it helps them attract prey. This is Meyer's science behind it. I don't really know how else to explain it.

I mean biologically and chemically why do they sparkle - she claimed that they were scientific creatures, I would like to know how. I get that every pretty thing about them is to "attract prey" (especially prey in the form of six-year-old girls, one would assume).

hephaestus:

But Meyer isn't Kelley Armstrong. She didn't think that a vampire could be moral if it was going around murdering people. Do you?

Yes. But my point was that Armstrong's vampires were different from the original myths too, and are beautiful and awesome cool, but still incorporate enough of the original idea to pass as a vampire. And they have weaknesses, which is also nice.

hephaestus:

This may be true but I don't see how it takes away from the validity of my post.

Older vampires could hunt without these things but Stephenie wanted something different and that's what she created. She didn't just "make something up" because that's not what she wanted to do. It is in fact her fantasy. She should be able to write about what she wants instead of having to make up a completely different creature just to avoid breaking the "rules" of Vampirism.

She can do whatever the heck she likes. You asked why I didn't like the vampires in Twilight, I told you.

The Fantasy:

I really don't get the point in debating about the changes Stephenie made with her vampires.

Questions were asked, answers were given. That's basically the point. If people want to like Meyer's vampires then they're more than welcome to. Doesn't bother me particularly.

The Fantasy:

Uh, first of all VAMPIRES ARE NOT REAL!

Second of all, like I said, people have been giving vampires characterstics other than the "original" characteristics for years and years and years.

1. Some people believe they are.

2. Yes, perhaps so...but until Meyer came along they NEVER sparkled...and the majority of them, EXCEPT for day walkers [and a couple of half-breed and special vampires in JR Wards books], CANNOT go out in the sunlight or they'll be destroyed.

And on that note, may I remind everyone that this thread isn't about sparklepires, it's about "real" vampires and Vampirism as a religion?

LOL! I saw a vampire characteristic about male vampires detaching their PENIS to have sex with a victim at night.
Anyway, back to religion, too many think that vampires exist. *Sighs*

^ That is disgusting.

Hello, I'm Gypsy and just wanted to add in on this. I agree that some people think that vampires are nothing but myth and old stories, but there is a Subcultuer of people who are indeed Vampyres. (This is the alternative spelling these people use to seperate themselves from the vampires of myth) The vampire I know a lot about is called a Psychic Vampyre. This is a person for whatever reason needs to activily take in human vital energy. Their are several schools of thoughts of why they need this vital energy. One that I agree with is that a person's body cannot produce the amount of vital energy for the body to stay mental, physical, and spiritually healthy. I personally know that this is the case for myself. I call myself a Psychic Vampyre do to this lack of energy and the need to feed on it. I'm sure most people will say that I'm just making this up, but think whatever you want I know what I am and what I need to do.

GypsyRaven:

Hello, I'm Gypsy and just wanted to add in on this. I agree that some people think that vampires are nothing but myth and old stories, but there is a Subcultuer of people who are indeed Vampyres. (This is the alternative spelling these people use to seperate themselves from the vampires of myth) The vampire I know a lot about is called a Psychic Vampyre. This is a person for whatever reason needs to activily take in human vital energy. Their are several schools of thoughts of why they need this vital energy. One that I agree with is that a person's body cannot produce the amount of vital energy for the body to stay mental, physical, and spiritually healthy. I personally know that this is the case for myself. I call myself a Psychic Vampyre do to this lack of energy and the need to feed on it. I'm sure most people will say that I'm just making this up, but think whatever you want I know what I am and what I need to do.

No offence meant, but I think people who lack in energy need to look at their diets...of course, if it isn't dietary then I'd look elsewhere for solutions.

But, Psychic Vampyres? Intriguing notion, but a little hard for me to believe in. Of course, you are entitled to your beliefs. I am not belittling you for it. Just, not a believer, considering my scientific background. If there were scientific evidence for this sort of thing, then I'd believe.

[And no that doesn't contradict my belief in God...because that's different, I guess.]

I once knew a Vampyre. He did the whole "human energy" thing and once consumed blood. He also had a friend who believed in that as well. His friend could apparently do crazy tricks with his mind. And the boy I knew also had a strange ability to tell you exactly what you were thinking at random. Part of me does kind of believe it. But at the same time, I think he was just very good at reading people, his friend knew some magic tricks, and they'd both been reading too much vampire books.

It's hard to wrap your mind around it even after you've met someone who actually believes in things like this. It also isn't as evil as the first post made it out to be. There are people who do sick things, but there are lots of branches to vampirism. The boy I knew was not violent in any way. And the only time he took blood was after being sick for months. The only thing that was disturbing about that was seeing him recover so quickly after having the blood.

In the end, I think there are things out there that are closer to myths than we care to believe and we'll never be able to explain them.

Personally, I do believe in vampires.

Always have and always will.

You may think I am crazy for thinking this, but I, along with everyone am entitled to my own opinions and beliefs.

The unique myths that authors create do fascinate me, and (rational ones) leave me to wonder. But I will always believe in vampires. Nothing will ever change that.

My oldest foster sister is like I am. She is 21.

Kawng 'ite:

Personally, I do believe in vampires.

Always have and always will.

You may think I am crazy for thinking this, but I, along with everyone am entitled to my own opinions and beliefs.

The unique myths that authors create do fascinate me, and (rational ones) leave me to wonder. But I will always believe in vampires. Nothing will ever change that.

My oldest foster sister is like I am. She is 21.

What kind of vampires, or vampyre would you be referring to though? I don't think you're crazy. Considering I believe in God, I am in no position to ridicule you for your belief.