a question about twilight animosity

I just find the idea of vampires lighting up like a christmas tree whenever they're exposed to bright sunlight a completely stupid idea. I mean they're vampires not faeries (not that there's anything wrong with faeries). And I feel like it's going against the idea of vampirism. Vampires are meant to be dark creatures that are forced into darkness due to the fact that something bad happens to them in the sunlight.

It's just stupid really.

Bingo- imo, it's just a convenient hook to hang all the dumbassery on..(not to mention resentment for all the hype and yes, success)

My problem with it is that it's so obviously fabricated to give the idea of being kinda scary or something. Girl likes a vampire 'Ah! Creepy and dark!', while it cancels out the actual macabre so it's still safe for anyone to watch leaving only the vague idea that there's something remotely edgy about it which seems to be enough for it's ununderstandable audience.

It screams "made for the market!" and anything of interest that might have been hiding in the first draft has been killed because of it.

My personal feeling is that I hate the trend that makes vampires into pets. Instead of being monsters, where there is always a fear that you will be the next meal, they become more like superhumans, not monsters.

And the fact that you have millions of women that want to engage in necrophilia because they want to sleep with a vampire. Forgetting that majority of vampires are corpses.

Also I did not like how the author glamorizes abusive relationships. Not just in Twilight series, but in the Host series as well. All my friends were trying to get me to read the stories at work. I did and basically they left a bad taste in my mouth because of that.

Other people have pointed this out as well.

It's not that you shouldn't write about abusive relationships, but when you make them to be the only type of "good" relationship there is, that is wrong.

The Coiree

Personally, I saw the term Sparklepire here on one of the forums and loved it. I use it as shorthand for really, really... really bad supernatural books and vampire books specifically. My specific animosity, however, doesn't come from the portrayal of the vampire per se. I found the book(s) incredibly poorly written and the mythos was only one small part of that.

It appeared to me the author decided odd chapters should be angst ridden and even chapters should be characters whining about being angst ridden. No character development, no plot development, just an OD of angst and whining. Then, somewhere around 80% of the way through the book, she suddenly decided something had to happen by way of a plot. So, three chapters went to a plot that a ten year old might come up with, then back to the angst, whining cycle.

It depresses me that those books are so popular right now. It makes me wonder why an author would put their heart and soul into developing solid characters and intriguing plots if Twilight-like books are all the new generation of readers want out of a novel.

[/rant]

I didn't read the book but I have seen the movie, which I found quite nice but not a masterpiece obviously. But there is this scene with the sparkling vampire. I had never heard that there would be a sparkling vampire but when I saw that scene I found it so utterly ridiculous. After seeing the movie I looked on IMDb and found that many other people found the sparkling ridiculous. It is hard for me to say why it is ridiculous, it just feels like it as a blasphemy against nature.

So, whatever you do, don't write about sparkling vampires! On the other hand, if you have other original ideas about vampires, feel free to write about them and as long as they are cool they will probably be accepted by vampire fans. There are so many vampire stories written so that you probably have to put in some original stuff to make anyone notice your work.

Caution: Do not leave knives in children.

see, and that's what i meant when i said there were so many OTHER things to complain about. the rampant sexism and casual disregard for everything bella claims to want in the beginning of the series, not to mention the STALKING (it is NOT romantic when a dude sneaks into your room to stare at you while you are unconscious. i had someone tell me they watched me while i slept and i slapped them across the face once.) seemed like much better serious complaints then "OMG THEY SPARKLE?! HEATHENS!" and really, she made that rule, and that was her rule, and that's cool, except that that was the only rule she stuck to in the entire series. so yeah, i just needed verification that it's just shorthand for "that was a stupid vampire book" rather than a case of "vampires don't do that." because well... i don't think vampires do what i'm planning for them to do either, and Death REALLY doesn't do what i'm planning him to do, so i just wanted to be aware.

"Is there a 'Special' sticker next to my name on your chart?" - Amanda Burke (2007, Amanda)
"Anyone who says you can't control what people think is just f*ing lazy." - Tommy Anders (2008, Everywhere)

Well, for one, sparkly vampires is kind of easy to pick on, but so are many other things in Twlight...however, to me just the term 'sparkling vampire' sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I mean, vampires are supposed to be dark, scary, intimidating creatures of the night. It's one thing if you want them to be able to go out in sunlight. Sparkling vampires just make me think more along the lines of fairies or something.

Does sparkling in the sunlight really seem like something that would intimidate you like a vampire should?

I personally have no problem with vampires being able to go out in the sun as long as there is some sort of reasonable explanation or some sort of stipulation. Dracula was able to go out in sunlight, however, he lacked power during the daytime. In my NaNo the way I tackle vampires in sunlight is that as a vampire grows older, they become more powerful and eventually build up an immunity to sunlight.

These are just my thoughts...everyone's different, so you'll hear many different reasons why sparkly vampires do/don't work.

A friend of mine pointed out her own objections to the sparkling business plainly - it's waaaayyyy too cutesie! Instead of "My Pretty Pony," she says, "we have My Pretty Vampire!"

I get kind of sick of the `gentrification' of vampires myself. I mean, these creatures are supposed to be blood-drinking, undead corpses that sleep in their native earth for crying out loud! They should smell bad! They should reek of the grave, not of Axe for Men! And even Dracula, that most immaculate and romantic of vampires, would probably wince at the current metrosexual crop!

__________________________________________________
Who's afraid of the big bad pumpkin?

Yes, that's it exactly.

The sparkly thing is easy to pick on because it's cheesy and pretty much epitomizes the shallow storyline.

C'mon, you have to admit it was a silly moment in the book. After repeated telling Bella how horrible he was and warning her that he was A Very Bad Vampire, he takes her deep into the woods to reveal his true self. We, the readers, were eager to learn why why he couldn't go into the sunshine. It was expected that the Glorious Marble-Skinned Vampire Adonis to be exposed as a hideous Creature of the Night. But, no, he was just ... glittery. Kinda sums the whole series up.

So here's what I was thinking. The reason some people pick on the "sparkling vampire" issue is that it's relatively safe to talk about. There are even fans that say "Uh, what?" If anyone's ever heard the stories of people who say "I didn't like it in general, but here's some specifics..." and got physically harmed in some way, they'd understand why people go for something trivial instead of more important/serious issues.

By the way, I liked the comment about it's okay to write about abusive relationships as long as that's not the only type of relationship you write about. I'd like to add that it's okay to write about an abusive relationship as long as you're aware that it's not a good relationship (which is another reason people have problems with Twilight; the author honestly believes she's writing about a good relationship when readers know it isn't). Not to get too personal and turn this about me, but in a series I've started writing, I will have lots of abusive relationships and they will be so exaggerated just to show how bad they truly are. Interestingly enough, the one positive relationship is what some people would call "alternative", but if written the way I want it to be, nobody will be able to say "Oh great, another bad relationship. Can't she write anything happy?"

I don't have plot bunnies, I have plot demons. They're more demonic than the demons in my novels. Go figure.

See, I disagree with you there. I think the more modernized, romantic vampires (like Anne Rice's, for example) are far more intriguing in that being able to pass - on the surface - as human, makes them far more dangerous than the old smelly, gnarly looking version. IMO, the possibilities for a victim attracting the attention of the "gentrified" vampire - as well as the ways to trick and trap the victim - are far more varied than those who have to remain on the far edges of society to avoid being detected.

I complain about the sparkling only as a shorthand for complaining about the other things.

I think there are two kinds of resentment towards Twilight (to be up-front about my own opinions, I'm in the Buffy killed Edward camp).

The first is that people are annoyed that she took literary monsters and took away most of what made them monsters in order to make them fit better into her book. Even in Buffy, where one runs into a few "good" vampires, they still have to drink blood, same with True Blood (Terry Pratchett's black ribboners end up with crazy obsessions which keep them from drinking blood, but it's hard and they're a bit weird about it). You simply don't have good vampires who are vegetarians and don't burn up in the sunlight. It's taken the idea of vampire and turned it into an entirely different monster. Even if Edward wants to bite Bella, he's not really a vampire--he's a similar-to-vampire monster.

The second group is upset about what they see as deep thematic elements, like Edward & Bella's relationship. People have pointed out to the author that Edward sets a VERY unhealthy relationship example for young women. This kind of behavior in almost any male means that he's a creep and a stalker and possibly borderline abusive. She explains that it's ok because "it's Edward" and Edward is good, it seems. I've known guys who acted like him and none of them were good. Anyway, this camp worries that young women will put up with this kind of behavior in men because they've seen it play out romantically in Twilight and Edward is a hero.

Oh, and there's a third group who complain (rightly, I think) that Bella is an obvious Mary Sue and belongs in a fanfic.

But it's easier just to mutter "sparkly f*king vamps" than complain about all that. ;)

thanks for the answers, this is the kind of stuff i need to know about, because i know my vampires are out of the ordinary, and while they ARE a more beautiful and glamourous vampire, it's strictly a 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar' sort of thing, there is a scene in my head, which may or may not make it into the book, where one of the characters falls in love with the personification of Death, and Death explains why humans have a tendancy to fall for pretty, supernatural things, and casually ignore the fact that said things usually want to, well, EAT them. she is then seduced by the head vampire, who actually does NOT want to eat her, but only because he can't, so he instead wants to use her for his own means. this has to do with my own addition to the mythology, the complex nature of vampire bloodlines and loyalties. so all this info on what not to do and where all the snark comes from and where the lines are is awesome.

plus it makes me feel better. i seriously did not want to write the vampire story, but i read twilight purely because the thing was EATING MY BRAIN, and i've gone through it a million times, and it NEEDS to get written, but i don't want it to be a "oh god, another one" sort of thing. so yeah. jitters.

this is really good stuff. my huge concern is that the negativity has more to do with vampire purists, but it's looking like the negativity has to do with the weak writing. and not to brag or anything, but if i can pull this story off, i won't have that problem. :D

IF i can pull it off.

"Is there a 'Special' sticker next to my name on your chart?" - Amanda Burke (2007, Amanda)
"Anyone who says you can't control what people think is just f*ing lazy." - Tommy Anders (2008, Everywhere)

Yep, as long as they're actually creatures of death, it's ok if they use tricks to lure you into their evil web. :) Even Dracula, despite being kind of gross, manages to charm Jonathan, as do his wives.

Good luck! The world needs decent vampire novels. ;)

My NaNo book last year centered on vaampyrs and werewolves, and there was a whole mythos dating back to The Beginning that explained why current vaampyrs can be in the sun... basically, millions of years of intermixing human blood with theirs allowed them to take on many human traits but keep many vampy ones too. Hence, the newer the vaampyr, the more stuff s/he is immune to, and the more human-less monstery s/he looks. I have a mixture of young and old vaampyrs as major and supporting characters, and I found that staying consistent with my well thought-out genealogy kept my "spin" on the demons fresh... at least to me.

I saw your post and thought "Hey that's kind of like mine, where age determines susceptibility to things." Thought I'd share.

BTW, last year's NaNo novel (untitled by referred to as "Vaampyr") is still in 1st draft form. :( Hopefully this year's is better!! Good luck to you in your NaNo endeavor!

*Insert a clever remark here, and pretend I said it.*

~ 2nd year NaNo participant ~
2009 -- Providence... won, with 2 days to spare and am over 50K!!
2008 -- Vaampyr.... won!

Er, actually, I don't have too much of a problem with the sparklepires. I definately like my vamps much darker, but kudos to Meyer for going with something different. Really different.

I think what I hated most was the terrible disappointment. She had a semi-decent premise, and really the initial storyline wasn't worse than some of the drivel I've read. It's definately hampered by her terrible writing. Her characters were flat, and way too angsty. The rationale behind many of the characters actions was thin and nonsensical, and the end of the series was the lamest cop-out ever. It NEVER felt like she respected her characters. It was like 'oh, ppl are buying this? Huh, better write another. Ok, now I'm just sick of it. Here's a slap-dash ending. Ta-da!' And of course her pure ignorance on some things (you don't feel refreshed after taking cough medicine to help you sleep, btw. You wake up to what is, essentially, a hangover.) And stalking IRL isn't sexy. Bella seemed just a vapid, blank slate so that girls could self-insert themselves into her shoes, and Edward is just as bad, if not worse.

(Not relevant to the writing itself but: The worse part is definately the influence its had on others. I was working one night and overheard some nurses talking about it. One said 'I wish my boyfriend was like Edward. Every boyfriend should take a page out of his book.' And the others agreed, while I'm standing there with my jaw open, thinking 'which page??? The abusive, manipulative creepy stalker jerk one? Cuz that's the only one there is!')

"I don't see why it matters what is written. Not when it's about people. It can always be crossed out." -Adam, from Good Omens

In my opinion, I believe people dislike the sparkly-ness of the twilight vampires to just be something they haven't seen before and something they aren't used to. ("they" being the popular media and readers of the book). People just don't want to see vampires change, since vampires have been around in literatures and movies for a long time. Plus when most people think of vampires they think blood and danger, not gorgeous and sparkly.

While I didn't really like the writing in the twilight books, I found this different and new take on vampires refreshing. It was a new idea to an old character. She was just trying to make the vampires her own. If she had made them like anne rice's vampires or charlaine harris's vampries then she would be accused of writing her novels just like them and she wouldn't have made as much money.

The complaint about the sparkling vampires in "twilight" is on a par in stupidity (especially the "Stephenie Meyer killed Vampire lore!" cries) with the complaints about her abusing some old native folk tale (I even read a "That white woman dares to..." remark; do me a favour racists, curl up in a hole and die!).

However, irrational hatred from some aside, her creations do throw up the question why call them Vampires if you do not intend to follow the basics of Vampire lore?
She could have simply described them as being a kind of fairy bloodsucker.
It's like having a character shift into a poodle and insist that he's not just some shapeshifter but a "werewolf".
And yeah, that scene was simply ridiculous for the book, if "twilight" had been a childrens book I guess reactions to that particular element would be a little more levelheaded.

On a side note: Would you mind using capitals at the beginning of a new sentence? Would make reading your posts easier, it's much nicer on the eyes. :-)

Edit:

I think my problem with the Twilight vampires is that there is no downside to being one.

Traditionally, becoming a vampire is a trade-off -- you get immortality and a range of supernatural abilities, but you give up daylight and have this undeniable addiction. There's a pretty horrific price to pay for all the good stuff. The most interesting part of reading about vampires for me has always been these conflicting aspects of the monster. The question of succumbing to these urges and becoming the creature of the night or (in the case of, say, Angel) fighting against them.

For all Edward's posturing about being a monster, what tough choices is he really dealing with? I mean, he can go out in sunlight, even if he sparkles. He can obviously go to school, have a roughly normal life. He's not horribly disfigured by the curse. He's going to live forever, and stay handsome while he does it. He's got super strength and speed. He and his family have obviously worked out a way around the whole killing people business. And now they can play a pretty hardcore game of baseball.

About the only thing getting in his way is his own overwhelming angst, which is understandable since the poor bastard is going to be stuck eternally a teenager and he's gone a hundred years without having sex, apparently. It's not enough of a moral conflict to keep me interested, because there's no reason not to be a vampire in Stephanie Meyers' universe. I'm surprised there aren't more of the sparkly bastards running around.

Sparkly vampires is just stupid. Period.

I don't have a problem so much with having "good" vampires. I think even monsters can have some remnants of a conscience. Didn't we see that in Frankenstein? He was a monster with a heart and a conscience. I just think Meyer's portrays vampires as too nice. They aren't just people with fangs, they're corpses.

I only read the first Twilight book and honestly I don't get why so many people buy that crap. I've seen better writing from grade school kids. But to each their own as they say. At least I know that if her books can sell then surely so can mine.

Social Dyslexic
Facebook
Myspace

Having neither read the books nor seen the movies, and having no intention to do so, I'll leave the storytelling and technical criticisms to those who have. What bothers me is that Ms. Meyer insist on calling this a series about vampires, when it isn't any such thing. Vampires are terrifying undead fiends from beyond the grave, who crawl out of the earth and prowl the night to feed on the blood of the living. If they sparkle in the sunlight, it is only as a prelude to bursting into flame. With the exception of a certain bunny rabbit they are not vegetarians (humanitarians, if anything).

Ultimately, I suppose it's not really fair to lay the blame entirely at Ms. Meyer's feet. Twilight isn't the disease, it's just the latest manifestation. Vampires have been steadily romanticized for decades, and this is the end result. 80 years ago we had Murnau scaring the pants off of audiences with Orlok; today, we have broody, pretty young men who may leave audeinces equally pantsless, but for a somewhat, er...different reason.

A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author.

- G.K. Chesterton

I think that my issue with the whole concept of the TWILIGHT vampires is that they are utterly, UTTERLY, safe. They are a way for the reader to be attracted to a vampire without feeling bad about it. It's okay to be attracted to Edward, because even though he's a vampire, he's a GOOD vampire. It's okay to root for Bella to end up with him because he doesn't kill people, he is tormented by his past, and he wants to protect her (I won't even go into the creepy undertones of their relationship and how it's been promoted as healthy). These vampires are just so benign and that irritates me. I like it better when I'm rooting for a character to get with a vampire DESPITE the fact they're killing people and committing atrocities. I had similar issues with the Angel/Buffy dynamic (it's okay for her to love him because he has a soul) and the Buffy/Souled-Spike dynamic. It's more impressive if the writer can create a vampire character that still does their vampire thing but is likable nonetheless.

On the flip side of the coin there is the Swedish book LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, which has a vampire/human romance where the vampire makes no apologies for her lifestyle. It was surprisingly refreshing.

I was at first tempted to give Meyer some leniency when it came to her vampires and their ability to go out in the sunlight. After all, in DRACULA the good ol' Count was walking around during the day. It's a comparatively recent concept for vampires to be vulnerable to sunlight, I think that one of the first stories to do that was NOSFERATU, actually. But then it occurred to me... I'm not sure that Meyer was aware of that. And when Dracula walked around he didn't sparkle...

First off, let me point out that I actually enjoyed the Twilight series (don't kill me! *ducks*). Regardless of that, there were things that bothered me, in particular the 'abusive' stuff that people pointed out later (I honestly didn't notice until I read about it somewhere else, but maybe that's because I'm sick in the head...lol).

As far as the 'sparkly vampire' thing goes, that was one of the parts of the series that bugged the hell out of me. For one thing, as others said, vampires are supposed to be dark creatures who are forced into the shadows for their own protection. Drawing attention to themselves doesn't seem nearly dangerous enough a reason to stay out of the light, to me. For another thing, of all the ideas she could have used...sparkling? It just seems so...childish, somehow. Mind you I can't think of a wonderful idea right off the bat either, but it just seems like something that she should have put more thought into. Maybe their skin could turn black in the sun or something. Something creepy, for pete's sake, something that would make people scream and freak the hell out.

A Novel Journey: From Start to Finish
Toreshi's FanFiction
Toreshi's Original Fiction

I love old vampire fiction, but honestly, this one (although it had an odd 'sparkly' twist) didn't bother me. I actually enjoyed the series.

What makes me laugh is that I'm 100% certain if any of my novels were to become as famous as Stephanie Meyer's, there would be thousands of novelists hating it, saying it's pure trash. (Simply because I don't write like them.)

Just be prepared... if any of you are lucky enough to become as famous as she is for your works of fiction... you'll be picked apart as well.

We all write better than the next guy... heck, I know I do... {{{wink}}}

<

My main problem, despite the shallow "plot" and whatnot, is Stephenie Meyer taking classic legends and turning them into something completely different and wrong. You can't pick up a grain of sand, put it in a bucket, and call it a beach. The only thing the Cullens have in common with vampires like Dracula and Lestat are the fact that they drink blood. Even then, it's a stretch. There's also a lot of other problems I have with the series that I won't really get into, like major Mary-Sues and the like. Her "vampires" are just too different from what vampires really are, so to speak. I can totally understand taking liberties in legends and myths. I'm doing the same in my novel. But not to twist it so that there's no resemblence to the original at all. It's like she's just using the term "vampire" to rope in readers.

But hey, that's just me.

I was referring to people who have gotten physically harmed (such as beat up) for saying "I dislike the Twilight series." My worst encounter was someone asking "Wait, you don't like the Twilight series? How can you not like the Twilight series?" This was not bad; although I would hope she has other better interests (and I know she does, because I work with her and she talks about everything she is interested in), I would count her as a sane fan. Other people have reported being punched, kicked, cut, or ganged up on by obsessive fans of the series.

It's this reason I don't mind talking about it on a writing website where most people are sane/intelligent, but I'm cautious to talk about it with people in real life unless it's something fans, antis, and neutrals can agree on.

I don't have plot bunnies, I have plot demons. They're more demonic than the demons in my novels. Go figure.

hahaha, sparkly vampire

But seriously, what I hate about the novels is the overblown hype that they received from the publishers and bookstores. Shiny, happy vampires aside, the books aren't even that well written. Seriously? Meyer needed a thesaurus, badly. I tried to read the first one, really I did, but if I had to read only more time about his "smoldering eyes" I was going to gouge mine out. Haven't seen the movie, but I can't see how it would be better, despite people telling me I should see it. Besides... Edward's ugly.
::shrug::

Right now the market is saturated with vampires. If you want to write about vampires, ignore the Hollyvamp and go for the folklore-historical vamp instead. If you read the folklore, you'll see hundreds of vampire species from all over the world. Literally every society had something that would consume your vital life-stuff whether it was blood, your heart or liver, or your soul. So write about "real" vampires and leave Hollywood and Holly-writers to their sparkly vamps and ensanguinating heartthrobs.

The Quiet One

A siren, a bouda, a weredingo, an upir, and a snaxor walk into a bar...

No, really!
______

http://candacemcbride.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/harmony0stars

Not entirely following the topic, but this is just wonderful. Saw it as someone's signature and it made me laugh. If I could remember where I'd seen it, I'd give credit.

"Hark! What light through yonder window breaks? It is east, and Juliet is the---AAAAAHHH THE SUN!!! *FOOM*"

Now, back on topic.... XD

I'm another of those who did enjoy the series (yes, all of it), but I can assure all of you that I've been reading this thread and as yet have felt no overriding urges to vilify any of you. I didn't have much of a problem with the technical aspects of Meyer's "vampires" (although you all make good points), but the dynamic between Edward and Bella wasn't something that would suit me. I can remember reading certain scenes and wrinkling my nose in displeasure, then being asked what was wrong with me by a family member. The key things that bothered me would have to be as follows:

- Bella's entirely too happy to do whatever Edward wants (It's called a mind, honey. Look into it.)
- Love at first sight vs I-wanna-drink-your-blood-at-first-smell. Um, yeah. So he's gorgeous. I've met good-looking guys who are a) total dunces and b) really crude where women are concerned. Their pretty face or tight ass doesn't redeem them. Not to mention, HELLO, maybe you could get to know him? Maybe he leaves the seat up! Maybe he chews with his mouth open! (Hardly an issue here, but hey.) Maybe he's actually a serial killer! (If Edward were a typical vampire, this would technically be true.
- Bella never really makes a decision. It's always what Edward wants. That would drive me craaaaaaazy. But then, I'm no Mary Sue.

And an aside....

- Watching her sleep? CREEPER ALERT!!!! NOT COOL!

That is all. :) Still not feeling any homicidal urges, so you should all be safe.

"You're a jackass. Just saying."
— Cass Gallagher, The Sharpest Lives

Instant nonsensical rambling!

o_o

-ahem-

I swear that didn't look so long when I was typing it.

"You're a jackass. Just saying."
— Cass Gallagher, The Sharpest Lives

Instant nonsensical rambling!