Okay. I know we have seen a lot of these, but I have to get it all out.

W T F?! VAMPIRES SHOULD NOT SPARKLE! VAMPIRES SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE!! VAMPIRES SHOULD DIE IN SUNLIGHT! END OF STORY!

Stephanie Meyer has destroyed the basic AWESOMENESS of the vampire. The whole series is just a waste of paper and money and I feel completely sorry for any poor soul who has bought one of them and read em. They are horrible!

Just the thought of a Vampire in a ROMANCE novel is amazing. Vampires are supposed to seduce their victims and either drain them of blood or make them their vampie bride. They should have weaknesses for being creatures of darkness and of the night. I know that Buffy the Vampire Slayer series and Angel have somehow created this false ideal vampire (I loved Buffy), but that doesn't mean Meyer can come along and destroy what is left of this dark creature some have come to love.

But srsly. In the sunlight, the vampires SPARKLE?! What the hell is that?! Normal people sparkle. You know, you could just make them damn immortal. That'd be SOOOOO much easier then saying they were vampires. They are more like immortal humans then anything else. There is nothing dark about them. And Bella is the worse and most annoying Mary Sue in the damn world. Edward is your typical Gary Stu. This book should only be for children.

And as for all of the Twilight RPGs popping up, THERE ARE TOO MANY! Do you people honestly expect to get members when there are at least 17859047 others out there JUST like yours?! They are sad and pathetic. Just stop and join another one. Srsly. You're wasting space for good RPGs. I think you're worse then the Harry Potter and X-men RPGs. Just stop. You'll quit it in a month anyway.

Thank you for listening,
~an annoyed Vampire fan and avid Twilight hater

I definitely agree with you. The sparkling is probably the most annoying thing in the entire series...I mean, really. What could be more Suey than sparkling? The fact that she actually wrote that the vampires...sparkled...is ridiculous.

Good rant, and well-deserved in my opinion. No one over the age of fourteen should be reading Twilight, and that's pushing it. As for me, I'm going to stick with my Anne Rice and Amelia Atwater-Rhodes.

^ Uh oh, I'm 18 and read Twilight and despise Anne Rice, ironically enough. *Loser :[*

Anyway. Since when are their rules for mythological creatures? Didn't know there were guidelines people had to follow. :X Especially considering the "seductive" humanoid vampire is only a small part of vampire folklore.

EDITS: Don't hate Twilight because the vampires sparkle. Vampires aren't real. Vampires can be screwed with at will because they are pretend! Hate Twilight for more legitimate reasons (of which there are many). Like the fact that Bella is a Mary-Sue, as you mentioned... and how Stephenie Meyer can't make a consistent character if her life depended on it, lol. Arbitrary characterization is her personal style, apparently.

I agree with you about how vampires shouldn't produce, however. That's creepy.

:lol: I run a board that is not based on Twilight in any way, since I never read the books/saw the movie or whatever it is... I just know it's something with vampires and werewolves and I'm not "into that"...

So my vampires don't sparkle... but some do repreduce and some do walk in sunlight - although, there's logical rules for when and how they can do this, not everyone can do it and yeah... they certainly don't sparkle, how do you sparkle? *never saw a human sparkle either* And they all feed on mortals, and drink and definetly seduce - and even those who can walk in sunlight, often seem to prefer the night anyway :p

*is a huge fan of both Anne Rice's books and Bram Stoker's Dracula*

I sparkle.

^ Get out of here. We don't serve your kind. >:O

LMAO!!!
I'm sorry....I couldn't help but comment.
It made me LOL.
<.< sorry for the disruption.


I completely agree though. Vampires can't reproduce, and all the things that have been said about them. Or at least not in any of the books I've ever read about them. I've never read twilight, but now I'm not wanting too.

I haven't read the series yet so I can't make a judgment about it, though a good online friend of mine (who has recommended many books to me that I have adored) read them and enjoyed them--for the lulz. I talked to her about it for a while, after asking her things about the series I'd read and boggled at from rants here ("Do the vampires seriously SPARKLE?", etc.) and she said they were cute, but NOT to be taken seriously at all in her opinion, and when read from the perspective that they are FUNNY and not SERIOUS--they're fun. xD She even likes Bella because she finds her hilarious.

I trust her judgment, for she and I share the same taste in books--and the same weird sense of humor.

So I'm probably gonna be reading them eventually with that in mind. But I digress.

Vampires...I disagree. They're a mythological creature and there are many different takes on them from many different cultures. Like Chinese hopping vampires. Those guys are vastly different from Stoker vampires (Dracula...who, for the record, was NOT HOT in the book--he had bad teeth and hairy hands and horrid skin! Seriously! The description of him in the book was not at all flattering) which are vastly diffent from Anne Rice vampires.

Since they're not a real creature, people can twist them however they see fit. I do myself.

And while my own versions of vampires can't reproduce sexually (and some of them can't even HAVE sex), that's not to say that it's not perfectly valid for other versions of vampires to be able to reproduce sexually. Because it is. Fantasy creature and all. Who are we to say it can't work? :B

Well, Rhi-Rhi, I think the perception of the vampires in Twilight is influenced a lot by how bad the characterizations are. I read the first book at the urging of friends and spent the whole book wondering when it was supposed to get good. I got the second book on Audible because my brother gave me all his free credits, and spent most of that MST3K'ing the whole thing (which I never thought of doing to an audiobook before, but this one lended itself rather well).

Bella is a whiney Mary Sue with supposedly all these amazing qualities we never quite get to see who keeps talking about fate and destiny like she's in medieval times. Edward just looks good, but Meyer doesn't develop his character at all. It's like he has no personality to begin with. I think the only person she did an alright job of showing a true personality with some flaws and quirks and interest was Alice. Jacob was sort of half interesting, but I still felt like she doesn't let us get to know him enough.

Oh, I know. xD The books sound terrible and my friend said they are--but that they're hilarious and reading some of the reviews...they do sound downright funny, whether intentionally or not. I'll be reading 'em eventually to make up my own mind, just like I did when Eragon was the big thing (and good lord how I hated that book, hilarious as it was--though I know the author intended it as serious business :B).

And honestly, while people are free to twist mythology however they like...

Doesn't mean I won't be cracking up at the results. Like I said I still haven't read the books, but every time I think of the sparkly vampires I giggle. xD It sounds so much like badfic--and I love badfic for the sheer trainwreck factor.

Okay, honey. Then if they are just mythical creatures like you said, then...(this is from my fiancee) why can't they only eat peanut butter and dance the polka in sunlight no matter what? Does that make ANY sort of sense?

Vampires are known and mostly known in EUROPEAN lit as dark creatures that that suck the blood of their victims and cannot be in sunlight. Her vampires have no weaknesses making them gods. They don't deserve to be called vampires.

Hell, I'll go Wiki vampires for you.

Hm...do those sound like hers at all? No. They don't. If you're going to write about vampires, AT LEAST make them ACTUALLY realistic vampires. And perhaps you should go read some Wikipedia. It'd do you some good since you obviously don't understand or know the folklore behind vampires.

O_o

There's a lot of folklore behind vampires from many, many different countries. Are you going to call Chinese Hopping Vampires not true vampires? Hell, even Irish vampires are vastly different from, say...Transylvanian vampires.

But they're FAKE. xD You can twist them however you want because they're not a real species that exists and, even in mythology, they exist in many different forms. And their image has already been altered in many other pop culture venues.

The rest of the wikipedia article, if you'll read the rest, goes on to outline other types of vampires--in folklore and in pop culture.

The type of vampire you're describing is only one type. But even if it was the ONLY type in folklore, it doesn't matter--people can alter them and they won't be wrong for it.

That'd be like saying there's only one way to portray a unicorn or a dragon or an elf--when they exist across many cultures and are portrayed in so many different ways.

First of all, there’s never been anything realistic with vampires, ever, they’re mythological beings created by humans partly to explain weird occurrences around them (such as sickness, mysterious deaths etc.). Part of the attraction to vampires is the fact that they aren’t realistic and don’t have to follow all the rules that apply to mankind.

Second, Wikipedia is not the law and if you really want to understand the folklore behind vampires you should be reading up on actual folklore from different countries about vampires and similar subjects. (More so because the subject of the creation of vampires, and other mythological creatures, are actually more interesting because they showcase the human need to have some sort of explanation to occurrences and happenings around them ) Several cultures, several of which are European, have different interpretations of creatures very similar to vampires. There’s never been “one true way of vampire” or anything of the kind, just as there’s a bazillion different folklores of werewolves. No author is more “right” and neither is any interpretation.

However, as humans we are individuals who believe differently and like different things, the subject of what is and what isn’t a proper vampire boils down to personal preference in the long run. Some people actually don’t like the vampires of folklore, and there’s no law against being creative and creating your own species of vampire, which is what Meyer have done. That does by no means mean that you can’t disagree and not like her interpretation of vampires, but you don’t really have the right to tell anyone how vampires should be, nor do I or anyone else.

I’ve read my share of vampire books, I’ve read some really ridiculous things and I’ve read some things that have made me stop for awhile because the author brought something really new and fresh to the table. I’m not against vampires reproducing in any form of fiction, as long as the author have some sort of rules in place that limit the time of which the vampire is actually potent after it’s been changed. But again, this is just my personal preference and I’ve read fiction were vampires have been able to reproduce at any given moment – much like a human – and fiction were they couldn’t reproduce at all.

That said, I don’t really like Meyer’s interpretation much myself, never have, but I do believe that people should be allow to think and like whatever they want, even if it’s not something that I feel is “right”. Mythical creatures like vampires have always been ever-changing and will continue to change as people play around with them.

LOL Thanks, "honey," but like Rhi-Rhi just explained - again - there are numerous myths and stories related to vampires. As she said, the most famous vampire of all, Dracula, was NOTHING like the sexy, seductive vampires that Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer write about.

And no, the thing about peanut butter and polka doesn't make sense, but 1] I don't think I understood the point you were trying to make with that 'example,' and 2] Vampires themselves are mythological creatures that don't seem to be subject to laws governing humans, so why should any part of them make sense? This includes the inhuman strength, turning into bats, speaking in Transylvanian accents (I vant to suck your bludd!), sparkling, etc.

Also, scroll down to the rest of your "Vampire Source" - Wikipedia lists other tales, and like Rhi-Rhi said, are you going to say those legends are wrong simply because they don't comply to how you think vampires are supposed to be?

Actually. You know what? I hate European vampires, because they're not the chupacabra. And IMO the chupacabra is the only true vampire. Everything else is stupid, regardless of the fact that it is fiction and vampire themselves are fictional creatures.

And while we're at it, JK Rowling sucks because witches should only have green skin like in The Wizard of Oz (Okay, well. Evil witches. Excuse me, Bellatrix, you are not green!)

EDITS TO SAY: Please don't assume what I do and do not know? I could be a vampire. Maybe I'm just trying to keep our secret safe by arguing with you that vampires aren't real. :X Maybe I'M the chupacabra.

lol.

I say, let them sparkle, damnit!

Nah, I don't really care. I haven't read the books and I have no intentions of doing so, but I can tell you that it is my opinion that people can twist and manipulate the qualities of vampires, werewolves, demons, zombies, whatever as long as its logical and constant. If the author only throws it in because it is necessary in one scene, that gets a little annoying. Like it's some sort of scapegoat.

I don't care for these books already.

Granted, vampires aren't real. But, with that said, there is also a set of mythology that is hundreds of years old that goes with them as well. Granted, you can have liberties with the story, but my issue is reproduction? Crap like that? Seriously, can we at least TRY?

I agree with Rhi-Rhi and Sunday. They're mythological. You can define them as you wish, change them as you wish - doesn't mean what you decide to change will make them better, but it also doesn't mean they're doomed to be worse. People should be entitled to change a fake species as they see fit, to alter them and twist them. If we were forced to follow the same guidelines for specific species, what fun would that be? Would you really want to join different forums about vampires knowing that they were all the same with absolutely no differences at all, nothing that pops out and screams 'unique'? I know I wouldn't. Mythology changes and grows. People re-define what something is. I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about vampires and he said that a lot of it is up to the creator of the character, and he did say that vampires could reproduce if one wanted them to (along with how that reproduction might work) - why shouldn't someone be allowed to have vampire babies if they want them? You may not agree with it, but you have your own personal interpretation of a vampire, just as others do. People have free license with mythology and I don't think it's fair to condemn someone for taking an idea and trying to spice it up. Granted, sparkling vampires is just a little weird, but hey... That's what she wanted to do with her vamps. That was her decision, and if she ends up being ridiculed for it well... *Shrug*

Just to jump in about the reproduction thing... There's a lot of controversy about how that's possible in the Twilight-verse because the author stated vampire pregnancy was impossible (because they only possess venom in their mouths and the blood they drink) between two vampires... But it's not between two vampires, it's between a vampire and a human, so there's some confusion and dissent among the fans (and author) about whether or not that would really be possible or if SMeyer just ignored the rules she'd previously laid out for herself. And considering the fact that the final book in the series pretty much slaughtered characterization and the fandom in general, that's probably not too far off the mark (SMeyer ignoring her own rules, that is). If she further explained it in the book, it wouldn't be a big deal. But all she really said was that it was a mystery.

Not that that really has anything to do with the discussion. LOL

Vampires should not have no weaknesses. The whole basic idea of just a god-like vampire is just ridiculous. It takes away from the common ideal for any vampire. Hell, she could have called them damn werewolves or pixies! But to make a book about vampires and make them not be a good vampire is just a pathetic waste of book space as well as a proof that she holds barely any talent as a writer. Meyer could have stuck to a damn romance novel between two people. But no, she had to make sure her books would sell, and they have. She is a pathetic writer.

At least she could have come up with something that brings people in like J.K. did with Harry Potter. There was more then just magic. The whole Twilight series is pathetic and it got worse with the whole fact of damn Bella having a half-vampire child that, instead of drinking her beast milk, sucks her blood. What is she going to do next? Finally turn that annoying brat into a vampire?! Maybe she'll kill Bella or Edward?

Hopefully she'll do everyone a favor and write something better then Twilight. I am curious about Host. Hopefully it's a decent book. I have heard good about it.

And Vampire still should not sparkle. Ever. Them only being able to eat peanut butter sounds a hell of a lot better then sparkling. Hopefully the next vampire writer that gets huge will make them dark and less annoying/perfect/no personality. Any of the above would work better.

^^ All better!

Well, Breaking Dawn came out and that's the conclusion of the series (at least Bella and Edward's; SMeyer did say if she ever did continue it, which is unlikely, she might have a different narrator - either Leah or Nessie) so I guess you won't have to worry about sparkling vampires anymore. :X It's over; now you can rejoice? lol.

EDITS~ Also, they're not invincible. You just have to be strong enough so rip them apart and then burn their remains. Of course, the only creatures strong enough to do this are apparently werewolves and other vampires lol.

Let's all just remember that Twilight is not, and never should be, serious business. lmao It's not worth hating because it's like hating a children's movie for being stupid. Well, duh. It's a story about a sparkling vampire falling in love with a imperfectly perfect (aka Mary-Sue) girl, written specifically for young adults. You can't take it seriously. I can't take anyone who takes it seriously seriously. I wrote a rant and a mini-review about it but I got over it lmao. I know some people who analyze it like it's great literature. Psht.

UG! >< I'm annoyed again.

HOW MANY TWILIGHT RPGS ARE THERE?!

A point that was made to me last night really sets sight in this. Once Bella and Edward are taken, no one joins and goes to create their own.

It's quite pathetic! At least people are trying to be different and original with Harry Potter RPGs and X-men ones. How many do people have to create before they see that there are 57u849275 others out there?!

And yes. 57u849275. The u totally adds to the fun. lawl

I hate that I am hijacking this thread. I'm just procrastinating because I don't want to pack up my room lol.

I can understand why people start Twilight RPs. I love playing Edward and it would be really fun if I can make or find a game where I could play him with all the other Cullens and werewolves. But it never works out because no one ever wants to play the werewolves with appropriate-looking PBs (Megan Fox does not look Native American, okay?), and yeah, it's not the best book to make an RP out of because until Breaking Dawn, there were only a few central characters.

I'd love to make a post-Breaking Dawn RP since there's so many new characters. But I would not want to play Edward because that would mean playing Nessie's father and I hate Nessie. LOL :/

I've toyed with the idea of making an RP on InsaneJournal. People there, in my experience, are much more interested in character-development than who looks hottest. But it's a different format (journals rather than forums), so I'm wary.

Not that this had anything to do with the thread. Just rambling, sorry~

[derail]

Shouldn't this thread have spoiler tags on it? I know there's all of 2 teenage girls in the western hemisphere who haven't actually read the book yet, but still. There's no warning at all, and if I wasn't a total dorkus that got the book at midnight, I'd be pretty pissed.

[/derail]

lol

I don't mind the hijacking.

I understand wanting to play one character, but there is already nine Twilight RPGs on here. 9. How many others are there out there that have not posted on here?! I think it's rather ridiculous to how people can be so stupid that they can't play one character, so they'll make their own that will get NO members.

It's just as easy to take a current RPG you're on and make a random Twilight thread to RP the books with your friends.

Honestly, I don't care. If they read this, then it their fault.

[further derail]

Well yeah, you might not, but still...We have potentially Harry Potter esque levels of fangirlism going on here, it's not fair to ruin that for anybody.

[/further derail]

And I find that it insults some people's views on vampires, but ya know. Whatever.

And if they are hardcore fangirls, they probably have read the books by now.

I haven't read the books yet, but still I read the rant. It should have a spoiler tag on it. It's only fair. Some people might be waiting for the book still. I mean it's only been like a week and half or something since it came out right? PLUS, some people are slow readers.

This is a little off topic, but on the subject of vampires and reproduction I have one word for y'all:

Dhampirs.

Straight from Balkan folklore, I give y'all an example of vampires--gasp--reproducing! So it's an example of where European vampires DO reproduce and it's supported by actual folklore!

A dhampir is a child produced by a vampire father and human mother. It has all the strengths of a vampire, but none of the weaknesses. Sounds Sue-ish? Yep, but that's actual folklore talking (and honestly, some of folklore's heroes are the Sueiest Sues around if we use most people's definition of a Sue).

Source.

Just sayin'. xD It's been bugging me a bit all the talk of vampires not being able to reproduce.

(And also, that is probably what Edward and Bella's kid is, I'm assuming.)

Stephenie is a bad writer. End of story.
Haha.

I'm not so annoyed that they sparkle, I'm just worried about that part in the movie! If they throw glitter/confetti on Robert, I am going to SCREAM. Or if they have some blinding light behind him or something. DUDE, HE AIN'T GOD. Or if they have glow. KK, Vampires glow in the light! Wait, what? O_O

That's the thing about books. You can do whatever you please in them. I mean, come on, she had them have a you-know-what in Breaking Dawn! Yeah, never read that in all the vampire tales I've heard. Stephenie has taken vampires to a different level, and I give her applause for that.
I just don't think she's a good writer. Her writing is horrible, repetitive, and complete angst. Then she has a degree in English Literature. Yeah, that didn't go to waste *roll eyes* I do appreciate how she wants to improve (she says this in Entertainment Weekly - she says she stalks the Twilight board - OMG, HI STEPH! *waves*), I just won't read her work ever again.
The only reason her werewolves worked was because she got them from the La Push tales.

I do agree - she should have made them vampire-like BESIDES the sucking of blood, but I don't think you can blame someone from creative writing. :/

I have heard good reviews about Host, but that is it. Anyone I know that reads the books are under 20. Why? Because at 20, you're still hoping for a story book faerie tale ending. She is a horrible writer and I have to agree with you June.

The whole modern concept of vampires now have been shaped by folklore and basically the writings of Anne Rice. They are dark creatures, harmed by sunlight and holy objects. They can be staked in the heart and die. They must drink blood.

That is the concept I have been raised with and then all of a sudden, Meyer comes out with sparkling, seeing god-like vampire is like an insult to the modern ideal of one.

I have always read that they are dead. How does a male vampire create sperm if he is dead?? I'm sorry, Rhi-Rhi, but in the modern day sense, there should not be a reason that they reproduce especially if Meyer herself said that they don't. She turned herself into a hypocrite. I think she only did it for the money and the fame. Meyer made a horrible book series, butchered the modern concept for the vampire and made a crap load of money because of it! She probably threw in vampires because they sell to teenage girls.

And as for spoiling the new book for people, I think it's crap. I didn't read the last Harry Potter a full month after it released. Wanna know how I didn't spoil it for myself? I DIDN'T READ ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE BOOK! I made sure EVERYONE kept their mouth shut around me. If someone comes to read this rant before reading the book, then that is their fault fully. If I can avoid a month to read the new Harry Potter, then it's just as easy for fangirls to not read this thread to avoid a spoiler. Also, from what I've heard, Bella getting knocked up and having a kid isn't really the whole book.

It says that it's a rant about Twilight. Sorry you got spoiled though. :[

Anyway, Lady Hikari, maybe you should take a breather from the thread lmao. Or comfort yourself with the fact that the Twilight saga is over, except for the movies. I feel like you're falling to pieces or about to go assassinate SMeyer, haha. It's just a YA series, and definitely not the best. Twilight =/= serious business.

Besides, I doubt Stephenie Meyer was so influential that she'll forever change how people see the "modern vampire." Twilight isn't that good in any sense of the word. :p

Welp, horrible writer or not, she's accomplished something none of us in this thread have:

She's gotten four books published and created a craze and made a lot of money off it. Heh.

Anyway...

The books aren't serious business and are nothing to get riled over. '_' It's fiction for young adults, not deep ground-breaking fine literature.

And I dunno. Maybe they can't reproduce with themselves but can with a human? xD *shrug* Beats me! Maybe Meyers changed her mind. Who knows. I don't really care, I haven't read the series and when I do, I'll be reading it firmly tongue-in-cheek and taking it for what it is.

Point is, she butchered nothing. She butchered the species no more than anyone else has butchered any other fantasy race. And I proved that even in actual folklore, vampire sexual reproduction is possible.

Even in the modern day sense? VAMPIRES ARE ANIMATED CORPSES! xDDD In real life, they cannot exist because they break all the rules of nature simply due to that one fact! They suck blood, in some legends they turn into smoke or bats or wolves. There is absolutely NOTHING logical about them. It's impossible enough for the dead to come back to life, which makes no sense, so why does it have to make sense for them to have babies? xDD

Seriously!

They're nothing to get all worked up over. :B

[/devil's advocate]

Whoa. Lots to read, but very little to respond with except:

I have three basic rules with my vamps (the ones i create, not the ones i read for FUN).

1) they need blood to live. human or otherwise.
2) they can't reproduce
and 3) they can't die normally (IE bullets)

now. moving onto Stephenie's writing. Yeah, it SUCKS in the Twilight Saga, but come on? It's seriously fan girl based. I read it because (like everyone else who started) i was pushed into it. Then I just can't not finish a series. (After the 4th book of HP I wanted to stop, but nope.. I finished the series cos I'm weird and ended up falling in love with OotP).

Her other book, though, The Host is much better. I'm 17, and I dont mind unhappy endings, but that wasn't why I enjoyed this book. It was much more thought-out and because it's Sci-Fi you don't have people going "OMG! She can't do that!" Well, yeah, she can. I do suggest reading the Host, if anything to change your mind on Stephenie's ability to write... because it's there, she just needs to work on it.

And yeah, she's accomplished things we haven't... she's written 5 best sellers. And we only RP. Come on guys.. stop ragging on her because of this series. I'm sure JKR was ragged on for her first HP book... and now look where she is.

*passes out cookies to all*

Baha. I always need a breather, but I haven't had much to rant about lately. lol

I've read a lot of vampire books (and I do mean a lot) over the past 30 years. Meyer's Twilight series is not among them, so I can't comment directly to how her vampires work. Addressing vampires in (Western) folklore and literature in general, though, that I can do.

In folklore, I recall there being something called a dhampir, the 'son of a vampire' who, it is said, can 'see his father.' What that means, exactly, I have no idea. And how a dead guy has viable sperm is not addressed. It might be a child conceived before the father became a vampire. It's not exactly a commonly-known, let alone commonly-used bit of folklore. D, in the anime Vampire Hunter D, is a dhampir, but he's the only one I can remember ever encountering.

In general, vampires in literature come in two varieties. Supernatural and biological. The vast majority fall into the supernatural category. Off the top of my head, PN Elrod, Anne Rice, Fred Saberhagen, LJ Smith, Barbara Hambly, Les Daniels, Tanya Huff, Laurell Hamilton, Jeanne Kalogridis(sp?), Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, all have supernatural vampires. Undead corpses walking around drinking blood and not fathering children (though Saberhagen's can taint the blood of pregnant women, if memory serves). Jim Butcher has different types of vampire, all of which are supernatural, but one of which -- the White Court type -- isn't undead and can have children.

Elaine Bergstrom's Austras are biologically-based, some sort of mutant offshoot of humans. They're alive and can have children with each other, as well as with some humans.

I don't know which category or sub-category Meyer's vampires fall into, but if they're undead corpses running around, she'd better have a damn good explanation of how they have viable sperm. Especially if she's previously stated that they don't.

Meyer's characters are horrible in so many ways. And she can't stick to character. "No, I won't do it." *ten seconds later* *character doing what he already said he would never do in his life*

But I agree with the others that say that vampires are myths and, therefore, they can be as realistic or unrealistic as Meyer bloody wants to be. As it is, I go against most vampire folklore many times myself - often on purpose because I want to give them their hell-ish weaknesses since they are, usually, immortal so they deserve a hell of a lot more weaknesses because of it. {But that's just my logic.}

Yes, I do not like Meyer's vampires, but they are not really 'wrong' as far as vampires go since they are mythical. They are probably against folklore vampires, like most do nowadays, but otherwise, nothing wrong with them. Try picking on something else if you want to be angry at Meyer - the writing gods know there is a hell of a lot you can pick on apart from that.

Has anyone read the Cirque du Freak series by Darren Shan? I'm surprised there isn't more uproar about that. If I remember, they don't have fangs at all. They use their finger nails to cut veins and drink, then use their vampire spit to close up the wounds. They can't go out in sunlight (for extended periods - they can for a little while, but it's like getting sunburned) and they drink blood and all, but they do age. That's a serious set of differences right there.

Personally, I like the Twilight books. They're exciting and I like the characters. Plus, I'm a sucker for romance. I thought what Stephenie had to bring to the table was interesting. And something to remember is that these books were based on a dream she had. In the dream, the boy was sparkling, he told the girl he was with (these two in the dream eventually becoming Edward and Bella) that he was a vampire and that he loved her, but he wanted to eat her. Stephenie merely worked that dream she had into an entire plot and wrote Twilight from that scene on, then went back to write the beginning of the novel.

On the subject of vampires mating, I don't have a problem with it. Like Rhi-Rhi mentioned, stories about Dhampirs have been around for ages, so that doesn't bother me at all. I think it's nice that Stephenie took something she really had no knowledge about and turned it into something so successful, something that was uniquely hers.

Which brings me to my next point. Stephenie Meyer herself has come out and said that she isn't a "writer." She's admitted it. She doesn't think she's fabulous. Rather, she calls herself a "storyteller," and as a reader of her books I think that's a much more appropriate term. Her books are very action-driven. That's not to say that she's a crap writer, but her strength is in her plots.

In conclusion, I enjoy reading the books. They're fun and they're not meant to be taken too seriously. Even fans of the books who take it too seriously get annoying sometimes. If you don't like them, just avoid them. It's much easier than getting upset over it. :)

I'm mostly annoyed at all of the little fan girls running around thinking that they have read the best story in the whole wide world when it is, in fact, not meant for adults and not one of the best books written in the world. I still also believe that vampires should not sparkle. I've read some horrible Vampire books before as well as watched some horrible movies and TV shows. None have been as bad as Meyers.

What mostly pulled me away from Harry Potter is all of the fangirls running around. I loved the third book as well as the 5th. The rest after 3 were horrible besides most of 5.

But that is how authors sell. They make money. They turn heads, but what really annoys me is the fact that Meyer has broken her word on one thing and caused an undead vampire to reproduce. (AND THEY SPARKLE! COME ON! ><!!!) (( I will NEVER get over that. lol ))

But ya know, she's a published writer and is a lucky betch. lol

Ummm i'm sorry i couldn't read all of the 3 pages this had gotten if i ever wanted to get my opinion in, in this lifetime. But as a writter of lesser sorts myself I say like Stephenie Meyer write however the heck she wants. Its her own imagination she can turn vampires into bats if she wants. Personally if Vampire are DEAD, HOW THE HELL CAN THEY BE KILLED AT ALL is my quesiton so if she wants 'em to sparkle in sunlight it's her EXCUSE to KEEP THEM OUT OF SUNLIGHT! can you not see that.

The whole reproduction thing confuses me cuz i read that all their bodily fluids were replaced with vemon so i thought Bella was gonna like idk turn into a vamp during their honeymoon. lol. But i liked Nessie and the whole thing after that.

I LIKE TWILIGHT CAUSE ITS COMPLETELY ORIGINAL. It has a very original take on Vampires, and THEY HAVE SHAPESHIFTERS WOOTS..... and werewolves who've we never seen..... I wonder how no one realized they didn't need a full moon like other "werewolves". lol.

But yes I'm SEVENTEEN AND AND AVID FAN OF THE TWILIGHT SAGA! Bite ME (no that wasn't to prove a point or anything.) But i do love the story cuz i'm a romance freak. So FORGIVE EDWARD FOR NOT KILLING BELLA and ENDING THE STORY. I thought all the twists she came up with were really good. Plus i love how Catatonic Bella went when Edward left. If you gotta hate the story at least love that part.

(MY ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT TAKING BOOKS AND TURNING IT INTO A MOVIE F**Ks UP THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE! A BOOK IS A BOOK, DIRECTORS NEED TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN DAMN STORIES TO DIRECT!... lol... i think the movie looks kinda crappy.... that could be taken as a joke if anyone wants to start on the movie be my guest)
*Note: Capslock was more intentional in that last paragraphs.... my hands are shaking from getting frozen to death. GODDAMN FL n its CENTRAL AC.... if it went out i would prolly die of a heat stroke

So yeah to get Completely off topic.....

Completely agree about those two books. I couldn't even get to read the last one i was kinda depressed with harry after the 5th book. (loved Sirius, i think thats what it was)

I don't like that she seemed to have contradicted her previous statement, but there is a guide coming out in December with the movie. I believe she said that will clear up any question about how the pregnancy was possible. =/

Anyway, fangirls shouldn't be what ruins a series for you (though I get the feeling it's not fans you dislike about the series, but other things - just a hunch ;P). If that's the case, then how can you enjoy any series with a fan base? Books should be for personal enjoyment, not how other people perceive it. IMHO, of course.

Ali.inthejungle - I respect Meyer for admitting that. I read that interview as well. That's what I always tell people when I say I like Twilight, becauase I feel like I have to add a disclaimer since it's such a juvenile series. "Yeah, the writing really sucks, but I like the storyline. It's cute." LOL It's funny, people either agree with me or get all outraged and bent out of shape, like I just insulted their mother or something.