Twilight New moon :D

[John_Doe]

Then what are the general traits of a vampire? Who says these traits are set in stone? Time dictates, if you look throughout history from European mythology to Asian mythology the core aspects of a vampire has not change much since.

I don't even count Edward as a vampire, he's more like a Faerie with a fetish for blood and teenage pedophilia.

[/Pi]

Going by you way of thinking i strap a dead goats head to a dog and call it an angel and just because im saying its an angel it would automatically be a credible representation of an angel...no, it doesn't work like that.

Of course not. There has to be a reason behind it - just as you have given a reason for Neon's angels. Such reasons can vary depending on the author. They can be references, metaphors, or direct similarities. How can you say that the author's reasons are wrong? The degree of your comparison is hardly the same level as the differences Meyer has done to her vampires. She retained some. She changed some.

Time dictates, if you look throughout history from European mythology to Asian mythology the core aspects of a vampire has not change much since.

Rice comes in. She creates a creature. It is much more intelligent, more agile, and stronger than humans. It can read through books in minutes and retain memories perfectly. It feeds of blood - animal or human. It is unnaturally beautiful, seductive, but sexless. It can live drastically long lives and depending on its age, can survive under sunlight. It's skin is pale and reflective. It can transmit these physical and mental traits to humans. She calls it a vampire.

Meyer comes in. She creates a creature. Like Rice's, it is superior in intelligence and strength. It can read people's minds. It feeds of blood - animal or human. It is also beautiful and seductive. It can far outlive humans. It's skin glistens under sunlight, which it can survive under. It can also transmit it's "vampireness" to humans. She calls it a vampire.

Other authors have their own descriptions. Vampires die from impaling, holy water, exposure to garlic or the cross. They cannot regenerate. They are gross and unattractive. They even turn into bats.

If by time you mean the accumulated traits given by these various authors, then yes, I'd have to agree. Meyer just contributes to the vast library of this lore. Her vampires just slightly deviate from the core figure - just as or even less than most other authors'. Hell, changing into bats, casting magic, and fearing the cross has always been part of whatever this core figure is. Rice throws these all out and can still rightfully call her creatures as vampires. Why can't Meyer?

Meyer tailored her saga generally for a female audience. Us males can have the badass, gun-wielding, giant-bat-turning, overly-seductive vampire as much as we want. Why can't the other sex have their own unique, but still similar, idea of a vampire as well?

[John_Doe]

Going by you way of thinking i strap a dead goats head to a dog and call it an angel and just because im saying its an angel it would automatically be a credible representation of an angel...no, it doesn't work like that.

Of course not. There has to be a reason behind it That is basically what I'm saying, there is no reason behind Edward potential immunity to death from only drinking animal blood and exposure to the sun - just as you have given a reason for Neon's angels. Such reasons can vary depending on the author. They can be references, metaphors, or direct similarities. How can you say that the author's reasons are wrong? The author of Twilight doesn't have any reasons. It just is, that in itself creates conflict. The degree of your comparison is hardly the same level as the differences Meyer has done to her vampires. She retained some. She changed some.

Time dictates, if you look throughout history from European mythology to Asian mythology the core aspects of a vampire has not change much since.

Rice comes in. She creates a creature. Rice although a great author did not creat the vampire concept, she merely took the vampire and upgraded it for her novels, while still retaining the core aspects of the vampire from many centuries of vampiric lore from many cultures. It is much more intelligent, more agile, and stronger than humans. It can read through books in minutes and retain memories perfectly. It feeds of blood - animal or human it lives on Human blood, but yes it can feed on ether.. It is unnaturally beautiful, seductive, but sexless. It can live drastically long lives and depending on its age, can survive under sunlight. It's skin is pale and reflective. It can transmit these physical and mental traits to humans. She calls it a vampire. Because it is a vampire.

Meyer comes in. She creates a creature. True to that, she did create a creature, and it is not a vampire. Like Rice's, it is superior in intelligence and strength. It can read people's minds. It feeds of blood - animal or human. Again the option to feed ether on human or animal blood doesn't matter, but the ability to live on only animal blood is ridiculous. It is also beautiful and seductive. It's not seductive, Bella's just horny because Edward decided to play hard to get with her for the first few chapters. It can far outlive humans. It's skin glistens under sunlight, which it can survive under. Again no reason is gaven for this wierd concept It can also transmit it's "vampireness" to humans. She calls it a vampire.

Other authors have their own descriptions. Vampires die from impaling, holy water, exposure to garlic or the cross. They cannot regenerate. They are gross and unattractive. They even turn into bats. That is basic vampire lore, not created by a author, but by a culture.

If by time you mean the accumulated traits given by these various authors, Ummm...I'm sure I said from European mythology to Asian mythology. then yes, I'd have to agree. Meyer just contributes to the vast library of this lore. No she didn't, she completely ignore the concept of a vampire nor did she even research vampire lore and created a Frankenstien of the vampire. Her vampires just slightly deviate from the core figure - just as or even less than most other authors'. Hell, changing into bats, casting magic, and fearing the cross has always been part of whatever this core figure is. Fearing the cross, and bat turning is core to European myth, while magic is more associated to South Africa mythology. Rice throws these all out and can still rightfully call her creatures as vampires. Rice gives just detailed reason why and how, unlike Meyer. Edward is just magically able to go around walking in the sun and living off animal blood. Why can't Meyer? Because Meyer wasn't trying to make a vampire, edward could easily be another Clark Kent but with a fetish for animal blood.

Meyer tailored her saga generally for a female audience. Us males can have the badass, gun-wielding, giant-bat-turning, overly-seductive vampire as much as we want. Why can't the other sex have their own unique, but still similar, idea of a vampire as well? If it was a vampire to begin with anyway.

/Sleep time, ill debate more tomarrow...

[Reise]

Fictional concepts, such as vampires, need not conform to any traditional views. Their definitions are at the hands of the writer. You can have the stereotypical vampire we've all come to know but if the author says it's not a vampire, it is NOT a vampire. If an author describes a creature that is hardly what we call a vampire, a vampire - it IS a vampire.

No, no, no. The instant you step away from the traditional characteristics of a vampire, it becomes something else. The author can do what he wants, it's his shitty story. That doesn't mean his character is a vampire as we all know vampires to be. You might as well compare it to someone saying a car is still a car if it has no wheels, body, or engine.

[Toasty]

You guys go far to deep into crap.

[_Lana_]

You guys go far to deep into crap.

Yeah and its not like they would watch it anyways <.<

[Miguez]

Fictional concepts, such as vampires, need not conform to any traditional views. Their definitions are at the hands of the writer. You can have the stereotypical vampire we've all come to know but if the author says it's not a vampire, it is NOT a vampire. If an author describes a creature that is hardly what we call a vampire, a vampire - it IS a vampire.

No, no, no. The instant you step away from the traditional characteristics of a vampire, it becomes something else. The author can do what he wants, it's his shitty story. That doesn't mean his character is a vampire as we all know vampires to be. You might as well compare it to someone saying a car is still a car if it has no wheels, body, or engine.

And who said Meyer wanted her "vampires" to be like all the other vampires you know?

If she wants "her vampires" to be able to survive, let her, it's her book.

Geez -_-

[Lowis]

Hopefully the movie is better then the book. New moon book was more of a depression bella goes into and with Jacob.

[_Lana_]

The only part of the New Moon book that i actually found very interesting was the ending. The whole Jacob obsession and jumping from cliffs was meh.
While in the other hand Eclipse was such an amazing book to read. Now thats the movie i can't wait for.

[Miguez]

^True.

It was not so great.

Is it just me or they changed the Jacob actor?

[_Lana_]

Good thing that Rob will appear more in the movie then in the book ... i mean Edward
And its the same old 16 year old guy, he just bulked up a lot. (Like he does in the books)

[John_Doe]

You guys go far to deep into crap.

Yeah and its not like they would watch it anyways <.<

I would watch if the concept of Twilight itself wasn't rediculous.

Fictional concepts, such as vampires, need not conform to any traditional views. Their definitions are at the hands of the writer. You can have the stereotypical vampire we've all come to know but if the author says it's not a vampire, it is NOT a vampire. If an author describes a creature that is hardly what we call a vampire, a vampire - it IS a vampire.

No, no, no. The instant you step away from the traditional characteristics of a vampire, it becomes something else. The author can do what he wants, it's his shitty story. That doesn't mean his character is a vampire as we all know vampires to be. You might as well compare it to someone saying a car is still a car if it has no wheels, body, or engine.

And who said Meyer wanted her "Faerie with a fetish for blood and teenage pedophilia." to be like all the other vampires you know?

If she wants "her Faerie with a fetish for blood and teenage pedophilia." to be able to survive, let her, it's her book. Amen

Geez -_-

Edward is not a vampire.

[_Lana_]

I would watch if the concept of Twilight itself wasn't rediculous.

That means you wont watch it 100%
Why do you bother arguing with us fangirls and fanboys ?

[John_Doe]

I would watch if the concept of Twilight itself wasn't rediculous.

That means you wont watch it 100%
Why do you bother arguing with us fangirls and fanboys ?

Because Edward isn't a vampire and to say so is rediculous.

[hitokiri]

Same thing with zombies....Dude its a made up creature. It doesnt exist. let the authors and creaters of whatever it is they're basing stuff on change it. I just dont understand how you can argue what Vampires and Zombies, and anything else for that matter of the same type is "supposed" to be. They dont exist. I dont care if several cultures continue the tradition through stories and myths of the now common knowledge of what they are. To me, it shows they have no creativity. If Zombies and Vampires suddenly came into existence, and the zombies didnt die when their brain was destroyed and Vampries actually were fine in sunlight but they couldnt touch water or they'd die. Would you go tell them they aren't being Vampires and Zombies the right way? A ridiculous example and question for someone being just as ridiculous.

[John_Doe]

Same thing with zombies....Dude its a made up creature. It doesnt exist. let the authors and creaters of whatever it is they're basing stuff on change it. I just dont understand how you can argue what Vampires and Zombies, and anything else for that matter of the same type is "supposed" to be. They dont exist. True, but the concept of said creature has existed through centuries, therefor you cannot disregard those concept if you wish to create a creature modeled after it's name. I dont care if several cultures continue the tradition through stories and myths of the now common knowledge of what they are. To me, it shows they have no creativity. Lol, your juding the creativaty of a culture because of their mythology. If Zombies and Vampires suddenly came into existence, and the zombies didnt die when their brain was destroyed and Vampries actually were fine in sunlight but they couldnt touch water or they'd die. Would you go tell them they aren't being Vampires and Zombies the right way? Because they would in fact not be vampires and zombies, because they don't share those characteristics. A ridiculous example and question for someone being just as ridiculous. "What If"s do not support your propositions at all. Here let me do it, What if vampires and zombies came into being and they did die from gunshot wounds to the head and the sun. See what I did there.

[_Lana_]

I would watch if the concept of Twilight itself wasn't rediculous.

That means you wont watch it 100%
Why do you bother arguing with us fangirls and fanboys ?

Because Edward isn't a vampire and to say so is rediculous.

Edward isn't even real, so whats your point.
Yeah he is not something that most people consider it, but what ? You wouldn't watch it even if he kills Bella and eats her, because you people will always find flaws in the story.

[/Pi]

What are the core aspects of a vampire? What defines a vampire? Taking the whole range of mythologies on this creature and extracting their common features would rightly give us the definition. As you have said, it is dictated by time - by the European and Asian mythologies - and cultures around the world.

Everything breaks down. The sharp teeth we associate them with is hardly universal. Their paleness stands in opposition with other cultures' descriptions of dark purple skin. Even the entire human form is thrown out in other myths where vampires are depicted to be floating skulls surrounded by entrails. Blood-sucking is nothing when other cultures have vampires that feast on flesh. Even blood in other cultures is replaced with souls, fetuses, or even qi.

In the end, we have one general definition of a vampire that can accommodate all of its descriptions throughout history: a being that extracts life essences - blood, soul, etc. - from living creatures - humans, animals, etc.

Our Westernized notion of a vampire is but one of many kinds of vampires. Even within our notion, it varies among sub-cultures, authors, and readers. Edward is a vampire because it fits the general description that is dictated by all mythologies.

You can refuse to call him a vampire - and you have all the right in the world to do so. However, there are also cultures around the world who can rightfully refuse to call your ideal description of a vampire, a vampire.

This is what you face when you enter the fragile world of subjectivity.

[John_Doe]

Because Edward isn't a vampire and to say so is rediculous.

Edward isn't even real, so whats your point.
Yeah he is not something that most people consider it, but what ? You wouldn't watch it even if he kills Bella and eats her, because you people will always find flaws in the story.

Edward doesn't have to eat Bella to make me want to watch it. But eating her would make it interesting a bit, atleast it wouldn't just be a story about lust anymore. There wouldn't be flaws in the story if the author didn't choose to completely ignore them.

[John_Doe]

What are the core aspects of a vampire? What defines a vampire? Taking the whole range of mythologies on this creature and extracting their common features would rightly give us the definition. As you have said, it is dictated by time - by the European and Asian mythologies - and cultures around the world.

Everything breaks down. The sharp teeth we we? associate them with is hardly universal. No one said it was universal, actually no one even mentioned it. Their paleness stands in opposition with other cultures' descriptions of dark purple skin. Even the entire human form is thrown out in other myths where vampires are depicted to be floating skulls surrounded by entrails. Blood-sucking is nothing when other cultures have vampires that feast on flesh. Feasting on humans or animals can be found in all culture, may it be flesh or blood, but survival alone on animal flesh or blood is a ridiculous notion when offered no explanation. Even blood in other cultures is replaced with souls, fetuses, or even qi. Yes but it is still from a human, that they must take in order to live.

In the end, we have one general definition of a vampire that can accommodate all of its descriptions throughout history: a being that extracts life essences - blood, soul, etc. - from living creatures - humans, animals, etc. link plz? lol look at who became a vampire master overnight.

Our Westernized notion of a vampire is but one of many kinds of vampires. Even within our notion, it varies among sub-cultures, authors, and readers. Edward is a vampire because it fits the general description that is dictated by all mythologies. Links plz?

You can refuse to call him a vampire - and you have all the right in the world to do so. Edward isn't a vampire, end of story. However, there are also cultures Name plz, and links as well. around the world who can rightfully refuse to call your ideal description of a vampire, a vampire.My ideal description, I don't remember even giving one?

This is what you face when enter the fragile world of subjectivity. Give me time as I gather my resources.

If you did not get your info from a website plz offeer me the name of the book.

[/Pi]

Then what is your description of a vampire? Is it the absolute definition? Does it accommodate other cultures' descriptions?

Humor me.

[John_Doe]

Then what is your description of a vampire? Is it the absolute definition? Does it accommodate other cultures' descriptions?

Humor me.

Give me time as I gather my resources.

[/Pi]

Don't even bother getting sources. I'm dropping this argument. To each his own.

[John_Doe]

Spoiler!

There is no mutually-agreed upon newsgroup definition for "vampire."
Ask a dozen readers, and you're likely to get a dozen different answers.
However, a workable blanket definition for the various types of vampires
from legend and fiction [q.v. 2.04] might go something like this: A
vampire is a being who, in order to maintain its existence, must feed
on the vitality of humans.

Given that core definition, you're now free to qualify the terms to suit
the specific type of vampire being described. For example, the vampire
can be living, dead, undead, or spiritual. "Vitality" can mean blood,
lifeforce, passion, chi, soul, psychic/sexual energy, etc. Important to
the definition is the word "must" in that it disqualifies blood fetishers
who do not NEED blood to survive. "Feed" can be changed to "ingest",
"suck", "prey" or "drink" but, whatever term is selected, it should
disqualify flesh-eating beings such as ghouls.

A few years ago, in an attempt to add more bite to the definition, I
surveyed readers of a.v. and asked them to rate 16 characteristics as
to their perceived importance to the definition of "vampire." The most
important features of a "vampire," according to the 150+ replies I
received, are that s/he feeds on human lifeforce, does not age, is
immortal, and drinks human blood. This gives more weight to the suggested
blanket definition in which the vampire is a being who must feed on the
vitality of humans in order to survive, with the added qualifiers that,
if the need is met, the vampire is rendered unaging and long-lived. [NOTE:
The term "long-lived" is currently preferred over "immortal" because
immortality implies that one cannot cease to exist, yet there are a number
of ways that vampires can be destroyed [q.v. 2.07].

Of medium importance are that the vampire is a living corpse, is
telepathic, is harmed by the sun, feeds on human passions, and has fangs.
Of little importance is that s/he casts no reflection, loves darkness,
has a pale complexion, sleeps in a coffin, is repelled by a cross, is
prone to obsessive love, and wears a black cape.

Code: Select all

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/vampires/07-How-do-you-define-vampire.html

I truly do not hold any collection of traits as the solid rock foundations or definition of a vampire, none except this one rule. A vampire is a being who, in order to maintain its existence, must feed on the vitality of humans.

[Miguez]

John you should honestly leave this thread -_-

We got it, you really want to prove your point, but this thread wasn't made for that, so why don't you quit arguing.

[_Lana_]

John you should honestly leave this thread -_-

We got it, you really want to prove your point, but this thread wasn't made for that, so why don't you quit arguing.

Yeah, i think think that this thread was originally made for us crazy fans to scream about it.
But whatever floats your boat.

[Zen]

Wizards are people who can use magic, thats established.

the term Wizard im sure came from scribes, such as casting a Spell on you meant to place thoughts into you that are not your own, much like how propoganda works today, but on a much more simple scale as back then hardly anyone could read, so scribes were very powerfull spell casters back in the day,
they use to carry sticks of wood wich were called holy wood, wich is why hollywood got its name, it was there tool to cast *spells* by telling stories like the scribes did,

im not 100% about all this, its how ive always understood wizards etc =\ but this thread bought back memories ^^

[skulldiver]

I truly do not hold any collection of traits as the solid rock foundations or definition of a vampire, none except this one rule. A vampire is a being who, in order to maintain its existence, must feed on the vitality of humans.

I do not like twilight, its to romantic/sweet/ghey for me.
That said tho, you're a moron.
Izaach has already explained you hundreds of time, and arguing him with the shittiest arguments i've ever heard does not make you look smart, it just makes you look like an idiot.

[XemnasXD]

[_Lana_]

I actually laughed