Twilight Vampires Vs. Definition of Vampires

I agree... I love both versions but I also agree that just because twilight vampires are different doesn't mean they aren't vampires... they are just sexier. I guess it's just hard for some true vampire fans to understand that just because they're intent is not evil doesn't mean that they aren't true, hardcore vamps<3
(PS I believe I saw that disagreement you guys had)

I don't really care for other vampires, so I love that the Twilight ones are different, and as far as I'm concerned, they are vampires. Just because someone doesn't have dreadlocks doesn't mean they're not Jamaican. That's not the best analogy, but it's the only one I can think of at the moment.

1treehillfan, yes i do think that you were the one who commented when she and i were arguing. and i also believe that you were helping me out a bit, so thanks hahaha :)

I think that definition of vampire mean the undead period.It could be the way the other girl think of cause she is hardcore undead fan,the type that can't go out in the day light and can only suck on human to survive type or the Anne Rice version.Then there are our interpretation of Vampire.To tell you the truth I think the Twilight Vamp have more VAMP in it then the other kind.Twilight Vampires are sexier,more passionate and definitely not as HAGGARD looking.Not only that, they are different from any other books I have ever read about Vampire and it's another person fresh point of view so who to say that it's not right.I mean have she or any of us ever met a real Vampire before?So who to say what they really are like.I agree that she shouldn't have bashed on what other think is cool.That is very narrow minded way to see the world.I really love that you fight for our rights.Thanks KATLYNNCORE you are in my cool people zone.

Twilight vampires are different from Anne Rice's vampire (dark, evil, historical, I don't appreciate.. Haha!). Maybe it's the way they are presented, they are having a hard time accepting it since we've known vampires as such until Twilight came. It's hard to battle with customs and traditions, yknow. But for me it's a nice twist. :)

I understand completely where you are coming from, but there from how i look at it, you would need little things like that to simply set you apart from and other immortal (fictional) being. There are things that, yes, are vampire like, but without everything to me, I see only a creature that lives forever and only really CHOOSES to drink blood. Not a vampire. (I know there are going to be people who flame this post, but this is supposed to be an opinion-if you don't like it because it is different from yours, well, I'm not sorry.)

This is a bunch of bull.

The Cullens are NOT vampires...they're TOO perfect to be what society should call a vampire. I mean...atleast if you went up against Count Dracula as a normal human...you had a chance...if you find yourself on the bad side of Edward Cullen...the only way you could survive is if you threw Bella off a bridge! Let me put this in a simpler way: You're in a dark alley and a regular REAL vampire comes up and tries to kill you...you stab a stake through that things heart and MOVE ON! Now with the Twilight vampires...you'd be screwed (Unless it was one of the Cullens, then you could talk about your feelings and then they wouldn't kill you). Just saying, but Twilight RIPPED THE VAMPIRE DEFINITION TO SHREDS...AND THEN SPAT IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SHREDED DEFINITION.

I don't think it's a bunch of bull at all. I really think that just because they're different, doesn't mean they can't be considered vampires. And who really gives a shit that a human couldn't kill them? Why should that factor into it at all? I mean, as stated before, I do like the other types of vampires (Buffy really is one of my favorite shows). I just really enjoyed reading something so different from the normal vampires that you see everywhere.

Another series I enjoyed that did this is the Night World Series by L.J. Smith. The vampires in that one are pretty different from the usual ones, as well. Well, the lamia ones are, at least.

P.S. Maybe you should stop lurking in the Twilight Spot since you so obviously have a problem with it. How lame.

Katlyncore...the only reason I even found this website was because in one of my classes I was looking up to see if anyone had actually made an arguement...and I'm happy I found the one that really didn't make much of a side. Now, who really gives a shit? Clearly...I do...and it factors into as being...the Twilight vampires are TOO perfect and that Mrs.Meyer ripped off all the vampire lore.



But I do gotta say one nice thing about Twilight, you can have big arguments with the people who go nuts about Twilight and think that all the stuff is real and sit there for hours entertaining yourself by telling them that the Cullens, the Blacks, the Swans, none of it is real! Not to mention I like the coverart...but other than that...it wasn't all that of a good series...

Now I actually took the time and looked up Vampire in the dictionary, it said:
1. A reanimated corpse that is believed to rise from the grave at night to suck the blood of sleeping people.
2. A person, such as an extortionist, who preys upon others.
3. A vampire bat.


Twilight "vampires" to me are just pale-faced, sparkly humans who have a fetish for blood...sorry to rain on the Twilight brigade.


That movie sucked too. Even when I liked the series...I still thought that movie was trash...and they want to make a sequel?

Okay, I only said the whole "who gives a shit" thing to get across that it was a pointless arguement. I didn't mean it literally.

First, I want to know why bash Steph for having an imagination? Why hate something that's different? So they don't fit in with the defintion of vampires; big deal. That's not really a strong arguement either.

Another thing, I definitely do not think that they're real. Obviously, it's FICTION. I will admit that I get caught up in arguing about the series, but don't you do the same with something you really enjoy? What's so wrong about getting engrossed in a story with a great plotline? I will admit that the movie is not the best example of cinematic greatness, but it was nice to see the book on the screen.

And what do you mean you used to like the series? What changed?

Now I don't bash Stephenie, her "definition" of the vampire is what I'm bashing. I don't know Mrs.Meyer on any sort of personal level so I can't say that she sucks...plus she has great taste in music :) but I don't truly think her "imagination" is that great...now I mean Twilight as a single book was ok...but she kinda messed up with Eclipse...and Breaking Dawn(book should have never been printed) (New Moon was pretty good).

I never said you thought they were real, but there are some people out there who fantasize to an extreme...and arguing with them is fun. If I like something, I say I like it and will often tell you why it is that I think it is good, but I never actually sit there for hours debating about it...this is just something I like to debate about because it's like the fight is me vs the world.

And I liked the series, but Breaking Dawn changed my opinion, that book should have never existed for one thing...I believe I mentioned that above. Think about this as an ending for Eclipse, just put this in your mind for a minute and think about your reaction...this goes for anyone else who's reading this: Bella dying. Now when I actually thought about it, my reaction would have been like: "Woah...I DID NOT see that coming." Now that would have made the ending for that book GREAT. I would probably still like it because they completely omitted the whole uber-Bella (then again, I would probably never have thought of that as an ending). That would have been such an unexpected twist, and even though it may have pissed off all those fans, they would have had the same "Woah..." reaction as I did when I thought of it...now you can't tell me you didn't get something relatively close to the same reaction when you thought of that as an ending instead of them discussing marriage.

Because there are certain attributes that makes vampires vampires.
If something does not fit a definition of something then it cease to be that thing.

There is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box, but certain attributes still have to be retained. Anne Rices's vampires are not the traditional vampires. She reinvented the entire vampire genre, turning them to beautiful,sophisticated, tortured creatures. However her vampires still had the important features: burns in the sun etc.

With the changes that Meyer has made, what makes her vampires any different from other undeads? In fact I can just label them as immortals who needs blood to survive, or sparkling undying people.

Saying that the creatures in Twilight are vampires is like saying some mutant alien squid creature is human because it walks on two feet.

I'm all for imagination, but the only thing that twilight vampires have in common with other vampires is that they drink blood. Drinking blood doesn't make you a vampire, being undead, burning in the sunlight, and being deprived of anything pure and holy makes you a vampire. You can take some liberties, yes, but as many people have said in the above comments, you can only change something so much before it stops being that thing anymore. Stephanie Meyer could have spent the entire book calling the Cullens something else, and I would not have noticed a resemblance to vampires.

whatever. personally, i still view them as vampires. i really don't see what the definition of vampires has to do with actually being a vampire. i just don't understand why there's so much close-mindedness about this topic. it's always like the first thing twilight haters bring up. to me it's not a very strong argument against stephenie or her series.
and the bella dying ending is lame. i'm sorry, but that's my opinion. i really liked the ending to eclipse. i was really happy with that book; it's probably my favorite after the first one.