Why would you laugh hysterically at that?
Also, I object to the 'pro-Twilight'/'anti-twilight' terms, it's not some kind of massive debate where you have to be on one side or the other! :lol: I'm happily Twilight indifferent. ;)

Regarding the link...hmm, it's not very well written is it? :XD Ooh, sorry, that's really beside the point! I think the writer is taking these books too seriously, at any rate.

I believe Stephanie Meyers was mistaken to call her new found race vampires. While they did in fact feed upon blood, they also had characteristics that a "vampire" wouldn't have. Falling in love with a human girl was the main point of the story, and I think we can all agree that Bella (MARY SUE!) Swan isn't going to get any respect unless she snogs a few biteys :P

Yes I think it ruined it. Then again it has been getting popular to change the vampire to make it more human and allow them to walk in the light is not fully hers but she has opened it up to more teens I guess. Hey I may not like it but she did make a series of books that got people to read so I guess I will just deal with it lol.

What does that mean? :lol: I completely lost you at this point to be perfectly honest!

They weren't even remotely vampires, they were like incubi. SMeyer definitely showed she didn't research at all.

Sparkling vampires aren't very scary and I personally prefer the old school against Mr. Sparklepants and his family along with the so called ELDERS who were defeated by a LOVE SHIELD.

Yeah, what a great story.

I find that people actually do not like Bella Swan. In fact, most Twilight fans I've come across HATE Bella Swan.

This is why Bella didn't use a condom...she was fucking a vampire. The situation isn't a normal human one. She didn't use a condom because no one had ever gotten pregnant with a vampire before. I could understand, and would even completely agree with you, if the situation was a normal one. However the fact that Edward is a vampire changes everything. You simply cannot compare the two, because the two are incomparable.

No girl alive is going to have sex with an undead vampire, and thus, Meyers was not in any way telling girls to not wear a condom when having sex.

Also, what's the problem with being vague about sex? LOTS of books meant for teens have very vague sex scenes. I don't get the problem with it.

I agree with you. It's also utter horsepoop to claim that girls are in any way going to flounce off and fuck some guy without a condom simply because Bella fucked her vampire in Twilight without one.

----------

Like Huffie, I really don't understand this. Do you mean "isn't going to get any respect unless she fucks a few vampires?" In which case your claim is invalid simply because she already sexed up Edward. Or did you mean "isn't going to get any respect unless she snags a few vampire bites?" In which case your claim is also invalid simply because she was bitten quite a few times.

...Just curious. :)

Vampires don't sparkle. Well... they do if they're gay, I suppose. But Edward never came out of the closet in the series.

I much prefer Anne Rice's perception of vampires, honestly. Hell, even Christopher Pike. ANYTHING but Stephanie Meyer.

EDIT: Oh, and Darren Shan. And... I believe her name is Laurell K. Hamilton?

Haha, when did I ever say that little girls are "going to flounce off and fuck some guy without a condom simply because Bella fucked her vampire in Twilight without one"? All I said was it's something to think about when writing a book that a lot of pre-teen girls read.

I know the two situations can't exactly be compared, and the book is a work of fiction. It was just an opinion, which we are all entitled to.

The only thing that Twilight ruined for me about vampires was the fact that they sparkled. That's their onlydefect? Sparkling? I liked it better when they couldn't come out in the sunlight, for the fear of burning to a crisp.

Well, if Bella and Edward had done the responsible thing Mrs. Meyer couldn't have had the ending she wanted to. :XD Although do I see your point! I don't think it'd really affect anyone though, surely it's a very minor part? :yes:

I think you guys are missing the 'they waited until marriage' aspect. I think that was supposed to be the moral here and not 'don't use a condom'.

This:

vampires used to be cool, vicious blood thirsty killers. they still are, because as far as I'm concerned twilight isn't a good enough book to actually change the image of something.

I've always had the die-hard image of a blood-thirsty monster that sleeps in the day and roams at night, sucking the blood once, twice, thrice from their victims to convert them to the vampire's immortal servant. Vampires die in the sunlight, I'm sorry. The sparkling was way too overkill.

I've read the books, and watched the first movie. I can honestly say that I got over it after 9th grade (I'm a junior now). It's very tiring to hear thousands upon thousands of fangirls screaming about something so... mediocre, in my opinion.

It hits me the wrong way when people start comparing Meyer's books to Harry Potter, or Dracula. There's a line. I found very little depth in any of the characters of the Twilight series (Indeed, the character with the most tolerable and believable history had to have been Charlie.) Harry Potter is about overcoming obstacles and remaining strong in seemingly hopeless situations; Dracula is about destroying evil and saving those you care for; Twilight... how important it is to have a boyfriend.

It's not that I hate the series; I'm merely disgruntled by the blind fandom that surrounds every tiny detail of it. There's only so much I can handle, and Twilight simply irritates me. :gonk:

It's an OK series. Terrible writing, with total Mary-Jane shallow characters, but something about it is almost charismatic, I'd say, you like it without really knowing why. But if you really get down to it, without that charisma, it would be a shallow, empty void of a book.

Meyer's vampire merely spawned a fad. And, while we all love to diss on them, we are only the people yelling, "I liked it before it was cool, and you ruined it."

Which are, we all must admit, the most obnoxious people at a party...

Edward Cullen = Captain Jack Sparrow = Harry Potter = Legolas (or Aragorn) = whatever other trendy, male, big star in current high school pop series is currently flooding Hot Topic.

This one is just different. Maybe worse. Definitely for the vampire fans. But, it will go away, leaving only a thousand websites full of X rated fan fiction and hate threads in it's wake.

And yes, I've read them 3 times. I'm a sucker for Charisma.

So people can ONLY write about any fantasy creature in just ONE WAY or it ruins the entire fantasy race?

I disagree. It didn't ruin anything. People are still FREE to write about vampires as vicious, non-glittery, sunlight fearing monsters. Twilight did nothing except give a new variety of vampire.

And frankly, I actually love books that put a new perspective on an old fantasy idea. If all fantasy books were the same then they'd all be deriviative fantasy and honestly, I'd die of boredom if that were the case and I would have never, ever started reading this genre.

Twilight Vampires
 

Well, Twilight did ruin the initial idea of vampires. They were originally undead blood-suckers that burned in the sun. They would be burned by holy water, irritated by garlic, and killed with a stake. But Twilight turned vampires into these beautiful, wonderful, long-lived people that drank the blood of animals. That sparkled in the sun. So, yes, I'll have to say that Twilight did ruin the image of vampires.

Here's a question from someone who's only read the first one:
How do you kill them?
Seriously?
I heard from a friend that only other vampires can kill them, and in my opinion if you take a flame thrower to something it will be a pile of ash later.

Wait a decade or two, and we'll have vampire horror/thriller movies again, like Nosferatu, instead of these fantasy forbidden romance movies.

Vampires don't exist. Their image changes from person to person, from generation to generation. They don't have a defined image to be ruined. Does Myer's image of vampires suck? Personally, I say yes, it does. But her book is not the Bible of vampires and their identifying traits, so... *shrug* Your imagination and/or romantic fantasies have not been ruined, dream on about your non-sparkly vampires. o-o;