C
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Much of what you think is “folklore” may not be. For instance, I’ve read that the movie “Nosferatu” is the source for the idea that sunlight kills vampires. This should be easy to disprove if it’s false–give me a folklore source that says that sunlight disintegrates vampires (passages indicating that they dislike sunlight don’t count). You are accepting uncritically what certain influential purveyors of pop culture have established a century ago or so, and insisting that later writers/moviemakers can’t change these “rules.” That seems unreasonable.
Even if the “rules” were genuinely based in folklore–which most of them aren’t, given how varied vampire folklore is–you haven’t given any basis for your claims about “propriety.” Writers have always tinkered with the legends they have inherited. Your claim seems to have no basis except your own rather odd preferences.
Edwin
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Where are dragons considered noble? I must have missed that concept.
G
GEddie
Guest
The turn-of-the-century movie “Dragonheart” does indeed present a noble dragon. This of course u-turns the folklorical history of dragons.
G
GEddie
Guest
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Don’t forget Eragon. There’s also of course kid anime shows like Pokemon and Bakugan where both protagonists team up with dragons. How about The American Dragon: Jake Long? Jake may be Chinese but his dragon form certainly isn’t.
B
BlueSeven
Guest
I think that any living being that has the ability to love has a soul and being that these vampires believe it is wrong to kill humans wouldn’t they be more human than us because sin is hardwired into their brain so much that they have to actually fight their instinct to obey God? The truth is Vampires aren’t real and just because we read a book doesn’t make us want to fall into sin. It’s a great piece of literature. One of this generations best in my humble opinion.
G
GilChrist77
Guest
A lot of my friends, who are very good strong Catholics, have read Twilight and frankly are kind of obsessed with it. They always ask me why I haven’t read it yet and they say “it’s only a book Betsy, it’s not going to hurt you.” Okay I know that it’s not going to hurt me or do anything to me because Satan doesn’t have that much power in my life but here are the two reasons that I won’t read Twilight.
JMJ+
~Betsy
Totus tuus Maria!
- I will not conform to the world. Everyone is super obsessed with and I don’t want to be like the rest of the world.
and, - I would much rather read the classics. I would rather read the Count of Monte Cristo for the third time then read Twilight, just because Count of Monte Cristo is a classic, it’s stood the test of time.
JMJ+
~Betsy
Totus tuus Maria!
D
Dtmccameron
Guest
To avoid confusion, I suppose.
“Do you know what I am?”
“A vampire!”
“Yes! I am a vampire in every way except I’m not dead, nor am I possessed by an demon, I don’t burn up in the sunlight, I can take showers in holy water, kiss a crucifix, and need not drink human blood in order to survive! Oh yeah, I’m not evil either!”
The mormon may as well have come up with another species or what have you, and then list all it’s super powers and what not, instead of say “vampire, except for…”
Yes, I think in my fantasy novel my elves shall be ugly, warty and green, whilst my orcs are fair skinned, perfect and pointy eared. And the goblins work for Santa Claus, who is in fact a Bunny who brings folks eggs on the fourth of July.
But, hey, that’s the way she did it. The question now becomes, should a person with pedophiliac tendencies be, say, a school counselor? If not, why not? Is it because it’s dangerous? Unhealthy? Unwise to put a predator around the prey and hope for the best?
R
RSD
Guest
I am a good strong Catholic (at least I have spent many years trying to be, and I keep on trying) and I am kind of obsessed with the Twilight books. BUT I would never say to anyone to read them, or any other book because “It’s only a book, it’s not going to hurt you.” I think that some books can be very hurtful. If some books can be helpful, then other books must have similar power to harm. I do suggest to people to read the Twilight books because I think they are positively good, and can be helpful to someone trying to follow God’s will. I do not think that they are necessarily going to be good for everyone. Nothing on Earth is good for everyone the same way.
Deciding not to conform to the world can be a virtue for a Catholic, but it is sort of a negative virtue. It might help you to resist certain sins, but simply being different from others is not actually a positive virtue. For instance, you might consider yourself to be “not conforming to the world” if you drive on the left side of the street, or if you speak gibberish, but those practices will not feed the hungry, or clothe the naked. You must first discern God’s will for your life, and then do it whether or not it might seem to others to be what everyone else is doing. God wanted me, several years ago, to get married and have children. I did not resist this, even though most other people I know get married and have children. I now have grandchildren, and I am an obsessed grandmother of the sort you get warned about (don’t let me get started telling you how wonderful they are, unless you have all day). God has given me this extreme love as His gift, even though it does seem very conventional.
How do you think the classics became classics? Yes, they stood the test of time, but only because when they first came out many serious readers were willing to give them a chance. I truly believe that in 50 years there won’t be any question of good Catholic parents wanting their children to read Twilight, just as now they want their children to read Romeo and Juliet. If you tried to read the Count of Monte Cristo for the first time, without knowing that it was a classic, I am sure that you would find its theme of relentless unforgiving vengeance to be very un-Catholic. We just accept that now, because it is a classic.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You PERFECTLY put into words what I’ve been trying to say – either stick with the established norm or create a new species.
R
RSD
Guest
People tend to conflate the new with the known. For instance, the Quileutes who become wolves call themselves werewolves, even though their changing is independent of the moon. They are surprised when Edward says that they are not “real” werewolves, but they don’t know what else to call themselves.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
And once again, you present yet another extreme and over-simplistic analogy that you cannot apply to the art of writing. If sculptors were to follow your extreme black-and-white view of how one would defy literary tradition, Michaelangelo would’ve either just presented us with a barely chipped block of marble or a huge pile of dust and debris instead of the glorious David.
The truth is, when one defies old tradition, it is done meticulously and with great care. It’s like modifying a beat up old car to something better or different but it’s old form still recognizeable.
So for goodness sake, do us a favor and actually try taking a pen or opening a Word document and start writing yourself. Your creativity is the one thing in the world that can never be bound firmly to reality and have it bend to your will.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
No, he makes a very valid point with the EXTREME examples that he used. Certain things are EXPECTED to exhibit certain characteristics. Write a novel about a vampire who is not affected by the sun, is not bothered by a cross and can drink holy water without a problem and you no longer have a vampire because it has been established over the years that a vampire can not do these things.
If an author wants to be “creative”, then why not create a whole new species?
…
How about a “vampire” who, instead of feasting on other humans, feasts on other vampires and instead of drinking their blood, he chops off their heads and absorbs their lifeforce? And he isn’t bothered by the sun or holy water and doesn’t need to sleep in a coffin and can live forever unless another “vampire” chops off his heads and drains him of his life force.
I’ve just described the concept of “immortals” from the film and TV show “The Highlander”. Instead of modifying the vampire legend and giving them traits that they traditionally never had and confusing everybody, the authors created a whole new species which will carve out it’s own place in folklore in the years and decades to come.
If an author wants to be “creative”, then why not create a whole new species?
…
How about a “vampire” who, instead of feasting on other humans, feasts on other vampires and instead of drinking their blood, he chops off their heads and absorbs their lifeforce? And he isn’t bothered by the sun or holy water and doesn’t need to sleep in a coffin and can live forever unless another “vampire” chops off his heads and drains him of his life force.
I’ve just described the concept of “immortals” from the film and TV show “The Highlander”. Instead of modifying the vampire legend and giving them traits that they traditionally never had and confusing everybody, the authors created a whole new species which will carve out it’s own place in folklore in the years and decades to come.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Again, you too can’t see that you’re using extreme analogies that can’t be applied. Have you forgotten that Meyer’s vampires still have the qualities of traditional vampires? They have the need to drink blood, the have pale skin, and they have superhuman strength.
The problem with both your bad examples is that it’s simply no different from slapping “dog” on a cat. What Meyer did with vampires is no different from what I’ve seen others do with elves, dragons, mermaids, dwarves etc. The modifications they made to an already existing concept was different, revolutionary yet at the same time, it still has distinct characteristics that would make naming them differently pointless. That’s the beauty and creativity behind such transformations. You have changed the way people view a certain archetype and given them a fresh perspective.
L
Little_Katie
Guest
Well- quite frankly, their have been many differant takes on vampires in fiction over the years. Myers was not the first person to try and create a “good” vampire.
On the TV show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” the character Angel was a good character. Though, I don’t remember if he drank blood or not.
I know that on “Vampire Knight” the students live off of synthesized (fake) blood.
I have read books w/ vampires who don’t believe in killing so they purchase donor blood to drink.
I have read books where the vampires “glammer” their victims, drink the blood, but don’t drink enough to hurt them or kill them.
There’s a lot of vampire fiction out there. And I have read a lot of it.
I can tell you no two authors take the same approach to vampires. I do know that w/ most of the stories I have read vampires are generally “evil” with the exception of one or two “good” characters.
The same can be said w/ any fantasy monster from werewolves to dragons.
L
Little_Katie
Guest
Why does it matter? I mean… Vampires are fictional creatures. They don’t exist. Meyer’s, in her writing, in a way did create a new species. Her characters stated that (exclusively in the world of Meyer’s story) vampires weren’t very much like what folklore stated. If you read the book, you will see how it makes sense that she needed to make her characters the way she did.
A fantasy story is a fantasy story. They’re just fantasies so there are no “facts” to keep valid.
You either like it or you don’t. But you shouldn’t knock it until you try it. And it’s kind of rude to look down on someone else for liking it.
Personally I dislike Twilight because of how stupidely popular it has become. The fans take it wayyy too far. I did enjoy the books when I read them though. Reading those books killed a lot of time when I was in labor and stuck at the hospital.
T
Tyuiop411
Guest
I hate Twilight for different reasons than this. Mostly because the books are all average fiction that only sold well because teenage girls fell in love with Edward. Not only that there milking the cow to death with merchandising (i mean a Edward full body mirror come on).
L
Little_Katie
Guest
Personally I don’t find the actor they chose for Edward to be attractive. And Edward’s character in the books was unrealisticly romantic but at the same time rather possesive and controlling… not really my type. Ha ha.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Now that’s more like it. In my opinion, people who bash Twilight from your angle are the ones really worth listening to. I myself may have nothing against Edward but the whole idea of making vampires into hopeless attractive bishounen is the reason why I don’t like the genre so much. (coughVampire Knightcough) >_<lll
Then again, the crazy fan girls tell me I’m just jealous. 7_7
- Status