Twilight

[terioncalling]

Actually, I say if they want it...

 

Get an awesome actor who can give them that. Then, one of two things: they learn and can be released to the general public, or are removed from the gene pool.

Mm, yes, that is a much better idea. *nodnod*

 

Or hey, going on your complaint of super abilities, how about the antediluvians? Last I recall the Ravnos antediluvian was able to fight off three Kuei-Jin elders for three days and nights, along with dozens of cabals of mages and packs of Garou (and was in fact kicking their asses) before being struck by a nuke, which he still survived, and only died after hours of being forced under magnified sunlight. Hell, this guy wasn't even fully awake, and was one of the absolute weakest of all them.

 

This is forgetting how far each Discipline went when stretched to its ultimate capabilities. Ten dots in Potence let you punch down mountains, ten dots in Obfuscate makes the world forget you ever existed, ten dots in Dominate lets you control the entire planet, and so on and so forth.

 

Never played V:tM ('cept for the PC games) so I have no knowledge of how things work but the antediluvians are OLD, yes? And don't WoD vampires get stronger with age?

Edited October 10, 2009 by terioncalling

[Esau of Isaac]

Never played V:tM ('cept for the PC games) so I have no knowledge of how things work but the antediluvians are OLD, yes?  And don't WoD vampires get stronger with age?

Yes and no. Vampires will settle into their abilities with age, and will raise skills and increase in mastery over given disciplines (though their generation won't decrease with age, whereas Kindred's Blood Potency in Requiem will increase the longer they are undead). For example, an eighth generation Kindred that's been undead for thirty years definitely won't be as powerful in several categories as a ninth-generation vamp that's been around for five hundred years. However, a thirteenth generation Kindred (the generation of modern beginning players most of the time, right around the Time of Judgment), regardless of whether it is a century or a millenia old, will never be able to increase its abilities to the truly superhuman levels of, say, a Methusaleh (4th Generation). So, in addition to the fact that antediluvians are unspeakably powerful by virtue of being so close to Caine, they are also godly in supernal Disciplines because of the millenia they have had to hone their skills. This is illustrated when a third-generation Kindred named Giovanni, who arrived there via diablerie, was still mercilessly and easily slaughtered when he ventured out to truly finish his master, an antediluvian (though this can be partially explained as the result of his diablerie failing to attain the true powers of Cappadocious).

 

In fact, the popular notion of antediluvians is that they can't even die unless they want to, barring a situation where they meet their end by an equally or stronger Kindred (i.e., only another antediluvian or Caine himself).

[terioncalling]

Which makes more sense than BOOM! instant super speeds, yada-yada. Still OP, yes, but makes more sense even with that.

 

 

Also I THINK the plagiarizing may be with the Voltuiri (or however you spell it) being a play off of the WoD vampire society. Only thing that makes sense to me with my semi-limited knowledge of WoD and limited knowledge of Twilight.

Edited October 10, 2009 by terioncalling

[Esau of Isaac]

Which makes more sense than BOOM! instant super speeds, yada-yada.  Still OP, yes, but makes more sense even with that.

Celerity at two dots, which is possible at character creation, is obviously supernatural to mortals. It's not the same as being proficient in everything, because it takes time for many, and most never gain such skills, but it's still pretty ridiculous. It's taken to a farther extreme with Twilight, but keep in mind that any vampire in either oWoD or nWoD can augment their abilities to levels that are above that of mortals with base use of Vitae, no Disciplines included (and frenzying certainly doesn't hurt >__>).

 

But then, I think it's more required in such a series.

 

Also I THINK the plagiarizing may be with the Voltuiri (or however you spell it) being a play off of the WoD vampire society.  Only thing that makes sense to me with my semi-limited knowledge of WoD and limited knowledge of Twilight.

Well, yes, the Volturi are kind of similar to the Camarilla in that they try to maintain secrecy, but that's where the similarities end. The Camarilla are a continent-reaching organization, whereas the Volturi are a small centralized family based around...Italy, was it?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[DragonNighthowler]

Right. The mage would have to form into a lizard-like entity to be classified as a dragon. However, Meyer's creatures are just as much vampires as, say, Rice's. Their lack of weakness is to sunlight may be a bad choice, but it's not an integral feature, anymore than a commonly held weakness to holy objects and garlic, or inability to cross running water.

 

They are vampires because they suck blood, and because they are dead.

 

Most vampires I've heard off, are harmed in some way by sunlight. Like I stated previously (if you've bothered to read the whole thing), I couldn't care less about their superhuman things, but I simply can't consider seriously a vampire that not only walks by sunlight, but who glimmers like a fairie prince.

 

They are supposedly dead, but yet males can impregnate women. I still need an explanation to this.

 

Loups garou suck blood too, and are not dead. The list posted by the user showed several creatures catalogued as vampires, which varied from a blood sucking german elf, to the loup garou, to a witch/sorceress that shapeshifted at night. Neither of them are vampires, independently if they suck blood.

 

These are common facets of modern vampires. The lack of actual weaknesses is problematic, but this doesn't make them not vampires.

 

It's not about the vampirism of them. It's about the Gary Stu them, and the stupidity of the whole book.

You will mention later about the antediluvians. They are uber-powerfull, and I really have no problem to them, because there is an explanation to their super powers.

 

I thought I was being clear, but my complain against Meyer' vamp's lack of weaknesses is focused in a literature way. They are super strong just for the sake of it, which doesn't make them less vampires (I said I don't care), it makes them less interesting because they don't have to hide from anything, they don't care because they are demi-gods.

 

No; these traits were all modernized decades ago.

 

Tell me I really don't need to explain the meaning of "sarcasm".

 

Then again, I'm focusing on her books (to call them something), and the stuish characters.

 

Explain how Meyer plagiarized Vampire: the Masquerade. I'm seeing zero connections.

 

I see the society barely similar to the Camarilla (there is a point in the book she actually calls the Vulturi, Camarilla, but as it was a Spanish book, it might have been a bad translation).

The werewolves are, somehow, frightening similar to Uktena in WtA.

 

Or hey, going on your complaint of super abilities, how about the antediluvians? Last I recall the Ravnos antediluvian was able to fight off three Kuei-Jin elders for three days and nights, along with dozens of cabals of mages and packs of Garou (and was in fact kicking their asses) before being struck by a nuke, which he still survived, and only died after hours of being forced under magnified sunlight. Hell, this guy wasn't even fully awake, and was one of the absolute weakest of all them.

 

This is forgetting how far each Discipline went when stretched to its ultimate capabilities. Ten dots in Potence let you punch down mountains, ten dots in Obfuscate makes the world forget you ever existed, ten dots in Dominate lets you control the entire planet, and so on and so forth.

 

Vampire is a game.

Twilight is a book.

 

When I play a game, be it WtA, MtA, VtM, HtR, or even Prince of Persia, Oblivion, Morrowind, etc, I am expecting to grow the character, to flesh out the skills I've chosen to be able to fight off enemies.

 

I can't find interesting a book where I know the characters are gods on the earth, to whom no harm will come because of their stupendous hard diamond skin.

There is quiet a difference between what I expect from a game, and what I expect from a book.

 

For example, in Harry Potter, I feared for the life of the characters, because I knew how vulnerable they were.

I can't fear for Alice's life (for example), because there is basically nothing that can hurt her.

 

Of a sort. They aren't undead humans, however, and they don't subsist off blood, so they're not the sort of vampires we are speaking of.

 

If you've read the discussion, the other poster commented that a vampire is any creature that sucks life force out of another creature. Not neccesarily blood.

 

Dementors are able to do such, so by her arguments, they should be vampires too.

 

Incredibly shaky. Sometimes they are considered vampires, or suggested to be such, as they have over time altered to be closer to more vampiric imagery. A lot of people would probably in fact define a succubus as a female vampire.

 

I had heard they don't suck blood, but life force or something, out of males. I had also heard they were considered demons, rather than vampires.

But I can't claim my expertise on this area.

 

Mosquitoes are not vaguely humanoid. They could be called a vampire, if the word is being used to denote a parasitic behavior of sorts (as with the above dementors), but they're not vampires as we are thinking.

 

Which makes sucking blood not the only requisite to make a vampire. There must be other things.

 

Same as the mage is not a dragon, independently if he breathes fire, or not.

Edited October 11, 2009 by DragonNighthowler

[Dr. Paine]

I had also heard they were considered demons, rather than vampires.

 

Everything I've read (including their mention in a book about vampire myths throughout the ages) has said succubi and incubi are demons, wrongly classified as vampires by many people.

[Esau of Isaac]

Most vampires I've heard off, are harmed in some way by sunlight. Like I stated previously (if you've bothered to read the whole thing), I couldn't care less about their superhuman things, but I simply can't consider seriously a vampire that not only walks by sunlight, but who glimmers like a fairie prince.

That's fine, but it's a vampire. Calling it anything else is being willfully obstinate.

 

They are supposedly dead, but yet males can impregnate women. I still need an explanation to this.

Magic. Who cares?

 

Loups garou suck blood too, and are not dead. The list posted by the user showed several creatures catalogued as vampires, which varied from a blood sucking german elf, to the loup garou, to a witch/sorceress that shapeshifted at night. Neither of them are vampires, independently if they suck blood.

Yes, and all of them generally fall into other categories. Loups Garou are werewolves, so that more pertinent classification would override that of the vampire. And that is assuming that they by classification always suck blood, which would be intellectually dishonest.

 

It's not about the vampirism of them. It's about the Gary Stu them, and the stupidity of the whole book.

Okay, then don't extend the argument where it doesn't belong. No matter how overpowered their personas are, you can still recognize that they are vampires.

 

You will mention later about the antediluvians. They are uber-powerfull, and I really have no problem to them, because there is an explanation to their super powers.

This entire line of argument was in part to relate to the fact that they cast off many norms of vampires.

 

I thought I was being clear, but my complain against Meyer' vamp's lack of weaknesses is focused in a literature way. They are super strong just for the sake of it, which doesn't make them less vampires (I said I don't care), it makes them less interesting because they don't have to hide from anything, they don't care because they are demi-gods.

It was not clear. You're pointing out different traits that others have from other series, and then noting where they "get it right", so to speak. I would think that had to do with their actual qualities and not their Stu-ness.

 

But if that's what you mean, then I'll forget it.

 

Vampire is a game.

Twilight is a book.

 

When I play a game, be it WtA, MtA, VtM, HtR, or even Prince of Persia, Oblivion, Morrowind, etc, I am expecting to grow the character, to flesh out the skills I've chosen to be able to fight off enemies.

 

I can't find interesting a book where I know the characters are gods on the earth, to whom no harm will come because of their stupendous hard diamond skin.

There is quiet a difference between what I expect from a game, and what I expect from a book.

If you play Vampire the Masquerade correctly at all your characters shouldn't be able to even touch one of the antediluvians unless they are mercilessly broken or one of the first embraced Kindred of the Methusalehs. Even then, it doesn't change that they should never beat one in single combat. Even Giovanni gets his ass killed, and he's perhaps one of the strongest non-antediluvian Kindred that ever (un)lived.

 

The only time you'll see any of the sourcebooks even suggest that it's halfway alright for your characters not to get insta-dusted is following the Thinning, where after enough time it's fair for your characters to try and fight Caine.

 

If you've read the discussion, the other poster commented that a vampire is any creature that sucks life force out of another creature. Not neccesarily blood.

 

Dementors are able to do such, so by her arguments, they should be vampires too.

A vampire could be considered that, if we're discussing something of a more parasitic nature. But the vampires that most are associated with are undead creatures that feed off blood through fangs, usually with a various sub-set of supernatural capabilities.

 

I had heard they don't suck blood, but life force or something, out of males. I had also heard they were considered demons, rather than vampires.

But I can't claim my expertise on this area.

They are supposed to be demons, and they usually end up having intercourse with a man until satisfied (as this is supposed to drain the energy of the man). Most claim them to be vampires because the mythology surrounding succubi has in time intertwined with modern themes present in vampiric literature, especially preying upon humans.

 

This is also forgetting that what defines a succubus is incredibly variable; a female vampire that drinks upon the blood of men could probably validly be referred to as one, since stories revolving around the creatures include such instances where they devour blood and flesh.

 

Which makes sucking blood not the only requisite to make a vampire. There must be other things.

 

Same as the mage is not a dragon, independently if he breathes fire, or not.

Thus, a commonly thought of vampire could be easily defined as a human, or perhaps humanoid creature whose body functions through a mystical dependency upon blood (especially that of humans) through fangs, who is (most often) undead, and who (again, most often) possesses a host of abilities allowing them to perform acts impossible for a normal man.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[terioncalling]

But you can't explain Meyer's vampires impregnating women through magic because she herself tried to explain it through science. And bad science at that. Therefore Magic cannot equal Renesmee.

 

Who I still say is trying to be Alia from Dune and failing miserably to be that creepy. And awesome.

 

It was not clear. You're pointing out different traits that others have from other series, and then noting where they "get it right", so to speak. I would think that had to do with their actual qualities and not their Stu-ness.

 

But if that's what you mean, then I'll forget it.

 

Most of the traits that have been pointed out make the vampires weaker. That is how they get it right.

 

And that deals with both actual qualities and Stu-ness because their qualities are part of their Stu-ness.

Edited October 12, 2009 by terioncalling

[slovu]

But you can't explain Meyer's vampires impregnating women through magic because she herself tried to explain it through science. And bad science at that. Therefore Magic cannot equal Renesmee.

 

Who I still say is trying to be Alia from Dune and failing miserably to be that creepy. And awesome.

The scientific explanation failing means that it can't be magic? I still stick to the age-old rule of SUIM--Shut Up It's Magic. Why bother trying to explain it at all? Vampires being able to impregnate things might be the least logical thing to happen in the books, but there's a whole lot of other illogical things that happen throughout the series. Honestly, the illogic of Bella's pregnancy is the thing that bothers me least about the books. Hand wave it, or stick to Bellisario's Maxim, if nothing else.

 

No one can be as awesome and creepy as Alia from Dune. There's simply no applicable comparison.

 

Though I do say that Twilight could have made a great horror series--this obsessive, deranged vampire who hasn't gotten any in a hundred years stalking you, watching you while you sleep, taking the air out of your tires when you try to leave, following you around the city, all because he can't read your mind? And the aftermath of the sex scene in the fourth book, when Bella doesn't realize why she can't move until she looks down and realizes that her entire body is covered in bruises--even without trying to, Meyers made that incredibly creepy.

 

I choose to believe that Twilight is actually a story about hideously deranged abusive relationships seen through the eyes of a brainwashed victim. It increases the quality of the storytelling by a good 500%. (Though the incredibly purple descriptions really can't be helped.)

[terioncalling]

The scientific explanation failing means that it can't be magic? I still stick to the age-old rule of SUIM--Shut Up It's Magic. Why bother trying to explain it at all? Vampires being able to impregnate things might be the least logical thing to happen in the books, but there's a whole lot of other illogical things that happen throughout the series. Honestly, the illogic of Bella's pregnancy is the thing that bothers me least about the books. Hand wave it, or stick to Bellisario's Maxim, if nothing else.

 

What I mean is if SHE explains it as science, then it is science and cannot be explained as magic. At least by my viewpoint. If she had just said "It's magic!" I would be okay with it. But Meyer tried to explain it with science.

 

Then again, I have an issue with vampire's in any medium having children. Its just...weird. Excepting Amelia Atwater-Rhodes book Demon in My View where it did get a decent explanation.

[slovu]

What I mean is if SHE explains it as science, then it is science and cannot be explained as magic. At least by my viewpoint. If she had just said "It's magic!" I would be okay with it. But Meyer tried to explain it with science.

 

Then again, I have an issue with vampire's in any medium having children. Its just...weird. Excepting Amelia Atwater-Rhodes book Demon in My View where it did get a decent explanation.

It's a good viewpoint, but I get the feeling that Meyers hasn't read or written a lot and therefore I take anything she says with a mountain of salt. Vampires simply can't be explained with science, though Scott Westerfeld did have an excellent explanation for his kind-of sort-of vampires in Peeps. Therefore I still apply SUIM, regardless of what Meyers says.

 

Vampires are supposed to be bloodthirsty, disgusting, monstrous beings. I don't mind the variations when they're also compelling and beautiful, since I think it only adds an extra level of ew to the whole premise. Either way, I don't think children should be reading about them. (When the vampires are simply compelling and beautiful without being bloodthirsty, disgusting, monstrous beings, they are no longer vampires. I don't think children should be exposed to Twilight anyway, since a lot of the themes are particularly icky, especially the particulars of Edward and Bella's relationship and how it's treated.)

 

What was the explanation in Demon in My View? I've never read it, so I'm curious.

[Esau of Isaac]

But you can't explain Meyer's vampires impregnating women through magic because she herself tried to explain it through science. And bad science at that. Therefore Magic cannot equal Renesmee.

 

Who I still say is trying to be Alia from Dune and failing miserably to be that creepy. And awesome.

Again, who cares? This doesn't make them not vampires. It means that she attempted to make a scientific explanation and went too far.

 

Most of the traits that have been pointed out make the vampires weaker.  That is how they get it right.

 

And that deals with both actual qualities and Stu-ness because their qualities are part of their Stu-ness.

Their qualities are also meant to introduce a specific weakness (excessive strength introduces ease of murdering others), it's just not well-highlighted.

[terioncalling]

What was the explanation in Demon in My View? I've never read it, so I'm curious.

 

Well, its only technically a vampire born baby. Woman is pregnant upon turning, carries the child for some odd time as a vampire, becomes mortal again through a witch, and then has baby who is connected to vampires. So technical vampire-born baby.

 

It's a good viewpoint, but I get the feeling that Meyers hasn't read or written a lot and therefore I take anything she says with a mountain of salt. Vampires simply can't be explained with science, though Scott Westerfeld did have an excellent explanation for his kind-of sort-of vampires in Peeps. Therefore I still apply SUIM, regardless of what Meyers says.

 

With you on that - especially since she has admitted to never looking into vampire lore before beginning writing. But still...it's the author's explanation, retarded as it may be. Which means I don't accept it being explained by magic because that just makes it too easy and completely excuses her stupid science.

 

Again, who cares? This doesn't make them not vampires. It means that she attempted to make a scientific explanation and went too far.

 

Me and some-odd other people care, that's who. And did I say that did not make them vampires? No. I said you can't explain Renesmee's existence through magic because it was explained through science.

 

Their qualities are also meant to introduce a specific weakness (excessive strength introduces ease of murdering others), it's just not well-highlighted.

 

Yeaaaaah, one weakness besides Oh-God-I-Glitter-in-the-Sunlight. Because all anyone needs is one weakness.

[Esau of Isaac]

Me and some-odd other people care, that's who. And did I say that did not make them vampires? No. I said you can't explain Renesmee's existence through magic because it was explained through science.

Of course you can. Any author can make a handwave by saying that the scientific explanation is not grounded enough to be conclusive. It's a pretty natural position that most authors end up in when trying to get a good medium. Is there a precise scientific way to determine powers to mutants in Marvel? No, but it sure doesn't stop laboratories from putting together machines that stop their abilities from working.

 

Yeaaaaah, one weakness besides Oh-God-I-Glitter-in-the-Sunlight. Because all anyone needs is one weakness.

Weaknesses are overrated; with good writing and a fairly well-thought out plotline, it's not impossible to put together a storyline with such a character that isn't bad.

 

For the record, I have no idea where this snippy reply even came from. I don't recall saying that one weakness was sufficient for her writing style in the first place, only affirming that they are meant to have weaknesses in some form.

[terioncalling]

Of course you can. Any author can make a handwave by saying that the scientific explanation is not grounded enough to be conclusive. It's a pretty natural position that most authors end up in when trying to get a good medium. Is there a precise scientific way to determine powers to mutants in Marvel? No, but it sure doesn't stop laboratories from putting together machines that stop their abilities from working.

 

I seem to recall hearing of some sort of way of doing that. Then again I could be wrong.

 

When Meyer stops trying to explain it through science and goes with magic, I'll agree.

 

Weaknesses are overrated; with good writing and a fairly well-thought out plotline, it's not impossible to put together a storyline with such a character that isn't bad.

 

Weaknesses are overrated? Seriously? Weaknesses are what make characters interesting! And three dimensional! If your character doesn't have weaknesses they're...well, they're Superman without Kryptonite.

 

For the record, I have no idea where this snippy reply even came from. I don't recall saying that one weakness was sufficient for her writing style in the first place, only affirming that they are meant to have weaknesses in some form.

 

Besides the 'excessive strength can equal accidental murder' what else is there? And sparkling doesn't count.

[slovu]

I seem to recall hearing of some sort of way of doing that.  Then again I could be wrong.

 

When Meyer stops trying to explain it through science and goes with magic, I'll agree.

 

If you're interested in the ways that superhero powers work, you should check out The Physics of Superheros. It's a very interesting read. Of course, most of the time it still has to concede some impossible circumstance in order to justify the superpower, but the explanations are very interesting.

 

What was Meyer's "scientific" explanation for a hundred-year-old corpse being able to impregnate a human girl anyway?

 

 

Weaknesses are overrated?  Seriously?  Weaknesses are what make characters interesting!  And three dimensional!  If your character doesn't have weaknesses they're...well, they're Superman without Kryptonite.

 

I disagree that weaknesses are overrated as well--if I wanted to hear about an all-powerful being that couldn't be beaten, I'd crack open a Bible. But it is possible to make a story work without having a character be weak. In fact, most stories only work if there is a happy medium between strength and weakness--the average teenage girl being battered by denizens of a hell dimension would make for a short and unsatisfying read if she couldn't fight back in some way. It is possible to have a character that has Mary Sue levels of power and still be interesting. Look at Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen. He's essentially a god, and yet he's one of the most fascinating characters in the whole series. Since I haven't read it, I can't say for certain one way or the other, but I've heard Morpheus from Sandman is pretty similar in terms of insane powers and lack of weaknesses.

 

(I'd also argue that Superman is equally boring, with or without Kryptonite. But that's an argument for a different thread.)

 

Besides the 'excessive strength can equal accidental murder' what else is there?  And sparkling doesn't count.

 

Well, they're all impulsive, overemotional psychos. Does that count?

 

I don't think Esau is attempting to give Twilight a ringing endorsement. In fact, he said it himself:

 

I don't recall saying that one weakness was sufficient for her writing style in the first place, only affirming that they are meant to have weaknesses in some form.

 

As far as I understand, that means that the weaknesses Meyer gave her vampires aren't sufficient, but Esau believes that Meyer did mean to give them weaknesses.

 

But seriously, guys, let's not start sniping at each other. Do you really want to get mad over an internet argument about Twilight of all things?

[Esau of Isaac]

Weaknesses are overrated? Seriously? Weaknesses are what make characters interesting! And three dimensional! If your character doesn't have weaknesses they're...well, they're Superman without Kryptonite.

That's the modern idea. But someone doesn't have to have excessive weakness to be interesting, or again even weakness at all. Following with a vampire example, Alucard of the popular Japanese anime Hellsing lacks any physical or mental weakness (to the extent that he can walk freely in sunlight and is directly next to utterly immortal), and yet as a character he is enigmatic, intelligent, full of depth, and just an all-around badass.

 

Weaknesses are overrated; too often writers these days believe that every one of their characters has to be horribly impaired, as though being compromised in practically every way will put together a more interesting character; it's not true, and while weaknesses are paramount to a large amount of character growth, they aren't necessarily imperative when constructing a character.

 

Besides the 'excessive strength can equal accidental murder' what else is there? And sparkling doesn't count.

Again, I don't see why there is any point in following this portion, since I haven't made any claims regarding the number of weaknesses, but only that Meyer intends the characters to possess weakness.

 

Edit: Slovu hit it on the nose. I'm not making an argument over quality, or even quantity, but only of the author's intention

 

(I'd also argue that Superman is equally boring, with or without Kryptonite. But that's an argument for a different thread.)

Actually, you'd be surprised how often Superman gets the daylights beaten out of him. Everyone's familiar with him having only one weakness, but in many newer lines, while he is very powerful, he has a good balance of challenge in his enemies, and regularly while acting as a focal point for the heroes doesn't completely outshine them.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[terioncalling]

What was Meyer's "scientific" explanation for a hundred-year-old corpse being able to impregnate a human girl anyway?

 

Some explanation through extra dangling DNA chromosomes equal vampire and when combined with human somehow come together to create pairs. Or something. I'll see if I can find where its at again.

 

Well there is this from her site:

Vampires are physically similar enough to their human origins to pass as humans under some circumstances (like cloudy days). There are many basic differences. They appear to have skin like ours, albeit very fair skin. The skin serves the same general purpose of protecting the body. However, the cells that make up their skin are not pliant like our cells, they are hard and reflective like crystal. A fluid similar to the venom in their mouths works as a lubricant between the cells, which makes movement possible (note: this fluid is very flammable). A fluid similar to the same venom lubricates their eyes so that their eyes can move easily in their sockets. (However, they don't produce tears because tears exist to protect the eye from damage, and nothing is going to be able to scratch a vampire's eye.) The lubricant-venom in the eyes and skin is not able to infect a human the way saliva-venom can. Similarly, throughout the vampire's body are many versions of venom-based fluids that retain a marked resemblance to the fluid that was replaced, and function in much the same way and toward the same purpose. Though there is no venom replacement that works precisely like blood, many of the functions of blood are carried on in some form. Also, the nervous system runs in a slightly different but heightened way. Some involuntary reactions, like breathing, continue (in that specific example because vampires use the scents in the air much more than we do, rather than out of a need for oxygen). Other involuntary reactions, like blinking, don't exist because there is no purpose for them. The normal reactions of arousal are still present in vampires, made possible by venom-related fluids that cause tissues to react similarly as they do to an influx of blood. Like with vampire skin—which looks similar to human skin and has the same basic function—fluids closely related to seminal fluids still exist in male vampires, which carry genetic information and are capable of bonding with a human ovum. This was not a known fact in the vampire world (outside of Joham's personal experimenting) before Nessie, because it's nearly impossible for a vampire to be that near a human and not kill her.

 

I forget where I saw the DNA bit. It may be on there or have been somewhere else. As I said, I'll see if I can find it.

 

And I have glanced at the book before but only skimmed.

 

I disagree that weaknesses are overrated as well--if I wanted to hear about an all-powerful being that couldn't be beaten, I'd crack open a Bible. But it is possible to make a story work without having a character be weak. In fact, most stories only work if there is a happy medium between strength and weakness--the average teenage girl being battered by denizens of a hell dimension would make for a short and unsatisfying read if she couldn't fight back in some way. It is possible to have a character that has Mary Sue levels of power and still be interesting. Look at Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen. He's essentially a god, and yet he's one of the most fascinating characters in the whole series. Since I haven't read it, I can't say for certain one way or the other, but I've heard Morpheus from Sandman is pretty similar in terms of insane powers and lack of weaknesses.

 

(I'd also argue that Superman is equally boring, with or without Kryptonite. But that's an argument for a different thread.)

 

Dr. Manhattan also has the weakness of becoming increasingly disconnected from humanity.

 

As someone who owns pretty much all of Sandman, I can say Morpheus does have his weaknesses. Can't state them all off the top of my head as its almost 4am and I'm starting to get woozy but he does have them.

 

Well, they're all impulsive, overemotional psychos. Does that count? tongue.gif

 

I don't think Esau is attempting to give Twilight a ringing endorsement. In fact, he said it himself:

 

I suppose so.

 

And I know he's not. We've thrown things back and forth in this topic before and that has come up.

 

As far as I understand, that means that the weaknesses Meyer gave her vampires aren't sufficient, but Esau believes that Meyer did mean to give them weaknesses.

 

But seriously, guys, let's not start sniping at each other. Do you really want to get mad over an internet argument about Twilight of all things? laugh.gif

 

*narrows eyes at screen* Hrm. Only one weakness was pointed out so I assumed from there. That and I can't think of anything else counting as a weakness from their species other than sparkling.

 

My apologies for the slight sniping. One of my cat's may have broken his leg earlier (hoping its just a sprain) so I'm a bit off tonight with worry over the possible vet visit in the morning.

Edited October 12, 2009 by terioncalling

[slovu]

Some explanation through extra dangling DNA chromosomes equal vampire and when combined with human somehow come together to create pairs. Or something. I'll see if I can find where its at again.

 

Well there is this from her site:

 

 

I forget where I saw the DNA bit. It may be on there or have been somewhere else. As I said, I'll see if I can find it.

 

And I have glanced at the book before but only skimmed.

...I read that block of text and can't remember a word. It's too late for me to try to decipher her logic.

 

Dr. Manhattan also has the weakness of becoming increasingly disconnected from humanity.

 

As someone who owns pretty much all of Sandman, I can say Morpheus does have his weaknesses.  Can't state them all off the top of my head as its almost 4am and I'm starting to get woozy but he does have them.

 

Is it a weakness, though? While it does temporarily bring him some pain and suffering, the fact that he essentially had ascended to godhood at the end and was off to create new life always made me think he got his happy ending, or the closest thing to one in a universe as bleak as Watchmen.

 

Bad example, then. I was wracking my brain for an example of a near-omnipotent character that fit the bill, and I only know enough about Sandman to know that Morpheus is pretty high up there are far as power goes. I should really just give in and read Sandman. I know I will eventually...

 

I suppose so. 

 

And I know he's not.  We've thrown things back and forth in this topic before and that has come up.

 

I actually believe the Cullens would be pretty easy to take out. Just separate each vampire from his/her partner and keep them a scrambled, emotional wreck while you pick them off one by one. Alice and Edward's abilities make this a little more difficult, but really, it would be possible.

 

To be honest, I think I'd check Esau for brain parasites if he started championing Twilight. It just seems very unlike him.

 

*narrows eyes at screen*  Hrm.  Only one weakness was pointed out so I assumed from there.  That and I can't think of anything else counting as a weakness from their species other than sparkling.

 

My apologies for the slight sniping.  One of my cat's may have broken his leg earlier (hoping its just a sprain) so I'm a bit off tonight with worry over the possible vet visit in the morning.

 

Actually, I agree with you on that point. While Meyer probably was trying to give them weaknesses, she failed rather badly. Which is a shame, because there's bucketloads of neuroses and psychological issues inherent to being an immortal being who still experiences life at a human pace just waiting to be explored. Especially since they repeat high school so often. Just think of the never-ending trauma!

 

D: Your poor cat! I hope he ends up all right.

[terioncalling]

...I read that block of text and can't remember a word. It's too late for me to try to decipher her logic.

 

I still can't get over venom=seminal fluids. I'm not sure how that one computes.

 

Is it a weakness, though? While it does temporarily bring him some pain and suffering, the fact that he essentially had ascended to godhood at the end and was off to create new life always made me think he got his happy ending, or the closest thing to one in a universe as bleak as Watchmen.

 

Bad example, then. I was wracking my brain for an example of a near-omnipotent character that fit the bill, and I only know enough about Sandman to know that Morpheus is pretty high up there are far as power goes. I should really just give in and read Sandman. I know I will eventually...

 

Being as his detachment from humanity causes problems, I'd say so. His happy ending, yes, but before that it was causing him problems.

 

As are most of the Endless from Sandman. Morpheus does get trapped and held for decades (in place of his sister Death who was the target) - which is where we first see him. And he's not the most powerful being in that universe. There's Titania and Oberon, Lucifer, angels (two who get named but I forgot which now), and the Furies (or Fates - though I think they may be called both), all of whom are pretty high up there too. And, yes, read it. Neil Gaiman is an awesome storyteller.

 

I actually believe the Cullens would be pretty easy to take out. Just separate each vampire from his/her partner and keep them a scrambled, emotional wreck while you pick them off one by one. Alice and Edward's abilities make this a little more difficult, but really, it would be possible.

 

To be honest, I think I'd check Esau for brain parasites if he started championing Twilight. It just seems very unlike him.

 

There is the diamond skin to get through though. Which is one of the things that bothers me about them. Sparkly skin...I can almost handle that if I imagine they're Fae. Hard cells that shine like diamonds with venom between to assist in movement...not so much.

 

This is true!

 

Actually, I agree with you on that point. While Meyer probably was trying to give them weaknesses, she failed rather badly. Which is a shame, because there's  bucketloads of neuroses and psychological issues inherent to being an immortal being who still experiences life at a human pace just waiting to be explored. Especially since they repeat high school so often. Just think of the never-ending trauma!

 

D: Your poor cat! I hope he ends up all right.

 

Exactly! *frown* Which is something I need to remember to explore with my own vampires. Hmm.

 

He's going to be okay. Unfortunately it was a fracture and not just a sprain but he's at the vet now and they're supposed to do surgery tomorrow, insert a pin and wires to realign and keep it together so it can heal. The only trauma will be pocketbooks from the amount of money its costing.

 

 

Also, found where I read the DNA bit. It was on the Scientific Inaccuracies page on Frozen Apples which, albeit, is not the best source but still...I get a kick out of reading all of the madness and tales of fan absurdity.

[evilbunny405]

I like reading this topic. Its like a game of ping pong Heres my bit to be added:

People seem to be going on about how "not vampireish" the Cullens are. So this leads me to question: what is a vampire anyway. So I took out my dads scary looking dictionary and got this:

The reanimated body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons alseep.

I checked two other dictionaries and they all pretty much said the same thing.

As for the weakness debate, I personally have no problem with it. Cockroaches survive nuclear explosions so why can't other creatures do the same?

Just my opinion.

[Dr. Paine]

I like reading this topic. Its like a game of ping pong Heres my bit to be added:

People seem to be going on about how "not vampireish" the Cullens are. So this leads me to question: what is a vampire anyway. So I took out my dads scary looking dictionary and got this:

 

I checked two other dictionaries and they all pretty much said the same thing.

As for the weakness debate, I personally have no problem with it. Cockroaches survive nuclear explosions so why can't other creatures do the same?

Just my opinion.

And you realize that a lot of things go beyond the simple definition in a dictionary, right? Go read the Vampire Encyclopedia, then get back to us.

[Esau of Isaac]

And you realize that a lot of things go beyond the simple definition in a dictionary, right? Go read the Vampire Encyclopedia, then get back to us.

No need to take a superior tone, that's about fair for a vampire, barring the grave. Which is oft-used in famous vampiric literature (including, but not limited to, good ol' Bram Stoker's finest).

 

For the record, make an effort not to demand someone to look for another book when telling them they are wrong. It doesn't tell them how they are wrong, just forces them to exit a discussion until they find the time to reach the nearest library/bookstore with required cash, get the book, and then read it in its entirety. There's no way they can comply with your suggestion, so you're really just saying "shut up" in a roundabout way.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[terioncalling]

Cockroaches survive nuclear explosions so why can't other creatures do the same?

 

They're also tiny and have been around for forever. If I'm not mistaken, they're the most adaptable insect on the planet.

 

Nuclear explosion or no, you can still crush 'em with a shoe. Unless its that one X-Files episode but I digress.

 

The reanimated body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons alseep.

 

The definition gives me a pondering thought: do Meyerpires die during the process of being Turned?

[slovu]

The definition gives me a pondering thought: do Meyerpires die during the process of being Turned?

I don't think this is ever adequately explained in the books. I'd usually say that, yes, they do, because that's fundamental to the definition of a vampire, but given that Meyer breaks a bunch of other fundamental rules of vampirism, it's really not a given.

 

Anyone feel like talking about the werewolves? I have fewer issues with them than I do with the vampires, but that's not saying much. Am I the only one who wondered why the werewolves could function with their minds so linked?