User talk:Xulicote

Vampire (Twilight)
First off, I have no problems with the sources that you used. Let me break down more thoroughly my problem with your edit, since I couldn't do so properly in the edit summary:

1) My biggest issue is that your wording casts Meyer's lack of research in a negative light. I'm not against stating that she didn't research vampire legends, but saying things like "Meyer's disregard for research" makes it sound lazy and negative, as if she should have done this research but chose not to. In reality, it shouldn't matter if she researched these things or not. It is her story, and since it is fiction, she should be able to write it however she wants. I think it would be more appropriate to make it more obvious that she just chose to make her vampires different, and thus didn't bother following such legends.

2) I see no reason to remove the word "traditional" from the "Deviations" section, but that's so minor that it really doesn't matter much. In that same section, it is incorrect to say that they have no weaknesses at all, since they can still be destroyed; they are not invincible. Also, some of the other additions to this section are not really related to "Deviations from vampire legend", but are comments on their abilities. They are therefore somewhat off-topic and would be more fitting in the "Abilities" section, if anywhere.

3) As for your addition of "but this is not backed by any scientific data or research", I agree with you. The rest of that sentence is an opinion, and so it should probably be removed completely instead of remaining with a disclaimer.

4) They still rely solely on blood for nourishment, as it is their only possible source of food. Regardless of them being unable to "starve", the statement is still true since they essentially require blood (and only blood) to function normally.

I'm sorry you don't agree with my revert, but hopefully now you understand why I thought it necessary. I hope you'll be open to discussion on these points. Thanks. Andrea ( talk ) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for happy mediums! And I like to think that I'm not unreasonable, either. However, I completely disagree with you on our first point. And to be perfectly honest, I have no idea who Jim Loehr is, and therefore don't see why we should follow his ideas of storytelling. This sounds like his opinion on stories, but it is by no means a universal opinion. Who says fiction should have to conform to anything? That's the beauty of fiction, really. If I wanted to write a novel about a dog that could fly, it shouldn't matter that dogs can't actually fly and that no other stories about dogs have ever allowed them to fly. And something like that should matter even less when writing about fictional creatures. That's like saying that anyone who writes stories about aliens must make them little green men, since that is a long-established example of what they can look like. When looking through other vampire stories, none of them are identical. All have some degree of difference over what defines a vampire. Should any story after the first one ever written about vampires have necessarily followed the established "vampire rules" exactly? Obviously this is not the case, but of course a line must be drawn. I think the only consistency there has ever needed to be in order to use the term "vampire" is to have (human-like) creatures that drink blood.


 * I guess my main point is that Meyer chose to have her "vampires" be different, and there is nothing wrong with that. They didn't just turn out being different because she failed to research them properly. In fact, she actually does mention a few of the typical vampire traits (ex. burning up in the sun, not appearing in photographs, having fangs, etc.) in the novels, sometimes even offering explanations of where the myths may have come from, in her world. Thus, I don't think it's right to say that the reason for the differences is her disregard of research. That's just how she wanted to write the story, and she shouldn't have been obligated to write it differently. Also, I just noticed that your reference for her lack of research is actually about The Host, not Twilight :P (though I'm sure one can be found for Twilight, too). Once a proper reference is found, I would prefer wording along the lines of "Meyer admits to doing little to no research on vampire mythology", or something like that. It's a pure statement of fact, and doesn't imply that research and/or following all of the established vampire myths is necessary. Since this reply is already quite long, I won't comment on the other points just yet. This is the most important one, anyway.  Andrea  ( talk ) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know why the opinions of random authors should matter on this subject, since they are still opinions, but I can agree that "fiction should make sense". That being said, I don't see how Meyer's story makes any less sense than any other supernatural story. I'm not sure what you mean about the small section about typical vampire traits being tacked on, since I don't recall it only coming up once. For example, the second book in the series is where "not showing up in pictures" is mentioned, and both the second and third are where explicit "fangs" references are made. I feel as though those references are randomly scattered throughout all three books (I'm actually not sure if you've read them all, though). But in any case, whether or not her publisher asked her to throw things like that in after the fact is really aside from the point. I'm still unconvinced that should have been required to research vampires. Nobody owns the term "vampire", so it's not as if she is un-rightfully using the word. I've just looked up the definition of "vampire" on a number of different sites, and they all state drinking blood as the main trait; none even mentioned all of the other qualities that we are debating, since (even before Twilight) none tend to be consistent across all vampire stories.

Also, I don't know that you can accurately say that her vampires aren't "dead". I would say that not having a beating heart lends support to the idea that they are. Either way, I don't see how they're any less "dead" than other vampires: from the examples I can think of, vampires never age and so are always as equally "frozen in time" as hers are.

I can agree that her statement in the source almost certainly refers to Twilight as well, but technically that's an inference on our part since she never actually mentions it. I'll also try to find a reference that explicitly states a lack of research for Twilight, since I'm sure I've read that before too, but I agree that the reference you found can remain until one of us finds it.

Now I'll just touch on the second point that was brought up in our first messages. You're right, I agree, the word "traditional" can go. No more argument there. However, let me go all Twilight-nerd now and explain about them being destroyed: yes, you can destroy a Twilight vampire by tearing them up and burning the pieces. However, their bodies are too tough to be cut by any mortal means. This isn't an inconsistency, it just means that it would take another vampire or a werewolf to do so (or some other way that we haven't been told yet). As for Jane, her ability actually has nothing to do with burning. In fact, it isn't even a power that affects anybody physically at all: she gives people a mental illusion of pain. And it has only been mentioned as a form as torture, not as a method of killing. Back to weaknesses, in Twilight Edward says, "there are very few ways we can be killed." Therefore, I think the wording should remain as saying they have "very few weaknesses", instead of none at all. Or else, we could just clarify that they have no "mortal" weaknesses; if they had no weaknesses at all, they would always live forever! End nerd rant. Andrea ( talk ) 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, I hadn't noticed the new link you gave me until just now. I agree, that's a better reference since it's specifically about Twilight. And her vampires do function on blood: the blood of other people (or animals). I'm not sure how that's any different from other vampires. Even though they might not be able to "starve", going long without blood makes them incredibly weak. I'm certain they would have trouble moving at all if they had no blood in their system.


 * The vampires themselves have strength enough to destroy another vampire, it is completely unrelated to technology. And Jane was burned at the stake when she was still a human. She was rescued by a vampire, who then changed her into one as well. Do you still think there are inconsistencies concerning their weaknesses? Andrea  ( talk ) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)