Twilight fangirls have reached a new... wtf?!

[RockBandRocker]

My favourite one so far has to be


Its not actually from that site but from Geekologie.com

Is it sad that I read that and thought of the "Ex-Leper" scene from "Monty Python's The Life Of Brian"?

[Cpt. Overkill]

This site makes me fear the future.

[davidshek]

You know, historically people tended to mess their pants for the opposite reason the guy did when they saw vampires.

See, this is what makes me laugh so much about this thread...so many people are all "They're not vampires! Stephanie Meyer is a hack! She doesn't know what vampires really are! Or werewolves!"

You know, historically, vampires and werewolves are... FICTIONAL CREATURES. They're not real. There is no one definition of what they are because they're FAKE. So who cares how an author uses the word "vampire" or "werewolf"? So what if Bram Stoker or Anne Rice described them differently? That doesn't make them any more "right" than Meyer.

[Sarge51]

You know, historically, vampires and werewolves are... FICTIONAL CREATURES. They're not real. There is no one definition of what they are because they're FAKE. So who cares how an author uses the word "vampire" or "werewolf"? So what if Bram Stoker or Anne Rice described them differently? That doesn't make them any more "right" than Meyer.

Just because something is real doesn't mean it does not have a definition and that it's okay to misuse the term. Misusing a term, even if that term is of something that's non-fictitious, just makes you look dumb.

[davidshek]

Just because something is real doesn't mean it does not have a definition and that it's okay to misuse the term. Misusing a term, even if that term is of something that's non-fictitious, just makes you look dumb.

But who gets to define that term? Bram Stoker? And why, just because he used it first? That's silly.

They're fictional creatures. They are fake. They don't exist. They never existed. That, by its very definition, means that there are no rules.

[bood-boy]

for instance, a cat playing with thread is ironic. just cause someone said thats ironic, doesnt mean its ironic.

[davidshek]

for instance, a cat playing with thread is ironic. just cause someone said thats ironic, doesnt mean its ironic.

Irony is a real word that has a very specific definition. Vampires do not because they're not real.

Just because Meyers' vampires don't fit Stoker's use of the word doesn't mean they aren't vampires by her definition.

[Der_Lex]

Irony is a real word that has a very specific definition. Vampires do not because they're not real.

Just because Meyers' vampires don't fit Stoker's use of the word doesn't mean they aren't vampires by her definition.

What a word means can change over time, and words can pick up additional meanings as well. That's because language is basically a set of agreements between people in order to be able to communicate about the world around them with others, which in turn means that every word is 'made up'... the only thing that is 'real' is the object that word represents (and real or not real becomes really hazy when describing intangible things such as ideals or emotions).

That being said, fictional concepts can have certain traditions or conventions attached to them, and going against such conventions is likely to react a negative reaction in some people. Although I would argue that the 'Twilight vampire' isn't that different from the Dracula-style vampire, in the sense that it is a human-like monster, a wolf in sheep's clothing' with the lust for blood as a thinly veiled metaphor for sex (in an interesting way, things have come full circle... from the puritanism of the Victorian age to the puritanism of Meyer's Mormon beliefs).

Still, from what I've read of the Twilight vampires they do feel awfully... neutered, in lack of a better word. They lack a lot of the sense of danger of their predecessors, and they feel like mopey teens rather than truly cursed monsters (of course, this fits the intended demographic for the books just fine). Then again, the books are romance novels, not horror stories. But it does make sense that taking horror creatures for a romance book would upset some horror fans. It's like your sister stealing your GI Joes as a kid and using them for pretend weddings with their Barbies.

[davidshek]

It's like your sister stealing your GI Joes as a kid and using them for pretend weddings with their Barbies.

Replace "GI Joes" with "He-Man" and that actually did happen

[Mex]

BrokENCYDE or Twilight?

I was talking about BrokeNCYDE but it works for both.

See, this is what makes me laugh so much about this thread...so many people are all "They're not vampires! Stephanie Meyer is a hack! She doesn't know what vampires really are! Or werewolves!"

You know, historically, vampires and werewolves are... FICTIONAL CREATURES. They're not real. There is no one definition of what they are because they're FAKE. So who cares how an author uses the word "vampire" or "werewolf"? So what if Bram Stoker or Anne Rice described them differently? That doesn't make them any more "right" than Meyer.

But who gets to define that term? Bram Stoker? And why, just because he used it first? That's silly.

They're fictional creatures. They are fake. They don't exist. They never existed. That, by its very definition, means that there are no rules.

OMG Shek is a closet Twilight fan