The ultimate battle of ultimate retardedness.
0
Personal I believe that if you like the Twilight saga for any reason you are a retard. so with that said, i got into an argument with a co-worker about this.
Aside from the Vampires Sparkle shit that Twilight fags believe, and the Vampires do not sparkle they burst into flames, arguments I found a way to end all debate with one simple, point of argument.
Faeries, the Cullins' are faeries. BLOOD SUCKING FAIRIES!
Not only does this end the argument it puts Twilight fags in their places.
Do you agree?
Aside from the Vampires Sparkle shit that Twilight fags believe, and the Vampires do not sparkle they burst into flames, arguments I found a way to end all debate with one simple, point of argument.
Faeries, the Cullins' are faeries. BLOOD SUCKING FAIRIES!
Not only does this end the argument it puts Twilight fags in their places.
Do you agree?
0
Aai
FAKKU Ass Master
When I think about Twilight, I wonder why she would consider Necrophilia or Beastiality...
0
Twilight is for those who cant make it in real life or in the virtual world. The OP has a point I could totally see them as blood sucking fairies.
0
I think I'll even beat the Cullens in ultimate retardedness, due to the things that people have been telling me.
0
From a fantasy standpoint, I've got nothing. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with her vampires sparkling in the sunlight or somehow sustaining themselves entirely on woodland creatures. There's nothing wrong with werewolves having only two forms, wolf and human, with no "in between" form. Am I defending Twilight? Hell no, I dislike Twilight. Am I defending the author's creative licensing? Not in so many words--I dislike Stephenie Meyer as an author. But changing the rules of a few fantasy creatures doesn't make it a bad book.
Let's look at a similar comparison I see made often. In Lord of the Rings, the elves are cast as nature-bound creatures with elegant features who live longs lives in forests, are exceptionally skilled with a bow, and revere the beauty of nature and wildlife above all else. Dwarves are cast as underground-dwelling creatures of short stature, large, ridiculous beards, and a complex understanding of rocks, statues, tunnels, and the inner-workings of the earth. My descriptions might be slightly abridged, but you get my point.
Now, did you grow up believing elves were the way they are in Lord of the Rings? I'm willing to bet you didn't. I'm willing to bet that your first impression of elves came from your parents telling you the story of Santa Clause and all his elven helpers up in his North Pole workshop. What about the Keebler Elves that make cookies all day in their little tree house? For most of us, that was our first impression of elves--so why didn't we get up in arms and try to burn J. R. R. Tolkien at the stake for going against the norm? Because we thought it was cool.
Again, I don't like Twilight--but as a fellow writer, I don't dislike it for her desire to make changes to the rules or habits of a fantasy race. She's not the first author to do so, and she won't be the last. Just because most of us didn't choke down the seemingly-inane prospect of vampires sparkling in sunlight as "cool" or "sexy" doesn't make it any different from Tolkien deciding to make forest-dwelling elves and rock-bound dwarves "cool".
If you want to know why I dislike Twilight, you need only ask. I'm just clarifying something that is not one of the reasons.
Let's look at a similar comparison I see made often. In Lord of the Rings, the elves are cast as nature-bound creatures with elegant features who live longs lives in forests, are exceptionally skilled with a bow, and revere the beauty of nature and wildlife above all else. Dwarves are cast as underground-dwelling creatures of short stature, large, ridiculous beards, and a complex understanding of rocks, statues, tunnels, and the inner-workings of the earth. My descriptions might be slightly abridged, but you get my point.
Now, did you grow up believing elves were the way they are in Lord of the Rings? I'm willing to bet you didn't. I'm willing to bet that your first impression of elves came from your parents telling you the story of Santa Clause and all his elven helpers up in his North Pole workshop. What about the Keebler Elves that make cookies all day in their little tree house? For most of us, that was our first impression of elves--so why didn't we get up in arms and try to burn J. R. R. Tolkien at the stake for going against the norm? Because we thought it was cool.
Again, I don't like Twilight--but as a fellow writer, I don't dislike it for her desire to make changes to the rules or habits of a fantasy race. She's not the first author to do so, and she won't be the last. Just because most of us didn't choke down the seemingly-inane prospect of vampires sparkling in sunlight as "cool" or "sexy" doesn't make it any different from Tolkien deciding to make forest-dwelling elves and rock-bound dwarves "cool".
If you want to know why I dislike Twilight, you need only ask. I'm just clarifying something that is not one of the reasons.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
It's not that I dislike the fact that is changing things.
It's the fact that did (she admitted this) pretty much no research whatsoever on vampire lore.
I don't mind if you change things. One of the story ideas I have involved vampires and I change it around myself.
But don't write about something you don't fucking know. Especially if you're doing no research on the matter.
And she misses the whole point of what makes a vampire a vampire because of it.
It's the fact that did (she admitted this) pretty much no research whatsoever on vampire lore.
I don't mind if you change things. One of the story ideas I have involved vampires and I change it around myself.
But don't write about something you don't fucking know. Especially if you're doing no research on the matter.
And she misses the whole point of what makes a vampire a vampire because of it.
0
Kalistean wrote...
It's not that I dislike the fact that is changing things.It's the fact that did (she admitted this) pretty much no research whatsoever on vampire lore.
I don't mind if you change things. One of the story ideas I have involved vampires and I change it around myself.
But don't write about something you don't fucking know. Especially if you're doing no research on the matter.
And she misses the whole point of what makes a vampire a vampire because of it.
That's the thing, though. She wasn't writing a research paper, she was writing a story. Whether she called it Vampire or Closet-bound Penis Eater, it's still a new creature. It just shares a name with an older creature. :v
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Noutakun wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
It's not that I dislike the fact that is changing things.It's the fact that did (she admitted this) pretty much no research whatsoever on vampire lore.
I don't mind if you change things. One of the story ideas I have involved vampires and I change it around myself.
But don't write about something you don't fucking know. Especially if you're doing no research on the matter.
And she misses the whole point of what makes a vampire a vampire because of it.
That's the thing, though. She wasn't writing a research paper, she was writing a story. Whether she called it Vampire or Closet-bound Penis Eater, it's still a new creature. It just shares a name with an older creature. :v
Um no. If you're going to write a story on something already existing. You do research on it.
You don't just pull a name from fantasy and throw it on a story. That's a large insult to the original authors of it.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Noutakun wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
It's not that I dislike the fact that is changing things.It's the fact that did (she admitted this) pretty much no research whatsoever on vampire lore.
I don't mind if you change things. One of the story ideas I have involved vampires and I change it around myself.
But don't write about something you don't fucking know. Especially if you're doing no research on the matter.
And she misses the whole point of what makes a vampire a vampire because of it.
That's the thing, though. She wasn't writing a research paper, she was writing a story. Whether she called it Vampire or Closet-bound Penis Eater, it's still a new creature. It just shares a name with an older creature. :v
Um no. If you're going to write a story on something already existing. You do research on it.
You don't just pull a name from fantasy and throw it on a story. That's a large insult to the original authors of it.
If that's the case, then, even the original authors of Vampire horror are to be burned, because the vampire was a creature of folklore that most often looked more like a rotting corpse than a person. Even Bram Stoker's Dracula had a human appearance.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Noutakun wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Noutakun wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
It's not that I dislike the fact that is changing things.It's the fact that did (she admitted this) pretty much no research whatsoever on vampire lore.
I don't mind if you change things. One of the story ideas I have involved vampires and I change it around myself.
But don't write about something you don't fucking know. Especially if you're doing no research on the matter.
And she misses the whole point of what makes a vampire a vampire because of it.
That's the thing, though. She wasn't writing a research paper, she was writing a story. Whether she called it Vampire or Closet-bound Penis Eater, it's still a new creature. It just shares a name with an older creature. :v
Um no. If you're going to write a story on something already existing. You do research on it.
You don't just pull a name from fantasy and throw it on a story. That's a large insult to the original authors of it.
If that's the case, then, even the original authors of Vampire horror are to be burned, because the vampire was a creature of folklore that most often looked more like a rotting corpse than a person. Even Bram Stoker's Dracula had a human appearance.
I'm not saying you can't change it kid.
I'm saying you need to look into what you're writing before you do.
