# Battle of the un-traditional Vampires



## GothicCandle (Mar 26, 2007)

Okay, lets try and chat lightly. I don't mean to make a heavy debate, I was just wondering.

I bought the book "Interview with the Vampire." I only recently saw the old movie and I quite liked it so I wanted to read it. Up until now I have boycotted Ann Rice because everyone tells me she's creepy and sadistic. I don't know much about her, but after reading the first chapter of this book I have discovered she has an amazing knack with wording. Which of course is the most difficult part of writing. One thing though I find interesting is that Ann Rice is considered queen of vampires right? I mean, she has written most of the modern favorites, right? I find it quite interesting though that she does indeed change vampire legend. People who hate "Twilight" often say they hate it because it changes traditional vampire legend. hmmm, well let's do a comparison of twilight(which I've read all four books) and Interview with the Vampire(which i have read the first chapter so far and seen the movie)

*Crosses:* Have no effect on ether type of vampire.

*Mirrors:* Both types can be seen in mirrors.

*How to become a vampire in twilight:* the vampire bites you and if they let you live you become a vampire(this would be more traditional, eh?)

*How to become a vampire in Interview with the Vampire:* a vampire bites you and can choose to kill you or let you live, ether way biting alone does not make you a vampire(you must drink vampire blood)

*The process of becoming a vampire:* A physical change happens in both cases. Transforming them from human to vampire, in "Twilight" this takes a week or so, whereas in "Interview with the Vampire" it takes a few hours. Both ways are very painful.

*What happens when a vampire tastes human blood in twilight:* they become completely unaware of all other things, they enter a sort of frenzy and all they want is blood."

*What happens when a vampire tastes human blood in Interview with the vampire:* they become completely unaware of all other things, they become entranced and all they want is more blood(hmmm that sounds familiar...)

*How a vampire looks in Interview with the vampire:* Pale, but beautiful and mesmerizing.

*How a vampire looks in Twilight:* Pale, but beautiful and mesmerizing.

*Strength and other senses:* Both vampires are extremely strong. If one wants to hurt you, they will, there is no use fighting them. They are both so fast they can move and a human can't see them move. Both have extremely good eyesight and both have extraordinary hearing.

*Doorways:* Both types of vampires have the ability to go anywhere they want, if they want to go there. Nothing stops them.

*Transforming into animal form:* nether type can do this.

*Being immune to disease and death:* Both vampires are ever powerful, they never get sick and can never die of old age or disease. They are completely unchanged. They both don't age, grow, or change physically in anyway.

*When a new vampire is created:* Both types of vampires go through a "oh look what i can do, wow!" stage of marveling at themselves. They have new found strength, speed, better eyesight and such and they must learn about these new abilities. They are not instantly perfect. They can make mistakes with the fact that this is all new to them.

*Vampire laws in Twilight:* Don't tell the mortals that vampires exist. Don't create child vampires.

*Vampire laws In Interview with the vampire:* Don't kill another vampire. making children into vampires is frowned upon(according to the movie, haven't read this part of the book yet).

*Stake through the heart:* Has no effect on ether kind of vampire.

Heartbeat: "Twilight" vampires have no heart beat at all. "Interview with the vampire" Vampires do.

*Sunshine in Twilight:* Doesn't hurt the vampire, but if seen by a human they are instantly recognized as non-human.

*
Sunshine in Interview with the Vampire:* Kills vampires.

so uhh, what made it about twilight to make so many people hate it because it apparently didn't stick to the legends. I can understand if someone just doesn't like Stephenie Meyer's way of writing, but to say they don't like it because it's not traditional, well, they are just as traditional or un-traditional as Ann Rice's and everyone seems to love her...

Just wondering.


----------



## HalloweenGirl101 (Feb 23, 2009)

I feel like so many people started to hate Twilight because it became such a phenomenon. At a certain point it seems to become "cool" to hate what's really popular.
I personally really love Twilight and think Interview with the Vampire is really good, too. It doesn't really matter to me if traditional legend is kept, I like each book individually and think that if the author is creative enough to come up with their own ideas on vampires then that's a good thing.


----------



## GothicCandle (Mar 26, 2007)

HalloweenGirl101 said:


> I feel like so many people started to hate Twilight because it became such a phenomenon. At a certain point it seems to become "cool" to hate what's really popular.
> I personally really love Twilight and think Interview with the Vampire is really good, too. It doesn't really matter to me if traditional legend is kept, I like each book individually and think that if the author is creative enough to come up with their own ideas on vampires then that's a good thing.


I agree.


----------



## Dr Morbius (Sep 21, 2004)

From a guy point of view, the BOTH the Anne Rice and Twilight vampires are "un traditional" because of the romantic/emo whiney things they do. By untraditional I mean they think too much, aren't evil enough, and fall in live in one way or another. A TRUE vampire just eats. That's it. At least that's the kind of Vampire movie I like, no dressy clothes, no romance, just eat and go.


----------



## randyaz (May 26, 2006)

One cannot begin to perform a litarary contrast or camparison without including the story of which all vampires stories are measured against...*Dracula: Dead and Loving It*


----------



## GothicCandle (Mar 26, 2007)

Dr Morbius said:


> From a guy point of view, the BOTH the Anne Rice and Twilight vampires are "un traditional" because of the romantic/emo whiney things they do. By untraditional I mean they think too much, aren't evil enough, and fall in live in one way or another. A TRUE vampire just eats. That's it. At least that's the kind of Vampire movie I like, no dressy clothes, no romance, just eat and go.


Right, that's what I'm saying. So why do people love Anne Rice and hate Stephenie meyer? and also, btw, 90% of the vampires in twilight are "Just eat, that's all" type. They are blood thirsty killers who don't care who you are, why your there or where you're going, they will eat you because they feel like doing that. They don't think about it. The Cullens and five others are the ONLY vampires which think about what they are doing and try and act against their true nature(of blood thirsty killers.) and it's the same way with "Interview" only a very select few of the vampire characters have any guilt what so ever, in ether book. So if that is what makes a traditional vampire, then both books are very traditional. Majority rules.


----------



## debbie5 (Mar 2, 2007)

Watch an interview with Ann RIce and her son.
CREEPY weird...


----------



## Papa Bones (Jul 27, 2005)

I agree with the good Dr. and I don't hate one author and love the other, I dislike them both. Being brutally honest, the homoerotic undertones in Rice's work turned me off of "Interview with the Vampire" about halfway through it, and I have never read or seen "Twilight" but my niece is obsessed with it like most tweens seem to be, and I dislike Meyer because she seems to be copying Rice (check out the OP's list) Further, I can't stand the whole emo vampire thing, since that foolishness started it seems like every horror book or t.v. show that comes out is more like paranormal romance, and this is rapidly spreading to urban fantasy, so wussy vampires are ruining 2 of my favorite genres. To Hell with the notion that a vampire, or a werewolf, or a zombie has a love life, I want my monsters to be, well, monstery. I've said this before I know, but check out Jack Crow's nemesis in the movie "Vampires" and Johnathan Mayberry's character Karl Ruger, they are what vampires are supposed to be.


----------



## Rahnefan (May 1, 2009)

GothicCandle said:


> I bought the book "Interview with the Vampire." I only recently saw the old movie and I quite liked it so I wanted to read it.


I just now, right now, officially became an Old Man. :crykin:


----------



## debbie5 (Mar 2, 2007)

LMAO. 

WTH is "emo"- i see so many diff definitions...


----------



## scareme (Aug 29, 2006)

I wonder if Stephenie Meyer has read any of Anne Rice's work. There does seem to be alot in common. I was sorry to hear you had been boycotting Anne's books because of what others said. You should always decide for yourself. I'm glad to hear you like her style of wording. So do I.


----------



## GothicCandle (Mar 26, 2007)

PapaBones:


> I agree with the good Dr. and I don't hate one author and love the other, I dislike them both. Being brutally honest, the homoerotic undertones in Rice's work turned me off of "Interview with the Vampire" about halfway through it, and I have never read or seen "Twilight" but my niece is obsessed with it like most tweens seem to be, and I dislike Meyer because she seems to be copying Rice (check out the OP's list) Further, I can't stand the whole emo vampire thing, since that foolishness started it seems like every horror book or t.v. show that comes out is more like paranormal romance, and this is rapidly spreading to urban fantasy, so wussy vampires are ruining 2 of my favorite genres. To Hell with the notion that a vampire, or a werewolf, or a zombie has a love life, I want my monsters to be, well, monstery. I've said this before I know, but check out Jack Crow's nemesis in the movie "Vampires" and Johnathan Mayberry's character Karl Ruger, they are what vampires are supposed to be.


Well, I tend to prefer "monsters" that still hold a bit of humanity to them. I'm fond of duality in all things, good and bad at the same time, internal battle of good and evil. I think it makes for a more interesting story line then "It's evil, it was always evil, it will always be evil, just RUN" version.

Scareme:


> I wonder if Stephenie Meyer has read any of Anne Rice's work. There does seem to be alot in common. I was sorry to hear you had been boycotting Anne's books because of what others said. You should always decide for yourself. I'm glad to hear you like her style of wording. So do I.


Yeah, It's really good. Easily imagined. Smooth style and well thought out, with added points for the tad of history interwove into it.



debbie5 said:


> LMAO.
> 
> WTH is "emo"- i see so many diff definitions...


Correct definition as told to me by emo friends: Short for "Emotional Hardcore" a type of music and the fashion that goes along with it.

Widely used *incorrect* definition often used as insulting slang by those who don't know what their talking about: Depressed, sad, self-harming, whiny teens(this is NOT the correct definition)


----------

