Within the past month, I put a pick up on the वैंपायर Spot asking about people's प्रिय book series about vampires. In the टिप्पणियाँ of this pick, I got into an argument about whether the वैंपायर of Twilight are actual वैंपायर (lame to argue about this, I know hahaha).
Specifically she was telling me that Edward wasn't really a vampire because "he has no fangs and doesn't need blood to survive, also the sun thing...". I replied saying that just because Stephenie made her वैंपायर different doesn't mean that they're not vampires. In the end we agreed to disagree.
Personally, I feel that the Twilight वैंपायर are so much better because they are different. I प्यार that they don't fit into the stereotypical definition of a vampire. It's actually really refreshing, I think. I like that they don't have fangs या need to rely on blood या any other difference they have from the stereotype.
I don't know why this bothers me so much. I mean, I just don't understand why a vampire has to fit the whole definition of a vampire to be considered one. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy other vampire books, shows, movies, etc. "Buffy" started my whole obsession with vampires.
I guess one reason it bothers me so much is because that girl I argued with कहा she only read the beginning of the first one. I noticed that in the टिप्पणियाँ of picks from the वैंपायर Spot, she was always putting down Twilight and bashing on it. I finally got fed up and कहा something to her, hence the argument we had.
Please tell me your thoughts: do आप consider Twilight वैंपायर to be considered वैंपायर even though they don't fit into the definition?
Specifically she was telling me that Edward wasn't really a vampire because "he has no fangs and doesn't need blood to survive, also the sun thing...". I replied saying that just because Stephenie made her वैंपायर different doesn't mean that they're not vampires. In the end we agreed to disagree.
Personally, I feel that the Twilight वैंपायर are so much better because they are different. I प्यार that they don't fit into the stereotypical definition of a vampire. It's actually really refreshing, I think. I like that they don't have fangs या need to rely on blood या any other difference they have from the stereotype.
I don't know why this bothers me so much. I mean, I just don't understand why a vampire has to fit the whole definition of a vampire to be considered one. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy other vampire books, shows, movies, etc. "Buffy" started my whole obsession with vampires.
I guess one reason it bothers me so much is because that girl I argued with कहा she only read the beginning of the first one. I noticed that in the टिप्पणियाँ of picks from the वैंपायर Spot, she was always putting down Twilight and bashing on it. I finally got fed up and कहा something to her, hence the argument we had.
Please tell me your thoughts: do आप consider Twilight वैंपायर to be considered वैंपायर even though they don't fit into the definition?