The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I actually like that idea quite a bit. But I question whether or not stephenie derived her inspiration from that particular piece of history considering instead of just a general state of sparkling and being seen sparkling at night, her vampires only sparkled when hit by direct sunlight. But maybe she did, how else could she have come up with the idea of a sparkling vampire unless she was playing off the thought that he was as cold as ice, and you know how ice and snow can shimmer in direct light? I don't know, but I know that is not what you are arguing here. I really do like this myth or legend, especially the name for the vampire, it sounds like ouroboros which roughly means forever or a continuation you know? And vampires in a lot of legends are said to be immortal, and more often than not in older legends i stead of being bitten and turned they are simply ghouls or people that have died and come back from the dead, in a vampiric state. So it is sort of like a life after death you know?
I am rambling. Sorry. Haha.

Yeah, her vamps didn't look like they 'sparkled' in the movies... they *did* look more like they were glistening a sweat in the sun.

You trying to call Robert pattinson sweaty?
In the passage it sounds as if the sparkling forms were...amorphous, not humanoid like her vampires.
So that is another big difference, like this amorphous stage was an early stage of becoming a vampire.

Yup, he's sweaty.

Her depiction is different, but she didn't start it, and Vampires *do* sparkle... in different lore :) Since.... *WAY* back. Screws up the shirts/bumper stickers, and online memes.

Lol!
Dd you buy the book?
Also, I never really I understood the hatred for the twilight books because they are sort of a gateway for younger people that may be interested in myth and legend, and vampires you know?
I like how you have single handedly brought down one of the largest arguments against the series.

I read them and enjoyed them for what they were- tapped into my teenage self. The things people rant about (their unhealthy love story) isn't as bad as Catherine and Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights! It's not that 'kind' of literature, it was just a super-easy read with nothing to challenge you but remember superficial, awkward school years. The first movie wasn't that bad to me- the rest got cheesier and cheesier. This is just my opinion- they became parodies of themselves. But, I didn't 'hate' the books. In fact, I liked reading them. Yet, they aren't my favorite by far. I'm more of a classic literature type.

Personally I have never had issue with how vampires are done in fiction because that is what it is, fiction. No one (or atleast not many) complained about Anne rice vampires when the movie came out, and compared to Dracula, Nosferatu and folklore vampires, they were almost just as "fluffy" as twilight vamps, complete with the marble-like skin and very alluring appearance.

As much as I know that everyone will hate me for this, I actually enjoyed twilight. Just wanted to get that off my chest. This is an interesting funfact though. Thanks!

I agree with Lady A. I did love the movie but not for the people in it, but simply because of the romantic side of the love story. I know everyone hates Twilight due to the sparkling vampires. But aside from that it was a really great movie I think.

My wife and I both loved the movie, despite its flaws, precisely because of its deeply romantic nature, which also...btw...reflects well one of the key historical attributes of the actual Slavic Vampire.

Honestly, I thought the movie was decent enough to watch it in the cinemas. Not a fan of it... but it's romantic and modern. The early obours were believed to have 'sparkled' to give them an unearthly feel... possibly along the lines of "All that glitters is not gold". They may look mesmerising and lovely, but are in fact sinister creatures. This has always been the portrayal of vampires and one's involvement with one.

Vampires were demonized only after the early 18th Century. Prior to the 1700s, they were not considered sinister, at all...certainly not as blood drinkers.

Lest we forget, the earliest definitive mention of actual vampires was in an important 11th-Century Russian chronology document, "The Word of St. Gregorij", that states prior to the arrival of Christianity (mid 10th Century CE), vampires ("upyri") were actually worshiped. And only a hundred years after that, we find the written mention of the Orthodox Christian priest, Popa Upir ("Father Vampire") in 1047 CE. This certainly implies very strongly that the earliest written references to the earliest definitive references to indisputable Vampires were not at all sinister in nature. Quite to the contrary, the references were quite praiseworthy. It wasn't until the arrival and later domination of the area by misogynist anti-sexual Christianity that vilification began, culminating by the early 1700s with the blood-drinking references that did not previously exist.

That actually makes a lot of sense in a historical way...you know, this wouldn't be the first time something from an older religion or way of thinking was demonized in order to turn people away from it, or to bring them to the newer way of thinking/believing.

untill book publishing started most people never heard of vampires.there was a few local legends at that was it.

Stephanie Meyer wrote a series of paranormal romances. She did not write hardcore horror stories. She describes their skin as having changed and under direct UV light they gave the appearance of sparkling...I mean this was such a little thing in the stories. Her vampires had various personalities and some of them were in a governing body and most of them had a special gift. They were not meek and mild in any way. Anything the Cullens were doing was by choice. If you read the books or watch the movies all of that plays out. There is no formula to fictional vampires. I'm an older person and loved all the movies and read a little of the books. Her books were a little stronger originally. The editors made her tone them down so a younger audience could also read the books etc. I think she wrote the last story something like three times or more. It is personal as to which writers one thinks is better than another. Some love Anne Rice and she has degrees but some don't like her books because she uses a lot of narrative. She is a very detailed writer. Her vampires are OK. You would be surprised how many big publishers did not want to publish her vampire series. She got a number of rejections. She talks about these things on FB. Stephanie Meyer's vampires fit the story she set out to tell. People are too indoctrinated with Victorian Eastern European gentleman-style vampires. Most of those stories had love interests too. I think the whole criticizing aspect of Meyer's stories were totally over blown and a bit juvenile. I doubt very much she got the idea from what is related here but one never knows. She did a lot of research. The Native American tribe is real and many details of the town and area around it in the book where Bella went to live with her father so who knows, maybe she read of this type of vampire and it gave her inspiration. Nice to know that it shows up in folkloric records.

This isn't to engage the bashing, just my perspective: I enjoyed the first movie, just seeing the characters coming alive on screen- but progressively... the films for me just became even more cheesy. By the time I watched the last one, I was disappointed in myself for buying the ticket. The background music, more... I felt like much of it was an SNL skit, like I said before 'a parody of itself'. This is just my experience. It wouldn't even have worked for me had I not read the books prior. I love collecting vampire films- and had every intention of collecting all these from the beginning- but that idea was cast aside after 3 purchases.

*

I'm not surprised about the rejections- even J.K. Rowling had rejections... that's far more common than a writer to be picked up at first bat.

I enjoyed the book, but I don't think she's that great. I just can't buy into the main reasons given for hating it, like the sparkling bit or even the unhealthy relationship between Edward and Bella. As I mentioned above, Wuthering Heights had an even worse relationship and people don't knock it left and right.

I give Twilight props as a good *easy* read for young readers and those that don't want an intellectual challenge- and it NO DOUBT sparked people to read than had never read an entire book before. It then snow-balled their reading. That alone is worth great credit.

But now- I have to say that even I have contributed to making this more about a review of Meyer's work and not the real point of this thread. And that's - the idea was not original, and an invalidation of the internet memes and more floating around saying that 'vampires don't sparkle'.

this is a new info and I am impress, I always love "old" books and old" stories about myth and sci-fi and etch, really love to learn that.

Its one of my "love more then chocolate" thing (and I do LOVE chocolate) I enjoy learning about this kind of things and old books from 1800's

wow, thank you Images for this info, really love it

As for sparkle I must humbely bow my head and say even if I hate the fact that the sparkle thing I must admit I like the way it is writen, the fact that people were keeping watch to avoid the assault , ouf somehow makes the sparkle less fluffy but more worrying , I like that :)

Since vampires are an arch type, they can be molded to any form. What is telling about those with anal interests in their portrayal is that most who cry foul, or declare offense are never ready to submit anything of their own that delivers any substance to any other way vampires should be, or "must" be.

I've been looking around since you posted this and there are in all actuality a number of articles on them. Some say they light up like candles. They attract them with food and get them into bottles...almost like a genie. There is a place in New Orleans there where you are called the Boutique du Vampyre on St. Ann already bottled with a history and name. That is the only instance I have seen them actually say sparkled but it is the gist of it more or less. I guess in the 1800s supposedly they devised this way for catching them. Some of the other characteristics aside from sparks as some described are disgusting. It's very possible she did get the idea from reading about these so-called vampire types. Just like Stoker got his idea to mix in werewolf lore into his book after reading Baring-Gould. Nothing about any of the vampires are that original but glad someone found this to lay to rest all the "vampires don't sparkle BS"...kudos to you.

New Orleans is my home, I've been to Boutique du Vampyre :)

Vampires are Sanguinary creature and they only look for Love to obtain Blood. There are no feelings and Emotions within the Vampires clans. The Romantic Vampires were created by authors who, by the way, the primary target were Young Girls and their romantic Syndrome within their brain. That is the reason the Movies are always a success. If they Movie's makers take away the Love Episode, and make the Vampires, the way that they are, then, the money will not be generated the way that they want. Remember, Money is the key!!

Bram's Dracula was WAY before Twilight and movies- and it was a romantic tale (not for kids). There were more modern romantic vampires before Meyer as well- not written for young girls, but adults that happen to like that stuff as well.

I don't understand the 'all about money' argument. Who writes a book or makes a movie for it to be a bomb?

There is no 'right way' to write a vampire. There is only the way you want it to be. It's all subjective.

Anyway- I was just making the point. There's probably not much else we can really talk about. But, this thread will be here for reference.