Again, who are you to say that such a rule is absolute and divine? It’s not in the Ten Commandments. Neither is it in the Catechism. Sorry but the idea of forcing someone to come up with a whole new creature just for the sake of respecting such a baseless, man-made rule is just silly. I have more respect for the human imagination for it to be restrained by such politically correct standards. Besides, there’s no point in it either other than to satisfy literary traditionalists. :rolleyes:
I never said that it was absolute and divine nor in the Catechism or in the Ten Commandments – just that it is common sense. If it has been established for centuries that vampires have certain characteristics, to write a story and give a vampire the attributes of a werewolf would be incorrect because it goes AGAINST what has already been established.
For example, time travel has been portrayed in a certain manner. Steven King produced a movie that did it differently going against what was already established and the film was a flop. You can’t even get it on video. A Steven King film was a flop because it didn’t stick to already established protocol.
Well, yeah, angels who sided with Satan are fallen just as he is, and yes, in scripture they are referred to as demons. As I stated, there is no debating the permanency of their damnation - they possessed full knowledge of past/present/future when they made their choice.
But the scriptures don’t address vampires, that’s my point. Vampires are a work of fiction, they are not real, thus the permanency of their damnation, and whether or not they are automatically damned upon being turned is up to the author penning the story.
The magesterium of the church has the authority to expound upon interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. They can’t rewrite it but they can offer more insight into its source and purpose based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t see a problem with authors expounding on traditional stories of fictional characters because it’s not the truth anyway, it’s all make believe. Just because the core of the ghoul/zombie history was penned a particular way doesn’t make it the truth, and thus it can be changed to suit an author’s idea of the character. Whether or not the story sells would be the only determining factor as to whether or not the author’s vision resonated with readers. If there was a strong contingent of supporters for traditional depictions of ghouls/zombies then they could have voiced their disdain for the new portrayals and that angle would have bitten the dust, as you pointed out with Stephen King’s movie.
If I didn’t like what Meyers did with the vampires and the shape-shifters I wouldn’t have purchased the books or paid to see the movie, but I’d still be outnumbered by those who did approve of her approach. I wouldn’t fault the author but I’d roll my eyes at the masses.
That’s just wholly depends on how you would defy the tradition. Tell me, how did Stephen King go against the traditional concept of time travel? I want to judge it for myself.
We’re talking about writing here, a form of art. Art is meant to express things and should not be bound too tightly by standards that no longer mean much. Ever watched Underworld? It had a werewolf-vampire hybrid and believe me, it was pretty cool. Another fine example (and one that I’m frequently repeating apparently :rolleyes:) are dragons! Seriously, even you Sir Knight cannot deny that dragons have been shown to be as noble and powerful allies as their traditional medieval counterparts were deemed vicious and malevolent.
All I’m saying is that works of fiction which base their work on already established ideas should remain true to those previously established concepts.
And what does any of that have to do with works of fiction?
I couldn’t agree more and most of the people I know, especially the girls get really mad at me for this opinion. I think vampire movies are cool to watch where they are bad and the good guys have to kill them. However, I never liked the idea of a good vampire. Does it have a soul? I thought vampires are like immortal. If they have a soul, then does the vampire have to kill himself to get to Heaven somehow since he can not otherwise die? I just never understood the concept of a good vampire and think its stupid.
I believe it has something to do with dealing something you’re cursed with. You do know that immortality can actually be a curse itself right?
Generally I’ve also noticed good vampires always struggle painfully with their desire to devour blood but the fact that they’re capable of resisting it is definitely worthy of moral admiration. If you find that stupid then I’m afraid it could be because you’ve never struggled with a vice or a sinful addiction.
Besides, even though they’re immortal, it doesn’t mean they’re invincible. Differentiate the two. Let’s not forget that that immortality itself has many depictions in fiction. We have the immortality of deities, immortality as a result of some catalyst (e.g. the Elixir of Life). Not all forms of immortality are permanent (ironic that might sound). Sometimes there is a price for it (and constantly maintaining it). In the case of vampires, it is only such because they consume blood. The way I see it, a good vampire might very well die from starvation from the way he/she would deprive herself of the human blood necessary for it.
Well since most readers haven’t the vaguest idea what a “soul” is or what it entails to have one, it should be no surprise that the question has never been solved as pertaining to vampires:shrug:
Not immortal per se; they do not die of ageing, but don’t they die if caught in the sunlight?
So a vampire need not kill himself to go to Heaven, only refrain from blood or get caught under the sunlight. This would not be suicide, only allowing nature to take its course.
It’s a valid example of how original works can be expounded upon, adding layers to the core without negating that core.
To those who object to vampires, ghouls, zombies and other demons being written about not consistent with their origins, I’m stating that a) Meyers didn’t change the basic premises, she expounded upon them and b) since vampires, ghouls, zombies were created in fiction to begin with there really isn’t a rule out there against rewriting the origins if someone chooses to since it’s not real.
Most stories have that method of demise - sunlight.
Joss Whedon’s vampires are evaporated into tiny dust particles when the slayer drives a wooden stake through the heart.
Meyers’ vampires state a vampire must be beheaded and all body parts burned. Leave any body parts behind and they reconnect to rebuild the vampire.
Thing is, since it’s all based on fiction to begin with authors can come up with all sorts of new angles and twists. That irritates people like the OP because it blurs the line of good and evil.
Some people really do need to see the world and all works within it in black and white. Many more are ok with grey. Grey’s riskier, certainly, but I like it because it moves me to evaluate the grey until I can see how it clarifies those black and white issues I face. It provides a learning/growth process for me.
That’s what I liked about Meyer’s premise, though, most readers of demons and such don’t care about a soul, but Meyers makes that rather central to her characters so it has the possibility of getting people to give the soul some consideration, to pursue the concept through other readings, perhaps.
What I’ve been saying is that ESTABLISHED things should not be changed.
But we’re talking about vampires.
Vampires are fictional characters so there is no ‘real’ establishment to their origins, mannerisms, plot lines.
Why shouldn’t those be subject to change. What we ‘know’ about them in the first place is just the culmination of layer upon layer of different authors’ concepts. Each layer represents a change to the previous notion. That’s how fiction works.
Yes there is. The vampire folklore has been around for centuries even before the stories were written down. To change what has been established over the years isn’t proper. Build upon it, yes. Change it, no.
Of course, authors are free to write whatever they want but anything that changes what is already established, gets a thumbs down from me. Just like giving zombies the attributes of ghouls or changing the concept of time travel.
What utter nonsense. You say vampire folklore shouldn’t be changed yet I have yet to hear you comment about the changes in the tradition of the European dragon. Say what you want, they were considered evil beings in the beginning. Even satan was described to be a dragon. However, that tradition has show to have been defied.
Besides, in my opinion, constantly clinging to such old traditions is what causes story concepts to become repetitive, typical, and cliche. :rolleyes:
I have to agree.
I read the Twilight books, and while they are far from my favorite peice of fiction I did enjoy them.
I think that Meyer’s who is a Mormon (I don’t agree w/ Mormonism, but they tend to a decent grasp on general morality) was aiming to display that just because you might have a sinful nature you are not bound to behave as such. Her vampires who were evil creatures rose above their peers to do good.
Aren’t humans the same way? We have sinful natures but are called to rise above them.
Meyer’s also showed that her characters had a clear belief in God.