Why Does Everyone Hate...

And all those "morals" revolve around two different things:

Edward can do no wrong and Bella is so pure.

But what you don't know is those morals are also just a vehicle for her Mormon beliefs.

Such as celibacy before marriage and complete loyalty after marriage and that sex is only for married people.


And not to mention that it could be very well seen as anti interracial relationships and could be seen as somewhat racist.

For example, all vampires turn white, no matter what ethnicity you begin with. AND SPARKLE!

Some morals.

Feh.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Mormon? Who said anything about Mormons?

I am not bringing religion into this. The series is good entertainment, I never said it broadcast good messages. I am saying that haters are being trivial, petty, and narrow-minded...not to mention old-fashioned.

Also, there's a vampire in the book who is black, part of James and Victoria's coven. Laurent...he is black. Do your research.

reply to post by Starchild23


You said morals, and morals often involve religion.

And so can the fans be extremely petty, such as when they go on about how perfect the book is and that it's the greatest thing ever and how dare people dare criticize their new deity!

At this point we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

To me, the book is riddled with problems and not a very well written book, and the movie is the same way. There is absolutely nothing impressive in it to me. And I've read a lot of vampire fiction.

In fact, I challenge you to read the book, Necroscope by Brian Lumely. Much better written. It isn't without it's flaws, but those are the most unique forms of vampires I personally have ever seen.

However, the difference is it is not a pro vampire book. The vampires are pure monsters, of course.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Not quite. There are two basic kinds of morals: subjective and standard.

Standard morals are morals created in a code, morals that are established by an organization, or a leader of an organization, by which all members are bound to live, and all associated individuals are encouraged or shown to live (depending on the degree of controversy, of course)

Subjective morals are morals held within the private beliefs of any single individual, which may be held in common but are not mandated. These morals, such as animal treatment and the ingestion of certain products, are not necessarily widely held, but are very present within the mind of the concerned individual, and will affect how they live their life, and interact with others.

The moral I was referring to was subjective moral, moral that is not necessarily religion, but feels either "right" or "wrong" within the person's mind.

Interestingly, Edward was born to an Irish mother, and the Irish, in the time of his childhood, were almost always Catholic. Anyone not Catholic was often exiled from the family and/or county, as a disgrace to the religious community mindset. This suggests that all of his morals were Catholic in nature, although his intelligence (whether vampirically boosted or otherwise) would have adjusted as per the changes in culture throughout his unnatural life, therefore his morals would have changed slightly as he realized the true nature of religion.

But there are some standard morals (i.e. murder) that would have "clicked" with his subjective morals, thereby ingraining themselves in his nature. In fact, he actually discusses the moral implications of his conversion, and how he came to terms with them. Hence, it is clearly shown that this isn't the run-of-the-mill vampire we're dealing with, but something that is, in its soul, very much human. The series even goes so far as to explore the soul of vampires, and whether or not they are truly damned. It is this level of philosophical exploration that actually drew me into the series. I believe that nothing is truly evil or truly good, and the series touched on that with vampires, something the world generally regards as pure evil.

Essentially, it was a veiled attempt to "enlighten" us...and that, I think, is what repels most of the conditioned society. It's a cash cow, certainly, but most of the "manly men" and religious types will eschew the subject purely because of what we've been taught to believe.

Myself, personally...well, I like to think for myself, and explore these "taboo" subjects. If it is discouraged by the populace, then I want to look at it myself. Curiosity killed the cat, but who actually held the knife, so to speak?

That's my point in this thread. Do you understand now?

I loved Anne Rice's vampires, and am sure anything after 'them' would be a disappointment. So I don't bother. (but now, I might). But who, after all, can compare to Lestat?

ETA: Oh wait! You mentioned "Edward". Is this the one .... the love story? I watched this on TV one night, and loved it. Didn't realize that's what you were talking about. That guy that plays Edward is a real heart throb. ♥

reply to post by BellaSabre


If you're only going to appreciate one kind of novel, one kind of vampire, or one kind of author, why bother reading at all?

Do you only enjoy lasagna or Italian-based foods as well?

Maybe you only look out of one eye because the other eye sees from a slightly different angle, and you don't particularly care for the view it offers...

ETA: if you only watch a show for the gorgeous hunks it offers, then it is clear your appreciation for culture goes only skin-deep, if you'll pardon the pun. In that case, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

If that impression is inaccurate, then I'd love to discuss the more meaningful messages with you, considering Robert is ugly as hell, in my opinion.

reply to post by Starchild23


What a presumptuous, rude, pompous little ass you are. What's shocking is that I posted on your asinine little thread to begin with.

reply to post by Starchild23


There is more than one kind of morals though.

And I strongly disagree with standard as being part of morality. If you mean social standards, then they too, are subjective, but subjective to a group mentality. For example and certainly not limited to, say the difference between Irish morality and say Australian society.

And like it or not religion does play a big part in people's morality. The problem is though it shapes both personal and social morality as well. A good example of this is how some religious people feel about homosexuals. Some are not opposed to homosexual marriage, but many are.

But the truth of the matter is, all morality is subjective. It is affected by location, culture, and personal experience. An Irish Catholic has different Saints than and orthodox Catholic. There really is no such thing as absolute morality because absolute morality never changes under any circumstances and stays forever. All religious morality changes, or some religious sects would not have homosexual ministers or there'd be no talking in tongues or handling snakes as a test of faith, or even protestant groups.

But this is not the subject of the thread you started. The subject was why people had problems with Twilight. You stated nothing about exploring taboo subjects.

But even at that, the religious morality in Twilight are not taboo subjects. They are fairly common in religious circles, such as the demand that sex can only be for married people.

A taboo subject would be like in the movie "Death At A Funeral" in which Chris Rock's characters father like to have sex with Caucasian midgets.

A taboo subject is generally what society as a whole rejects, not accepts as a norm.

reply to post by Starchild23

Intellectual process? Meaning have they thought about it? Have you?
A 40-year-old man gets involved with a high school girl the first 'thought' that crosses my mind is 'pedophile'.
If we make him older, say 60 or 70 he comes off as a major creep.
Twilight is a story centered around a relationship between a high school girl and a 111 year old man. Gee, what do you think they talk about?
You find nothing wrong with this? Why is that? Could your reasoning be something as shallow as the fact that he's still attractive?
No. Of course not. If Edward looked like a 111-year-old man, bald, wrinkled, bent over with a cane/walker etc. you would still find nothing wrong with his becoming romantically involved with a high school senior. Yes? The thought 'pedophile' would never cross your mind? Of course not.
Then there is the question of him impregnating her.
When reading/watching vampire stories one must, of course, suspend their beliefs about those facts in reality that involve the dead continuing to walk around and interact with the living. But 'Twilight' asks even more.
As one gentleman on the net pointed out, without a heart beating to circulate blood Edward should be physically impotent. No blood flow, no erection.
And even if we should ignore that there still remains the question of whether or not an animated corpse can produce 'living' viable sperm to impregnate anyone with.
Twilight is a wet dream for little girls. The fact that it is the story of a pedophile is ignored if it can reinforce the idea that the whole world revolves around everyones adoration of little girls. Daddy telling his 5-year-old that of course she is the prettiest thing in the world.
I find it pathetic that some of those little girls have reached 40 or 50 years old and have not matured enough to be able to resist the same tired fantasy.
So some guy wants to know how someone else dealt with the problem of vampires and runs into this little girl fantasy why do you think they would probably become disgusted?

No...my bad. I know Edward was not a pedophile. He found this school girl intellectually stimulating and loved her for her mind. Yeah, right. But then he's cute so it shouldn't matter. Yes?

reply to post by Puck 22


If you actually read the series, it explains that the moment a person becomes a vampire, everything about them stops. Meaning, he is perpetually a 17 year old forever...albeit a 17 year old who has seen almost everything, but still 17.

An infant vampire will remain an infant, and will always act like an infant, incapable of further development. The same with Edward. Everything restricted to his skin and within will forever be that of a 17 year old.

You obviously are incapable of grasping that concept. Everything else in your post underlines that fact.

reply to post by Starchild23


It's a concept that does not excuse him from the responsibility of his actions, or are you going to argue that he's a kid (mentally) and because of that he has no responsibilities like so many do in order to try to excuse the horrible things some kids do?

It's also a pretty lame concept.

I wish I was a kid again so I could do anything I want and have everybody bending over backwards saying I don't have to take responsibilities for my criminal actions, like if I ran a car through a liquor store and melted the ATM with a flamethrower.

I completely agree.

Right now I am coming across times that I know others are hating when they don't know I know, I don't know if they can know that I know.

I guess I will go by the art of war trick, to ignore them.

reply to post by Starchild23


Vampires were an icon of the darkness and fear.. Dracula was something I feared in my dreams as a child but then twilight ruined the image of vampires and turned them into basically blood drinking fairies. This is my reason.