# Should Vampires Sparkle



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm a big fan of the classic monster vampire, stalk 'em and stake 'em. Nowadays the romantic and sparkly vamps seem a lot more popular. I admit, reading a lot of horror and urban fantasy, I am kind of tired of the vampire boyfriend stuff and long for the good old days when Chris Lee was Dracula. What about readers? Are you tired of all the kinder gentler vampires around today? Or do you say bring 'em on?
Cheers, 
Howard


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

No, no, no! Vampires don't sparkle! I just don't get it - why *would* they sparkle anyway? What evolutionary benefits would sparkling give them? And what story benefits did it give Edward Cullen? I don't see the point personally.

Don't get me wrong - despite my initial misgivings, I did actually enjoy Twilight. And I don't have a problem with sweetening up vampires. But sparkling? 

Although I did feel sorry for Bella. Not much of a lifestyle choice - cold dead vampire or hot smelly werewolf? But at least she could save on her heating bills with a werewolf and still enjoy a good curry!


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

I assume you don't mean literally sparkle, as that's a Twilight convention and it would be almost plagiarism IMO for anyone else to use it. But if you're asking whether there should be kinder, gentler vampires in general, that's up to you and your preferences. I prefer the good old days myself, but the current trend has, at the very least, gotten young teenage girls interested in vampires. That was, I'd imagine, a previously untapped sector of the potential vampire market.


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

lol, Deb. But on the bright side, it does give Bella a chance to say, "Oh, look, shiny!" a lot! 
One of the more frightening vampires I've seen was in the first Kolchak: The Night Stalker movie (which came from the Jeff Rice book.) I am, though, a big Barbabas Collins fan, though he may be in a way responsible for much of the modern romantic/sympathetic vampire thing, or at least made it popular. But I prefer my vampires mean and medium rare!
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Try Blood & Ice. Vampires with a twist. I thought this was quite clever.



Or Nancy Baker's vampires are OK too.


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

I've been reading some of the Morganville Vampires YA series, which isn't too bad. Couple of the vampires are a bit more intimidating.
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## evanlavine (Oct 4, 2011)

vampires should not sparkle. Have you read Let The right One In? Amazing modern Vampire book!


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

No, I haven't, Evan. Is the Hammer Let Me In movie based on that, do you know?
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

My vampire hunters, Cool Gus and Sassy Becca love that they sparkle in our Pacific Northwest woods.  Make them easier to catch.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Sparkly vampires give off fireworks-like sprays of light as you smoosh them to pieces. Very entertaining.


----------



## TessM (Oct 18, 2011)

Ugh. I don't have enough time to write how much the Twilight series annoys me. The sparkly vampires was just rediculous but what annoyed me MOST was how weak Bella is. She doesn't show any backbone until the very very last book. Stephanie Meyers wrote these books aimed at teenaged girls and as such the main character should be able to need constant rescuing. I swear that the entire time unread the books I wanted to shake some sense into Bella.  Sorry for the rant.


----------



## HarryK (Oct 20, 2011)

Vampires should not sparkle. That's a crime against God and nature!

I also prefer them as evil predatory creatures, but sympathetic ones are OK if the story as a whole is interesting enough.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I'm afraid I'm in the "who cares?" camp on this. Vampires have been done by Bram Stoker _et al_ way back when, Stephen King and Anne Rice have written what many consider great books about them; so why would anyone need to write or read more? It's sort of like writing a novel about humans, halflings, elves, and dwarfs banding together to beat some evil overlord -- it's been done: write something original, for Pete's sake! (Parodies and satires about vampires may be OK, though.  )

(The preceding reply was only half serious, as I realize there are many good books that I've read that have not been particularly original in that respect -- but that means I'm still half serious about it.)


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

evanlavine said:


> vampires should not sparkle. Have you read Let The right One In? Amazing modern Vampire book!


That was one disturbing book.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

evanlavine said:


> vampires should not sparkle. Have you read Let The right One In? Amazing modern Vampire book!


I haven't but I might just have to go and take a look. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Yes, they sparkle right before they burst into flames in the sunlight.


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

This neatly sums up my opinion of sparkly vampires:


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Yes, they sparkle right before they burst into flames in the sunlight.


Vampires should neither sparkle nor burst into flames in the sunlight.


----------



## Norman (May 23, 2009)

Never, nor should they be vegetarians!


----------



## genodidit! (Oct 12, 2011)

I just finished writing a book about the modern vamp. I wonder if I should re-think it? Naw. Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee made their marks and they will survive forever.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

Sure as long as it is to distract you right before they suck your blood.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

yingko2 said:


> No, I haven't, Evan. Is the Hammer Let Me In movie based on that, do you know?
> Cheers,
> Howard


The 2010 movie "Let Me In" is adapted from that novel. There was an earlier - and much more popular - Swedish adaptation of the book as well (called, like the novel, "Let The Right One In.")


----------



## WFMeyer (Apr 14, 2011)

Sparkling vampires? That's the Teletubbies version of a vampire.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Sparkling skin, Venom, no fangs... The Twilight so called "vampires" were not vampires at all. Vampires do not sparkle in the sun, they burn in the sun. To what extent they burn is up to the author, but that's been a common theme among most stories. While I give the author credit for trying to be unique, what she did was not write about vampires, but made up some other creature, and for lack of a better word, called them vamps.

Ok, I'll stop ranting now. 

But to answer the OP's question, no! Vampires should not sparkle. They should retain some of their monstrous nature too. I don't mind seeing a little softer side and a little self control when it comes to feeding, but I want to see the monster within.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

jonathanmoeller said:


> This neatly sums up my opinion of sparkly vampires:


You beat me to it Jon!


----------



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

Twilight's vampires aren't so much vampires as rock people. They're strong and indestructible because of the diamond in their skin. It makes sense they'd sparkle. They're no where near the traditional horror creatures, but then these vampires were written for young girls. That was the intended audience.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

jonathanmoeller said:


> This neatly sums up my opinion of sparkly vampires:


And then there was this:


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

The poorly written story aside, if Meyer has anything going for her, at least it's that she was creative. The sparkliness was a inventive new twist in the whole vampires-don't-come-out-in-daytime thing.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

DYB said:


> And then there was this:


Awesomesauce


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

<--- Points to icon.

I don't mind the "newer" vampires as it were as long as there's something there.  I always found Henry from Huff's Blood Ties series interesting (Tho the last 2 books ticked  me off to no end) because he made no excuses for what he was.  He enjoyed it and that was that.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Norman said:


> Never, nor should they be vegetarians!


How the [email protected]%[email protected]#$% is that even possible?


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

rweinstein6 said:


> The poorly written story aside, if Meyer has anything going for her, at least it's that she was creative. The sparkliness was a inventive new twist in the whole vampires-don't-come-out-in-daytime thing.


But vampires DO come out in the daytime. This whole daylight thing was made up for the movies, (Nosferatu, I'm talking about you).

There are real vampire legends and Bram Stoker researched them very carefully and there's a lot of cool stuff there about running water and mustard seeds and all that fun stuff but you know what there isn't? Any talk of them going poof in daylight.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

Vampires shouldn't really sparkle - unless of course Dracula bit Liberace...

I suppose though - as Vampires aren't real/are very real but no-one knows for sure (that last bit is just to cover myself) - the author has a right to bend the rules how she wants to. Otherwise, how will anything fresh happen?

What I DON'T like is when someone takes a perfectly good story and (Disney) wrecks it by (Disney) taking it apart and putting it back to(Disney)gether in a really Disney like fashion..  

And don't get me started on true stories like the enigma machine and Braveheart etc...     breaking rules like that is just - rude.

Anyway, now I've had a nice cup of Earl Grey and I am nice and calm again - I think 'unwritten' rules can be broken...now I think I might write about a werewolf that can use silver knives and forks, but is allergic to aluminum-foil.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

The Guillermo Del Torro trilogy isn't a bad take on vampires either, IMO


----------



## felicityheaton (Aug 31, 2010)

Sparkly vampires IMO are just wrong. I cannot bring myself to read about any vampire who abstains from drinking blood, sparkles, moans a lot about being a vampire, or other such things.

But perhaps this is because I write vampires, and I write them dark and fairly traditional, and have done since first starting to write vampires over 8 years ago. I do write vampire romance novels, but the vampires in them are killers, embrace everything that is in their nature, and don't apologise for it. I have a following of readers and sell books well because of the way I write my stories, so there are readers out there who enjoy a darker type of vampire. Think vampires like Lara Adrian, J R Ward, Sherrilyn Kenyon, etc write. Vampires for adults.

Whenever someone writes a vampire that sparkles or has an aversion to biting/blood, I find myself wondering if the author wanted to write vampires because they're popular but wasn't brave enough / couldn't bring themselves to cross the line and write a real vampire.

Personally, I prefer my vampires dark, vulnerable to the traditional things like stakes, decapitation, etc, have a penchant for blood drinking fresh from the vein, and a slight homicidal edge to their personality.



Happy reading!

Felicity

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

Maybe as an adult, you aren't necessarily _expected _ to like it! (if you know what I mean)
Maybe the issue is one of target markets which are obviously teens. Teenagers, who identify with a character that is expected to behave in a particular way but doesn't want to - they obviously think these books are great. Especially when unrequited love is involved...and a lot of moaning...
If teens want sparkly vampires - sparkly vampires they will get..!

(I don't know which are specifically _directed _ at teens, but they sure as heck make their money from them.)

There are seemingly a lot messages in these 'soft' vampire stories that really hit home with their target market - hence their success. Why vampires though? I don't know - I suppose because it's fantastical, escapism and the idea that 'perfect' beings can be just as unhappy as them!

I think teens are actually very lucky these days - Thirty years ago, I had to go from obvious kid-ish books straight into adult fiction. There wasn't anywhere near the choice as is around today.

PS - I think this is an example of how powerful teen fiction really is today. When I was a lad - if I would've read a story about a sparkly vampire - I wouldn't for one moment think it could affect the adult literature on the same subject, and even alter the genre in some way. Teen fiction - thanks to Harry Potter et al, is taken a lot more seriously now.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I prefer my vampires to be mean and nasty ala:


But I feel for poor Bella.. I mean come one people she did the best with the choice she had.. necrophilia or beastiality... neither one's a great choice.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

I grew up on the ugly critters from my friend Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, King's Salem's Lot. Rice's Interview With The Vampire humanized them, but not too much. I don't care for romanticizing Dracula.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

_Twilight_ was super-fresh when it was released and I'll always love that about it. Right now? I'm game for anything that puts a spin on a now-tired premise. I don't want vamps to go backward, I want ideas to continue being explored that are different for the reader.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

http://laughingsquid.com/vampire-identification-chart/


----------



## HeyDrew (Sep 12, 2011)

I don't care that vampires sparkle or not.  I don't care if werewolves transform every night or only on full moons.  What I do care about are whether they're portrayed as frightening monsters or emotional eunuchs.  I like my monsters to have a bit of savagery with their 'curse', and not to be, essentially, 108 year old pedophiles, which this Edward fellow basically is.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

It does seem that contemporary vampire stories sort of treat killing humans and drinking their blood as some sort of minor quirk, just a bit of eccentricity, really. But if vampires are anything, they aren't sparkly.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

Katie Salidas said:


> Vampires do not sparkle in the sun, they burn in the sun.


To the author's credit, I believe she referenced the sun burning myth but said the real reason vampires don't go out in sunlight is because they'll sparkle and be exposed. So, at the very least, she didn't completely ignore that well-known vampire convention.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

CS said:


> To the author's credit, I believe she referenced the sun burning myth but said the real reason vampires don't go out in sunlight is because they'll sparkle and be exposed. So, at the very least, she didn't completely ignore that well-known vampire convention.


She didn't have much choice. You can hardly have high-school vampires that really do burn up in the sun. It'd be a bit of a give-away, really, even in a place that's usually rainy.

Mind you they were all pretty thick at that school not to notice that the the kids kept repeating the year and never grew any older.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. An old school monstrous vampire would be new and fresh today. Everything old becomes new again.


----------



## TerryS (Mar 29, 2011)

jonathanmoeller said:


> This neatly sums up my opinion of sparkly vampires:


That is too good.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I always find it amusing when I read what Vampire should or shouldn't do. Like there is some rule book or something.

They don't really exist  , and  they are just characters like any other character. 

And I am even more bemused by this sparkle issue. Reading these threads sometimes one would think every single Vampire book under the sun has sparkling ones, when its just one single series by one author, written for teenagers. That's it.  

Now I think I said it again. Vampires do not "have" to be frightening monsters or anything else for that matter. They can have whatever personality the writer comes up with for them. Or do cop characters, or fantasy heroes all have to have the exact same personality traits all across all books? Why should there be some standard for one fictional character when there is none for others. 

I think a lot of times it has to do with the success of the Twilight series, as it always comes back to that. I don't really know how the success of one series, 4 little books with sparkly vampires, now somehow stereotypes all current vampire stories into something they aren't. 

If you want horrible monster type vampires, you'd read a Horror novel, if you want a vampire finding love, you'd read a romance, etc. The genre's still apply for all characters. There is no such thing as "has to be". How limited that would be for writers and readers alike. If I like Romance and Vampires, then by golly I'll read a romance with a tortured hero type. If I want a Horror and be scared out of my panties, I'll read that. Although I don' really like Horror, but that's me, I still like vampires.

Choices.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

BTackitt said:


> I prefer my vampires to be mean and nasty ala:
> 
> 
> But I feel for poor Bella.. I mean come one people she did the best with the choice she had.. necrophilia or beastiality... neither one's a great choice.


I finished that one a while back and liked it a lot. A different take on vamps and it was down and dirty horror. Big fun.

I kept hoping Bella's head would explode... but that's just me...


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

DebBennett said:


> Mind you they were all pretty thick at that school not to notice that the the kids kept repeating the year and never grew any older.


No, they advanced to the next grade. They just moved to a new town every few years and started the cycle over.

These posts make it sound like I'm a fan of the gentler, sparkly vampires. I'm not really - I prefer my vamps to have a harder edge - but I see nothing wrong with reinterpreting what a vampire should be. They're not real, you know.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

CS said:


> They're not real, you know.


Don't say that! Of course they're real - the tooth fairy said so...


Actually, I've just started re-reading Guillermo del Torro's The Strain (just got the third one, so I thought I ought to start again). Awesomely good thriller that just happens to be about vampires.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

No, no, no and again I say, NO!  Vampires should not be romantic or handsome or sparkly!  They should have sharp teeth, smell like death and blood, with dirt beneath their ragged claws, blood stains permanently on their chin.  Their breath should smell like blood and death.  The vampires in 30 Days of Night, in other words.  They should never, ever, under any circumstances, sparkle.


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

I was going to keep my mouth shut, but-



> But I feel for poor Bella.. I mean come one people she did the best with the choice she had.. necrophilia or beastiality... neither one's a great choice.


This is my main problem with the whole Bella argument. Why does everyone forget she also had the choice of just being her own, strong, independent self? Like she HAD to have one man or the other or she wasn't whole?

Ok, end rant.

As for the whole vampire issue, I like a bunch of different vampire types (Buffy's Angel being the first "nice" vampire for me, but even then he remained dangerous, which I liked). But I'm kind of over vampires already. Adding in just one or two changes from the standard vampire type isn't going to do much for me.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

The Buffy world vampires are actually my favorite version. The good ones have a real reason for being good--Angel's soul, Spike's chip--but most of them are just soulless demons that eat people and create chaos.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I always find it amusing when I read what Vampire should or shouldn't do. Like there is some rule book or something.
> 
> They don't really exist


No, but vampire legends do exist and did so around the world long before anyone thought to make a movie out of them. And they were awesome and Stoker did an astonishing amount of research into them all, and some of the real life sickos like Vlad Tepes and Elizabeth Bathory.

If the evil badass can't get you in the daytime that's just kinda lame.


----------



## GregSisco (Oct 23, 2011)

Any "day-walker" vampire is a slap to the face for the mythology, especially if (s)he is a "vegetarian" as well (for some reason the two tend to go hand in hand). If vampires can walk around in sunlight and survive on the blood of animals, let's all be vampires. It's not a curse at all! We can cure death for all of humanity just by sharing blood with one another.


----------



## Elisa Nuckle (Oct 26, 2011)

jonathanmoeller said:


> This neatly sums up my opinion of sparkly vampires:


That is awesome.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Stephen King on "Twilight."

_Harry Potter is all about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend._

Anne Rice on "Twilight" earlier today on Facebook. I'm actually not even sure what she's saying here, but maybe others can figure it out. (Frequently people ask her on her page what Lestat and Louie would think about this subject and that subject. And she'll occasionally respond. This must have come as a response to a question.)

_Lestat and Louie feel sorry for vampires that sparkle in the sun. They would never hurt immortals who choose to spend eternity going to high school over and over again in a small town ---- anymore than they would hurt the physically disabled or the mentally challenged. My vampires possess gravitas. They can afford to be merciful._


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks (Nov 17, 2010)

If they want to get staked.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

The first book in Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan's vampire trilogy (scary vampires!) is on sale for $1.99 right now. So check it out if you haven't.


----------



## HeyDrew (Sep 12, 2011)

DYB said:


> The first book in Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan's vampire trilogy (scary vampires!) is on sale for $1.99 right now. So check it out if you haven't.


I enjoyed THE STRAIN. One can see how Del Toro's vision of vampires as a sort of myth mixed with science has evolved from the Reaper vampires from BLADE 2.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Yes!


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

I know what I like. Reading the same vampire book 80 million ways with only slight variances.   She took a theme and made it different. I'm not a huge fan but there has to be some credit given to stepping outside the mold. I also find it funny the hard and fast rules many have about vampires when some of the biggest names in vampire fiction break these very rules.


----------



## Tina Boscha Writer (Jul 13, 2011)

Selina Fenech said:


> This is my main problem with the whole Bella argument. Why does everyone forget she also had the choice of just being her own, strong, independent self? Like she HAD to have one man or the other or she wasn't whole?


Amen to that! I especially can't stand this idea pared with the fact that Bella is so young. I actually ended up developing a course on YA lit that discusses sex, love, and gender in these books, and the first book we read is Twilight. What's gratifying for me is that once we look at the book critically my students are incredulous.

BTW, I will totally cop to reading the whole series. Sigh. They are seductive (the books, not the vampires!).


----------



## Todd Young (May 2, 2011)

If you want to read a vampire book where the vampire definitely doesn't sparkle, try "Let the Right One In" by John Ajvide Lindqvist. Truly horrifying.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm not big on the sparkling, but as for the rest of it, I like both. I like the dark, monster-like vampire, and I like the whole "vampire with a soul" thing, too. Depends what kind of read I'm in the mood for.

Piggy backing off this thread, I'll say that sometimes I wonder if the hatred for Twilight stems from jealousy of success. What other book is so widely bashed? What other ideas do people now so vehemently try to get other people against? 
The main thing is, IMO, some people like some things, some people like other things. I can't understand why people get so angry about twilight sometimes (thankfully I'm not seeing any of that here, so it felt safe to mention this lol).

To each their own, right?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think people miss the point.  The Twilight series is not a Vampire series.  It's a "Girl teen angst" series.  It's just that she "has" to choose between a werewolf and a vampire rather than a band geek or football star.


----------



## Ray Rhamey author (Jan 6, 2011)

I think the attributes of vampires in a story should do whatever the author needs for his or her story--we're not writing nonfiction here. My vampire, for example, purrs and walks on all-fours. He also has the blood frenzy, but no super strength to use. Neither do any of the other vampires in my imagining. In short, there are no rules. Back when Bram Stoker brought vampires to life, as it were, I'll wager that he did his own inventing, shaping and adding to the vampire myth to suit the purposes of his story. The purpose of mine is to make you laugh.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

tkkenyon said:


> For the anti-sparkling crowd, may I recommend:


Indeed. Just re-reading books 1 & 2 now since 3 has just come out. Excellent trilogy.


----------



## 50733 (Aug 30, 2011)




----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

DebBennett said:


> Indeed. Just re-reading books 1 & 2 now since 3 has just come out. Excellent trilogy.


They are great. I pointed out above that right now book 1 is only $1.99.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

EDIT: Edited out most of my comment because I just read the entire thread and saw that most of what I've said had already been noted. Lesson: read the entire thread. Suffice it to say, if day walker is a slap in the face to the mythology, then Dracula and the actual pre-novel vampire myths themselves are a slap in the face to the mythology. Note the old peasants fearing vampires dug them up, then staked them (or performed other rituals/used other things). In myths vampires were more active at night (or slept at night), but not necessarily fatally allergic to the sun, else all you'd need to do to detect a vampire is dig him up at noon and watch him burn.  I don't think one can appeal to the 'mythology' when the mythology keeps changing throughout the decades. The movie Nosferatu, for example, shouldn't get to define vampires for all eternity

Here's a wrench while we're discussing proper depictions of fictional monsters: It's kind of like all the fierce hue and cry over what constitutes a proper zombie (fast vs. slow, supernatural vs. scientific). Romero had a depiction, arguably the modern defining one. There's earlier Haitian stuff and/or ghoul legends. Romeo was partially influenced by Matheson's "I Am Legend" . . . which was about vampires. 

*Speaking of Nosferatu, horror, and vampires, and particularly for people who like their vampires monstrous, but still maybe want a different tweak of the idea rather than just guy rushing about hunting humans at night, they should check out Shadow of the Vampire. For the record, there is no day walking in the film.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Dang JABeard I am glad I read the unedited version. It was eloquent, expressive, informative and SPOT DANG ON!


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

Ack, guess I should have left it. Just didn't want to come off redundant. :|


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> Dang JABeard I am glad I read the unedited version. It was eloquent, expressive, informative and SPOT DANG ON!


ditto. I saw the unedited version as well. It was fantastic.


----------



## TimHodkinson (Jun 3, 2011)

Sorry for arriving late to this when the conversation has moved on but my opinion is NO!!!!!!! they shouldn't sparkle. 
I once felt so strongly about this I wrote a whole article on it, called "Give us back our scarey vampires":
http://timothydh.xomba.com/give_us_back_our_scary_vampires


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Seems the conversation has moved on, but to get back on topic: should vampires sparkle?  Only if you set them on fire.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

Maybe you can sprinkle some magnesium and glitter dust before setting them on fire.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

jabeard said:


> Maybe you can sprinkle some magnesium and glitter dust before setting them on fire.


Whatever makes people happy. Giant roman candles are kinda sparkly, I guess.


----------

