Vampires don't sparkle!

I enjoy writings that bash "Twilight" because its rabid fan base is a sad testimony to an apparently low IQ rampant among readers (but bless them, there at least ARE people reading). But it's not all disdain; I'm sorry for the die-hards' lack of luster and sizzle in their lived experiences, such that this dreck that passes for a story so successfully captures their imaginations.

I ran across the comment "vampires don't sparkle!" earlier this morning, and it recalled other times I've seen the assertion posted, sometimes with lengthy elaboration (because it tends to come up in the midst of "Twilight"-bashing). Without pretending to intuit the mind of any person who holds to the truth of that assertion, I just have to wonder: is this any kind of real critique? And, believe it or not, I'm going to take a few moments out of my morning to stand in Ms. Meyer's defense, and support the oh-so-shiney-ones.

Well, I guess I should start out by saying I don't think anyone who makes the "vampires don't sparkle!" observation, and holding it to be true, is making it from the point of view that there >really< are vampires, such that as a possibly abbreviated but kind of real critique, it's not "real" in the sense that there is some Truth about how Real Vampires are. Yanno? Rather, I conceive it's an assertion drawn from a background in the folklore. It's as, if someone were to represent a unicorn with 2 horns, the response "unicorns don't have two horns!" doesn't mean one believes that unicorns really exist. Not that there aren't people on the fringe who believe they really are vampires, or that vampires really do exist. I'm talking within 3 standard deviations here. Okay, that being said.

I've been a sort of a gothy-vampire fan from way back in the days of kid-dom watching reruns of "Dark Shadows." Not a HUGE fan. I haven't read much of the literature. Just some of Anne Rice's novels, until I couldn't stand seeing the word 'preternatural' one more time - which means I think I made it through maybe 2 books. And, in the satisfaction of a morbid perverted sense of curiosity, the Twilight series which, although ridiculous in terms of page length, is quite short in terms of time needed to scan.

I think I've been more drawn to visual representations, so when I googled up "vampires film tv" and got a run-down of different productions, I was a little surprised to see how long my viewing list is:

Nosferatu
Blade 1-3
Buffy (some)
Lost Boys
Dark Shadows
Dracula
The Munsters
Interview/Queen of the Damned
Bram Stokers Dracula
30 Days of Night
Van Helsing
True Blood (some)

There might be things I missed, like something with Boris Karloff in the cast. But to the point, there are, all throughout these media, places where someone might go "vampires don't X!": vampires aren't attractive! vampires don't have a guilty conscience! vampires don't have cool, orgiastic rave-like parties! And so on. I mean, have you seen the vampire in Nosferatu? Sure don't want to dance with that guy.

I don't pretend to be familiar or chattable with the psychological archetypes or repressed fantasies or suppressed fears that vampire lore is spun out to vent or satisfy. I just, for whatever superficial reason, enjoy it - in its creepy manifestations because it's scary, or in its sexy portrays because it's, well, hot. Unfortunately, the Twilight series is a huge fail on both those grounds, but whatever.

But what seems to be a constant across the different representations I've encountered, is that people take artistic liberties with how the vampire is portrayed. Maybe, at a very glancing level of analysis, the only thing that runs constant across them is that they all drink blood. And Ms. Meyer took the liberty of introducing, for whatever the fuck reason, that they sparkle in sunlight. And maybe other liberties too, I don't know, I'm not that committed to the what and how of vampire portrayal. I say: let a thousand flowers bloom. Let there be sparkley vampires. Why the hell not!