Frankly, I'm not quite certain why everybody seems so much in turmoil over vampires in particular. People have been commandeering and stealing from legends and fantasy tropes for a long, long time – you can't really complain about the particular way this particular legend had been transformed popularly.
If you want to complain, complain about JJR Tolkien...before he came along, Elves were tiny, mischievous, heartless imps.

Leandra Falconwing wrote:
Portrayal of vampires in general: I'm not terribly fond of the romanticizing of vampires into hot sexy men (or women). I mean, they're dead. Dead is not sexy. It's not hot. It's cold and creepy and DEAD. Werewolves at least can be more shapeshifter than undead, but I don't think you can really do vampires in a way that has them alive.
No...you can't really say 'vampires are dead'. You can say that the legendary vampire archetype is that of a dead human reanimating and sucking blood from live things. But it's only an archetype – an archetype you can do what you want with. Dragons used to be predominantly beast-like monsters that were killed by heroes – but in most modern fantasy, dragons are intelligent, and are often cooperating with humans or are in possession of a political standing similar to humans. That doesn't mean they aren't dragons. It just means that people aren't completely sticking to the archetype when it comes to the way dragons are portrayed. Similar thing to vampires.
So, if they want to portray vampires as beautidul and desirable men and women, there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Speculative fiction is where you speculate – make things up, you know. The idea of humans that are beautiful and desirable, but have the almost uncontrollable desire to drink blood, could actually be a very interesting idea to work with in a story.
Leandra Falconwing wrote:
As for "good" vampires? Well, that kind of depends. If you can be made a vampire against your will, I hate to think that your soul is automatically damned (I can change that if asked, but I mean it in the literal sense) when you didn't choose it, didn't do anything. So in a situation like that, I wouldn't mind if there are somehow "good" vampires struggling to do the right thing. If it's your choice to become a vampire, though, I think I would have a harder time believing in "good" vampires.
I agree about this.
Andorin Kaepora wrote:
I think the part that lost me in the first and last twilight movie I watched was that the vampire was even more beautiful in the sunlight. I was thinking the sun was going to show him for who he really was, an ugly monster, and then the girl was going to love him despite that. I think that would have been really beautiful and more true to the world in which we live. The girl could have been a Christ-like figure in that moment in the story, loving the unlovable.
I haven't watched the movie or read the books, so I can't give an argument specific to 'Twilight', but I don't really agree with the idea that the only great way to portray a vampire is to make it seem like a monster at some point in the story. Simply because the earlier legends of vampires had them beast-like corpses walking around with bloated, rotting flesh hanging from them does not mean that it is absolutely necessary, story-wise, for a vampire to be monster-like in some way. Frankly, I like the idea of vampires never
seeming like monsters – always looking beautiful, even in the sunlight.
Now after all that defense of the current vampire trend...no, I don't think it's good thing.

But I dislike it in the same way that I dislike most non-christian writing. The authors write immoral stories. They do it with vampires, they do it with witches, they do it with plain old men and women. Most of the stories, I don't like, because of what Varon said.
Varon wrote:
People glamorize death and cannibalism.
But that is not a dislike of the actual idea of vampires – merely of the way that authors take the concept and use it in their stories.