Page 26 of 27

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:23 pm
by ktripper
Now in my opinion we all have a little vampire in us. All it depends on is the venom to awaken that side of us. Just like an allergy its not activated until you have what you are allergic to. So no vampires are not dead at all.

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:10 pm
by queencullen
Just to throw in a small opinion I think Vampires aren't ment to be saw as Dead. They Function actually better then humans do on the most part and we get the role of being "alive"... I think they Earned it in a way=]

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:44 pm
by somethingblue
queencullen wrote:Just to throw in a small opinion I think Vampires aren't ment to be saw as Dead. They Function actually better then humans do on the most part and we get the role of being "alive"... I think they Earned it in a way=]
Ok, I really hated Chemistry and Biology many years ago, but just because Ouisa and Alcy are playing over here, I will too.

Queencullen - I must disagree with your theory that they are 'alive' better than humans. Our bodies were meant to have a beating heart, an internal body temperature and a digestive system for an array of dietary substances. We are animals (mammals) after all. The vampires may live longer, be harder to kill and be much more durable with the transformation of their venom, but there is so much that they do not use as far as the bodily functions go.

Oh and Ouisa and Alcy, what is all of this drinking without me? Image
And where is my flirtini? And finally, don't you think that dusty old Volturi would get their ancient behinds out of the dungeon every now and again?

*ducks large object and words that are too big for me to understand, both thrown by Alcy*

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:22 am
by PixieDrink
I think that vampires are not dead. Vampires can't be dead if they can die again. A vampire can be killed so if vampires were already dead then you would be killing them further. You can't kill someone or something that's already dead. I hope that makes sense!

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:46 am
by December
ouisa wrote:But December perhaps it is the ambiguity of the vampire life and Bella's final outcome that allows us to enjoy the story fully. Perhaps if we were set on the idea that Bella indeed was going to die it would come to taint the joy we feel on her behalf. Yes the loss of her family, friends and clutzy old life is tragic (and beautiful) but it is the hope of a life with Edward that makes her choice, unlike that of Juliet, one that we can ultimately be happy about. On the opposite side of that, if the change and the price Bella is paying to be with Edward wasn't so severe, it would not be as rewarding to read and this tale would be quickly forgotten instead of endlessly debated by swoony fangirls.

Life and stories are so much more interesting when there are shades of grey.
Oh absolutely. The tension between the lighthearted romance and the tragedy lurking under it is what makes this story so gripping. And the ambiguity in the way Stephenie presents Bella's choice is essential. We need to feel that this is and also isn't dying. Over the past six days, people have articulated pretty clearly the reasons vampires seem alive to us. Of course they do -- and should. This is a love story about two young people who are alive in all the ways that really matter: they laugh, and grieve, and quarrel, and kiss, and love each other so desperately that there is nothing they would not do for one another. Beside this, biological criteria aren't really very much to the point, though it's fun to think about. Twilight is a celebration of that love: if BD ends the way most people are hoping, we are not actually ending up with "two dead teens" like Romeo and Juliet, but two live -- and very emphatically embodied -- lovers who have made tremendous sacrifices, yes, but in order to live in each other's arms forever. Not very dead, that....

It's only that, as you say, Stephenie really wants to drive home the solemnity of the choice Bella's making in order to be with Edward forever. Of the sacrifices she's prepared to face. Of course Bella isn't literally dying, in all the most important senses. But it is something like death that she is contemplating, and if the language Stephenie' uses stops short of describing it that way, there are lots of other indications that this is not a frivolous analogy. Even Bella feels it subliminally, when she tries to hum Mendelsohn's Wedding March but it comes out more like a funeral dirge. She is giving up her past, her body, and all its natural functions, a future of growing and changing, human society (not just her friends and family but the possibility of ever living naturally among humankind again -- however well she masters her bloodlust, humans will always strike her first and foremost as prey), sleeping and weeping and forgetting and eating food, having a family, growing old, dying a natural death. Not one of these is definitional, but cumulatively they add up to a lot of what it means to us to be alive.

But not the most important things -- which is why as you rightly insist we can feel joy at the prospect. She and Edward love each other so much that everything else pales in comparison -- and they are claiming each other for all eternity. The extremity of the price Bella will pay is simply the measure of the magnificence of that love. I'll take that for a happy ending....

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:19 am
by Alcyone
PixieDrink wrote:I think that vampires are not dead. Vampires can't be dead if they can die again. A vampire can be killed so if vampires were already dead then you would be killing them further. You can't kill someone or something that's already dead. I hope that makes sense!
My Mac creams me at computer chess. It's obviously intelligent. It communicates (How I hate that "You lose"). It's not alive, but if I were to chuck water over it...well, there goes my Mac. I successfully killed something that was not alive to start with.

*huggles Mac* No baby, I would never do anything to hurt you. You're my baby who I love even more than my mother or boyfriend. It's okay, baby, it's okay...

S'blue, I'm so sorry. Here's your flirtini. I got my citrus Don Q and ouisa gets nothing because she's ugly.

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:34 pm
by The.New.Cullen
As far as their heart goes, heck yeah their dead! But I think it's kind of a stupor between being alive and being the not-able-to-move-or-breathe type of dead. Like... they look kind of dead, but their..not?

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:44 pm
by lidiacriss
I believe that vampires aren't dead, they can still die, and they still have feelings, they may not breathe, but I don't think that they're dead, they still need food for strength as well.

death..

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:30 pm
by LaurenKillsYou
Straight from an old anatomy book of mine: The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions."

Death, in the biological sense, is the very essence of changing into a Vampire. No heartbeat, no working organs, no passing of air through the lungs, that is the definition of biological death. However, obviously spiritually, or something else unexplainable, makes them able to "live" beyond all laws of nature.

Re: death..

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:35 pm
by Alcyone
LaurenKillsYou wrote:Straight from an old anatomy book of mine: The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions."
Straight from my college Biology textbook: Protists and prokaryotes form over 90% of the living organisms on Earth. They have neither lungs or hearts so they do not have respiratory or cardiac functions. They're not dead. Plants don't have lungs or hearts either. They're also not dead. "The absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions" only accounts for the death of a very small percentage indeed of organisms and may not apply to vampires as it does not apply to the majority of organisms.