HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| NinjaLlama
NinjaLlama
[1450712]
[]
"Ninja"
# Statistics
Favourites: 350; Deviations: 20; Watchers: 10
Watching: 51; Pageviews: 6132; Comments Made: 120; Friends: 51
# Comments
Comments: 78
Hey there- thanks for the 
And thanks again!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, you're just 1 llama off from Super Llama... but still 491 llamas off the actual NINJA LLAMA!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thank you for the llama! 491 llamas is a lot of llamas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. Join a llama club, and you'll get tons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for the fav. Pass the fairy piss, please.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, to be so simple and want your world just so. It's sad, honestly.
You claim to be with the one with a world much bigger than mine, but you want the rules to remain rules and you think it makes you free.
I want the rules to be broken and for the world to progress and for thought and the freedom to create to ring true, and I'm the small minded one?
Do you see the hypocrisy in this?
Nothing in this world progressed because someone followed the rules others made for them all the time.
I VOTE PROGRESS. You want stagnation. Have fun in that world.
PROGRESSION DOESN'T HAPPEN THE WAY YOU DESCRIBE IT. If everything was your way, there would be no fiction to begin with. Just a rehash of the same damn stories for eons. Doesn't that sound boring? Wouldn't you want the ability to branch out and touch new subjects and create new beings? You can do this! But it happens in small steps. The evolution between the species of man was simple, but they all have something in common. I'm prescribing to the evolution of the vampire mythos, but under the giant blanket of all that could and does encompass vampirism.
You don't. You want one thing, one way, always. It's boring.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wouldn't you want the ability to branch out and touch new subjects and create new beings
-------------
Yes. That's why I said 'If you get so far off, just cut your losses and make it a totally different creature.'
I'm all for the creation of new things, but even the general term vampire has such primal meaning that you have to stick to them being inhuman, immoral (or at least somewhere along those lines, none of this save humanity crap), and.. well, VAMPIRES.
I want progress in terms of actual progress- leaving behind tired and played out myths in exchange for creating new things. But if people are going to stick to the old, then make it accurate! I'm not going to take a hummingbird sized, neon pink, feathery two headed thing and call it a dragon any more than I would make sparkling vampires. It's wrong, it goes against everything that has ever been recorded about the creature, and it's just plain stupid as hell.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
Okay, okay, I've got another idea. Let's move away from the vampire thing for just one tiny moment.
God. The concept of god is steeped in culture and myth and stories, can we all agree to that? The concept of god has been restructured to fit a culture's needs and wants and perceptions of the world around them. Such is the nature of myth, correct?
There are some things that are intrinsic to the story. God is usually cast as a similar type of being (let's take Western Abrahamic Religions for now). God is seen, painted, drawn and generally considered to be an older, larger but still muscular gentlemen. Remember, general terms.
Now, Kevin Smith comes along with "Dogma" and casts, of all people, Alanis Morissette to play God. This casting and characterization of God goes against years of myth and legend. Why aren't you upset about this?
Are you to decide that he was wrong in doing so? Just because his concept of God is different from yours it's incorrect?
If God decided to (magically) appear as a flower, is it wrong just because it goes against the norm. It's still God after all, it just looks different.
Are you getting the point? You are not the one to decide whether a fictitious creature is right or wrong; no one has this ability. I'm sitting here with the answer of "It all goes" and you're the one trying to set the ground rules on something that doesn't give a shit about your rules!
You're trying to stereotype. That's it. Something breaks the stereotypes. Always. The only constant is change.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Who are you--the gatekeeper who decides who's too far off the track and who's not, and therefore who should be recognized as the species they're claiming to be?
You have no right more than the next person to claim that species in a story are not what they claim to be. So there are a bunch of myths from numerous civilizations--which one's better? You're going to claim that a certain specimen from a more recent literary work is invalid because they decided to put a spin on the old vampire? Who cares!
Did you rail against J.K. Rowling because the dragons in her books didn't hoard gold or ? Did you protest The Last Unicorn because the beasts didn't rape virgins? Myths and legends that have a change for the better stick around--those who don't disappear. It doesn't mean that they're any less a vampire or werewolf, unicorn or dragon than the next. Who are you to say that one creature's attribute is too extreme a change to be let into such a "exclusive" club. I mean, really. Are you going to try and claim that Serbian dragons are better in all ways than Chinese dragons or Anne McCaffrey's? I mean, hell, you're upset about Meyer's vampires? I guess you'll be furious as all hell at McCaffrey.
And yet, they /are/ dragons, just as Meyer's vampires /are/ vampires, simply of a different flavor than Anne Rice's or other older myths. Sure, you may not like them, and sure, you might see them as a bastardization upon literary works. Newsflash: those happen daily, even moreso upon the birth of the internet. Solution? Quit bitching and being purist about myths and stories and go /write/ a better one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If I pointed to my cat and called it a vampire, you can't disprove me. This is my entire point, ready?
There is no physical model to disprove or prove what is or isn't a vampire. Get it?
You can't be the one to make decisions when you do not posses some mental power or piece of information that anyone else has. Is it that hard?
There is no real vampires, so until a "real" vampire comes forward and proves whether or not vampires "sparkle" or walk on water or eat only cake, then I don't care what an author wants to call a vampire. It's just a word with a few theories in the realm of fantasy attached to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
.....
All I can say is wow. If you're resorting to that, you've just proved my point more than you can ever prove yours.
Until a real vampire comes along, I'm going to go by the universal vampire traits, which I listed in my original post.
All the different types qualify, because they share a serious weakness to daylight, are risen from the dead, and sustain themselves on humans, occasionally feeding on cattle or something, but this was usually another way of taking vengeance on people.
And by your logic, I could call a bear a dining room table. After all, it's 'only a word with a few theories' attached, never mind the whole purpose of language is to attach theories to certain sounds...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
My other comment is referring to my God example, which it seems you didn't address.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because there was no point in it, seeing as I really have no specific idea of what God could be. God is that one thing that really does fall into the 'it could look like anything' category.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bingo. You have no specific idea of what God could be, despite there being thousands of years worth of people claiming to know exactly what God was and what it looked like. Were they all wrong, or do you just not know enough?
What's different between the god mythology and vampire mythology then?
There is more established ideas on God than there are on vampires.
Even look at the nature of God's themselves! They changed and morphed from the Greeks to the Chinese to Catholicism to Pastafarianism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even look at the nature of God's themselves! They changed and morphed from the Greeks to the Chinese to Catholicism
--------
Yes. And vampires change throughout different cultures, but like gods, they keep certain defining traits.
Gods- all powerful, supernatural entities that can do just about anything they please. Gods are usually seen as benevolent, although some have a tendency to smiting people more than others. Gods are more often than not worshiped.
Vampires- undead, usually regarded to be not that great looking (and those that are are A- female, and B- some of the most ruthless killers), avoid light because it hurts, usually have fangs (even eastern ones are mentioned to have large teeth at times), and feed off of human life in one form or another. People are free to change the why (modern 'diseased' vampires), the how (explaining the physical reasons for all this as well as supernatural), but have to keep in line with the universal characteristics.
Meyer's vampires have none of those traits, and therefor are not vampires, no matter how much you may try to defend them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Fine, magical fucking swan. Swans in the realm of fiction. A talking swan.
Also, ever read Bunnicula? The vampire bunny rabbit?
By your definition, Bunnicula isn't a vampire, because it's furry, and a rabbit, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bunnicula /isn't/ a vampire. He was rabbit with a freak mutation, mistakenly identified as a vampire by a cat with some serious issues, and the nickname just kind of stuck.
You'd know that if you read the damn book.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not all vampires even prey on humans. There are numerous accounts of vampires preying on animals due to desperation/morals/vengeance.
And if in a story there's a vampiric bunny that feeds on vegetables, fine. Whatever. It has vampiric traits, and so it's not that big of a deal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Bunnicula is a children's book series written by James Howe (and his late wife Deborah in the case of "Bunnicula") about a vampire bunny that sucks the juice out of vegetables."
"While Bunnicula's vampire-like activities...."
"Bunnicula – The bunny with strange eating habits and strange vampire-like qualities..."
"Instead of buck teeth like all rabbits, Bunnicula has fangs. In the televised version, when Bunnicula goes into his vampiric form, he sprouts bat wings under his arms and his eyes turn yellow. His vampire powers include flight, hypnosis, levitation, and telekinesis."
Still not a vampire?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope. Vampires are things that prey on humans, not vegetables.
Bunnicula was one of those offshoots that really has nowhere to be classified yet, and using that as a defense was pretty weak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think what I posted was pretty decent evidence as to the wide held belief that Bunnicula is in fact a form of vampire.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... you didn't even read my response to that, did you? >.<
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link]
Common themes around the world. NO SPARKLES.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"And vampires change throughout different cultures..."
But one change too far and they're suddenly not vampires anymore!
"Gods are more often than not worshiped."
But not always. Generally, but not always. Same could be said about vampires (and I've brought up examples of this half a dozen times). Vampires could be hurt by the sun generally, but not always. If a god isn't worshiped is it not a god? If it follows the "general" view of a god is that good enough? You use words about gods like "usually", "tendency" and "more often than not."
So, vampires usually have a tendency to be effected negatively by sunlight, more often than not. Would you say that by your logic that's correct? Well, that leaves an awful lot of room for a lot of exceptions to the rules.
Remember, you didn't say "Gods are worshiped, smite people and are benevolent." But yet you say "Vampires drink blood and burn in daylight." Can't have it both ways.
"but have to keep in line with the universal characteristics."
Why? Because you say so?
"Meyer's vampires have none of those traits"
You said yourself you don't read vampire fiction, so you're not knowledgeable on what Meyer's vampires do or do not posses.
"no matter how much you may try to defend them."
You seriously don't read anything do you? I'm defending the right for fiction to be fictitious and not be so hardline.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, vampires usually have a tendency to be effected negatively by sunlight, more often than not. Would you say that by your logic that's correct? Well, that leaves an awful lot of room for a lot of exceptions to the rules.
----------
Ignoring the terrible grammar of that...
I've never seen tell of any vampire that goes around at daytime. They were solidly night creatures, as you would know from doing some research besides reading half-baked novels. And I really see no way that 'solidly night creatures' leaves room for exception.
I only gave vampires the 'solid' definition because I have not learned of every single god myth out there, but I've gone through all but a handful vampires and have seen enough to validate that. If I was only going by the vampires most people know, then you could call me out. But I'm one of the freaks who goes by myth, so you can't.
-------------
Why? Because you say so?
----
No, because anyone who respects the thing they're dealing with will do so. I wouldn't write a book about swans and say they're small, brown and furry. If you don't abide by universal traits, then again, what is the point of even giving names to things? We could, in fact, call bears dining room chairs because they're both brown or something like that.
------------------------
You seriously don't read anything do you? I'm defending the right for fiction to be fictitious and not be so hardline.
---------
No, I don't read anything, it's some other girl who averages 200 new books a year. /end sarcasm. I've gone through nearly everything in my library's fiction section, and can say with certainty that the best fiction writers either stick to tradition or go off and make their own creatures. They can be offshoots of a traditional one, but in the end are a different species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Ignoring the terrible grammar of that..."
And apparently completely ignoring the perfectly valid point I brought up addressing the fact that you seem to be okay with the definition of god being wishy washy, but when it comes to vampires, oh dear holy Nosferatu save us from your convictions.
"I've never seen tell of any vampire that goes around at daytime."
Anne Rice. Akasha. The Vampire Chronicles. ANNE FREAKING RICE. C'mon.
"And I really see no way that 'solidly night creatures' leaves room for exception. "
And I don't see anyone that would dare be so brash as to claim that vampires are "solidly night creatures" except you and your select group of very self-righteous friends. You didn't claim god to be "solidly benevolent", so why the change?
"But I'm one of the freaks who goes by myth..."
But myth is only part of the story, and myth isn't fact, which is what you're trying to make it.
"No, because anyone who respects the thing they're dealing with will do so."
Not always. That's just you, which is fine, but you can't fault people for not doing what you want them to.
"I wouldn't write a book about swans and say they're small, brown and furry."
But someone else might. Someone might write about a swan that's rainbow and has hooves, but it's still a swan if they say it is.
"We could, in fact, call bears dining room chairs because they're both brown or something like that."
God dammit, it's called FICTION. NOT REAL. For the love of all that's holy get that through your head. We're talking about fucking fiction.
"can say with certainty that the best fiction writers either stick to tradition or go off and make their own creatures."
But they don't HAVE to stick to tradition. That's the point. Because it's fiction you can do what you like!
"They can be offshoots of a traditional one, but in the end are a different species."
That's just speculation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
As a general rule in vampire lore, The more power a vampire has or the longer they have lived would indeed give them the ability to tolerate the sun and other irritants.
Akasha was clearly a perfect example of this: THE REST OF THE VAMPIRES could not tolerate the sun unless they partook of her blood.
Paine was stating that as a society of creatures as a WHOLE in a story, there are basically NO examples of the entire race of vampires being able to just wander around in sunlight whenever they bloody well please for no reason.
A handful of powerful vampires, most certainly. EVERY vampire? No. Enough said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But that just goes to show that just because myth states that vampires can't walk in the sun that it isn't entirely, in the realm of fiction, "true".
One author broke the rules, another can too. Anne Rice isn't catching a load of BS over her Akasha, so why the discrepancy?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Because that was ONE vampire.
There is a reason that vamps can't walk in the sun. It's part of the curse that being a vampire entails. BEING A VAMPIRE IS MEANT TO BE A BAD THING. Not something for 13 year old fangirls to swoon over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mm, meant to be. Doesn't have to be. What are you people, the Vampire Classification Squad? Does every fiction writer have to pass your test from now on?
Being a vampire was a bad thing. It was an undesired outcome and according to some of Meyer's characters, it was not to be inflicted on others. Hence the whole vegetarian thing.
Edward believed he had lost his soul. That reeks of being seen as a negative situation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, that reeks of need for angst.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So? Edward was turned when he was 17. Of course he's angsty. Aren't most modern vampires angsty? Lestat from IWAV believe he was damned. He was so angsty he tried kill himself.
It's just characterization. I would say that believing you are the walking damned is pretty negative.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Are you a fanboy or what?
And no, but we respect the fiction and folklore that Meyers has taken great pleasure in raping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Y'know, I'm not going to keep debating with people who aren't on the up and up as to what I've already covered or not.
But no, I'm neither male nor a fan per se.
You respect it as long as it follows your rules. That's elitist nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>