Poll: Dracula or Twilight?
- Thread starter MelasZepheos_v1legacy
- Start date
If you had said something which wasn't Twilight I probably would have gone with the money, but I really disagree with the messages and tones behind and in Twilight, so Dracula.
Dracula. i just want the love of the whole world. plus, ive read stephanie meyers other stuff: its okay. the problem with twilight is she admitted she doesnt know anything about vampires. then wrote a vampire novel. which is a class a retarded decision.
In Dracula's defense. back in the Victorian era, it wasn't as easy to get a book out into the public recognition. While the Twilight books came into recognition for allllll the wrong reasons.
Tbh, Dracula is an undisputed great. And Edward Cullen is an undisputed gayboy-sparkle-nab.
Tbh, Dracula is an undisputed great. And Edward Cullen is an undisputed gayboy-sparkle-nab.
Dracula
why?
twilight will be gone and forgotten in a decade, Dracula wont
I'd rather have a work that will 'survive' beyond my life span several time then be rich now off a tightly coiled dog turd, there's a form of immortality to that.
why?
twilight will be gone and forgotten in a decade, Dracula wont
I'd rather have a work that will 'survive' beyond my life span several time then be rich now off a tightly coiled dog turd, there's a form of immortality to that.
Wait, why is this even a question?
Dracula is basically what defined vampires until Twilight came along and raped the image/name. Dracula is an enduring classic that has been overshadowed by poorly authored teen drama with "vampires."
Obviously, Dracula is what I root for.
Dracula is basically what defined vampires until Twilight came along and raped the image/name. Dracula is an enduring classic that has been overshadowed by poorly authored teen drama with "vampires."
Obviously, Dracula is what I root for.
For starters I am not a fan of Twilight I have even tried to read it, couldn't get passed her take on Vampire Lore. I however find it very amusing that people love to call it shit. It would have never made the New York Times bestseller list if that were true. Is it a typical fantasy/horror novel, nope, but then again I don't think Meyer's set to achieve that. It is a unique spin on a love story, that is all.
In short are the books shit and millions of people are fucking retarded or do some people have sticks in their asses. It may not be your thing but that doesn't mean it is utter shit. to each their own.
To answer the question in the OP. I would rather write something that I personal felt proud of regardless of what the out come was. As long as I am happy with the published work I could careless if it made me a millionaire or kept me a poor ass hobo. Their will always be critics and cynics trying to bring you down.
Sidenote: I am a larger fan of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter then Dracula or Twilight
In short are the books shit and millions of people are fucking retarded or do some people have sticks in their asses. It may not be your thing but that doesn't mean it is utter shit. to each their own.
To answer the question in the OP. I would rather write something that I personal felt proud of regardless of what the out come was. As long as I am happy with the published work I could careless if it made me a millionaire or kept me a poor ass hobo. Their will always be critics and cynics trying to bring you down.
Sidenote: I am a larger fan of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter then Dracula or Twilight
Dracula. Why? Because Bram Stoker was hardly a destitute bum. The guy worked with a famous actor, knew the American president, and was a fairly notable personality. He had plenty of money to live comfortably, and had a wide and varied career. Once you have that, the difference between quite comfortable and rich is pretty un-noticeable.
I wouldn't ever write something like Twilight. Oh don't get me wrong, I would write a horrible, trashy book with 0 redeeming value that would make Stoker roll in his grave: If people like it enough to give me money, hell, who am I to judge someones taste? It doesn't have to be a cultural revolution to be a fun read worth killing a few hours. I wouldn't write Twilight because it is a veritable how-to guide to emotionally abusive relationships that teaches very young children to define themselves entirely by their man, valued only for their virginity, and basically be a passive, pretty airhead. I couldn't live with that on my conscious. I like women too much to insult them like that.
I wouldn't ever write something like Twilight. Oh don't get me wrong, I would write a horrible, trashy book with 0 redeeming value that would make Stoker roll in his grave: If people like it enough to give me money, hell, who am I to judge someones taste? It doesn't have to be a cultural revolution to be a fun read worth killing a few hours. I wouldn't write Twilight because it is a veritable how-to guide to emotionally abusive relationships that teaches very young children to define themselves entirely by their man, valued only for their virginity, and basically be a passive, pretty airhead. I couldn't live with that on my conscious. I like women too much to insult them like that.
So does an impression, when the timeframe increases. Which it does. In time.Leole said:
Fuck impact I'd rather have money right now. Fame I couldnt care less about.
Also: GJ OP. I was considering a rage post before I read your opening. Ticking me off for no good reason. Fuck, borderline trolling right there
I'd rather have something like Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot.
Youj're popular while you're alive, and leave a lasting impression once you die (he's not dead yet, but no one lives forever).
However, out of those two... Id ont know. I guess twlight, cause as much as people will say they hate twilight and would never want to write something so horrible, when you look at how much you're raking in, tunes change, FAST. And no one says that the book you write has to be crap. you could write an amazing book like dracula, and have it popular. cause Twilight is going to be known even after meyers dies, just by its addition to culture.
EDIT:
Youj're popular while you're alive, and leave a lasting impression once you die (he's not dead yet, but no one lives forever).
However, out of those two... Id ont know. I guess twlight, cause as much as people will say they hate twilight and would never want to write something so horrible, when you look at how much you're raking in, tunes change, FAST. And no one says that the book you write has to be crap. you could write an amazing book like dracula, and have it popular. cause Twilight is going to be known even after meyers dies, just by its addition to culture.
EDIT:
Someone watched Moviebob's review I see. XDXanadu84 said:
Dracula had a lasting after effect that still echos today and will probably be remembered throughout human history.
Twilight, may be a series of words randomly arranged in a book to form millions of dollars, but that money wont make a positive impact on history.
Twilight will be a foot note. Stephany Mayer may be rich now, but will be forgotten.
Dracula is a Headline. Bram Stoker may be dead, but will be remembered.
Out of the two, I would prefer to have Bram Stoker style success.
Twilight, may be a series of words randomly arranged in a book to form millions of dollars, but that money wont make a positive impact on history.
Twilight will be a foot note. Stephany Mayer may be rich now, but will be forgotten.
Dracula is a Headline. Bram Stoker may be dead, but will be remembered.
Out of the two, I would prefer to have Bram Stoker style success.
I would hate myself if I wrote a crappy book just to cash in on the money. Even though fame won't matter to me when I'm dead, I'd rather have people actually remember me for something good, instead of forgetting about me a year after my last book is published.
Dracula all the way.
Dracula all the way.
So this isn't about vampires, but the effect the book has? In that case, I would prefer a book that affects me during my lifetime, even if it was terrible. After all, how am I to know that my book will be considered good later if I'm dead? As much as writers need to express themselves, they also need to eat. (I'd hate myself, but I'd also be determined to write something much better now that I have a fanbase and publishers.)
I find it hard to believe so many of you have read both Dracula and Twilight anyway. I've read Dracula, sure, but I sure as hell have never even read a paragraph of Twilight, nor have I seen any of the films, so I have nothing to go on its artistic merits (or lack thereof) despite hearsay. And I don't think it's prudent to critique a novel, no matter how widespread the condemnation is, without experiencing said novel.
I'm a fan of Stephen King for example - as a writer he's fair to middling, but for just the sheer fun of his stories - there's a reason his books are best-sellers! JK Rowling is hardly Dickens or Austen, but goddamn she can spin a good bloody story.
If anything, it might be more interesting to be somewhere in between the Dracula and Twilight - writing like someone like Robert E Howard. He didn't get the vast amounts of cash and his tragically short life will I'm sure fulfil your struggling artist fantasies.
I'm a fan of Stephen King for example - as a writer he's fair to middling, but for just the sheer fun of his stories - there's a reason his books are best-sellers! JK Rowling is hardly Dickens or Austen, but goddamn she can spin a good bloody story.
If anything, it might be more interesting to be somewhere in between the Dracula and Twilight - writing like someone like Robert E Howard. He didn't get the vast amounts of cash and his tragically short life will I'm sure fulfil your struggling artist fantasies.
Twilight.
Sorry, but I got a mouth to feed, rent to pay and a borderline addiction to video games to fuel. I see no value in posthumous fame and fortune.
In an ideal world I would write Twilight to line my pockets, then, once I was all cashed up, I would write Dracula for the advancement of literature and whatnot. (Although then nobody would take it seriously because, "Urg, it's by that Twilight guy.")
Sorry, but I got a mouth to feed, rent to pay and a borderline addiction to video games to fuel. I see no value in posthumous fame and fortune.
In an ideal world I would write Twilight to line my pockets, then, once I was all cashed up, I would write Dracula for the advancement of literature and whatnot. (Although then nobody would take it seriously because, "Urg, it's by that Twilight guy.")