Am I really narrow-minded?

Meyer wasn't লেখা a horror novel, so she didn't make her ভ্যাম্পায়ার scary.

It is true that ভ্যাম্পায়ার don't exist. Saying that Dracula doesn't sparkle in the sun, so Twilight ভ্যাম্পায়ার shouldn't sparkle is also like saying Merlin didn't have any glowing scars, so Harry shouldn't either. There is no set concrete standards অথবা criterion for things that do not exist.

I think it's true that many people can be আরো open minded in this aspect, but I do not believe they are narrow minded. I think being narrow minded would mean that they refuse to know absolutely anything about them other than what they prefer to assume.

No, I don't think you're being narrow-minded.

It's your opinion whether আপনি like something অথবা not, and আপনি have reasons why. আপনি stated your reasons (or some of your reasons) on why আপনি "dislike" Twilight, and if she couldn't accept that, fine. No matter WHAT creature you're লেখা about in a story, if they have a mind of their own, they need to have CHARACTER FLAWS, something Stephenie Meyer's ভ্যাম্পায়ার seriously lacked. (Nothing against Stephenie Meyer as a person, though!) Yes, আপনি could say আপনি COULD be a little narrow-minded about the whole sparkling thing in Twilight, and how the concept bothered you. But again, it's all a matter of opinion. If আপনি don't like ভ্যাম্পায়ার that sparkle, that's your personal input on things. That doesn't making আপনি any less creative - it just shows your likes and dislikes about your view of vampires.

But the fact about not liking Twilight itself, that's not narrow-minded. That's good sense. :)

No, ভ্যাম্পায়ার are supposed to be scary not sparkley

Warning: I May Sound A Bit Biased Because I প্রণয় Twilight! However, I'm Rereading Harry Potter Because I প্রণয় Those Too!

Anyway, I Think আপনি Are Being Narrow-Minded With The Fact That Stephenie Meyer's ভ্যাম্পায়ার Didn't Meet Your Expectations! But It Is A Bit Out There! So Yes And No! It Has Nothing To Do With Your Imagination Though! Just Because আপনি Don't Like Stephenie Meyer's ভ্যাম্পায়ার Doesn't Mean Your Imagination Isn't Good! Really It's Just Opinion! A Vampire Storie With The Frightning Gore That আপনি Expect Them To Have, Compared To The Cullens. . . Yeah, I'll Admit It's Defenaitly Changed! আপনি Could Be A Tad আরো Open Minded But It's Really Opinion!

Hope I Helped! :)

I doubt it. ভ্যাম্পায়ার can be portrayed differently due to different people's creativity, but আপনি can't just change everything that makes a vampire a vampire. It's not being narrow minded, it's just reacting to a ridiuclous change. It's like if a certain aspect of your life that you're used to suddenly changes without explanation. True, a fictional creature has no rules that must be followed, but something that's been around for 100s of years, can't be that drastically altered দ্বারা a writer, because it takes away what they are.

Certain mythologies go along with ভ্যাম্পায়ার - it's what makes them vampires. I've read other vampire novels where the লেখক tweaked some vampire myths to suit her own version of ভ্যাম্পায়ার (Amelia Atwater Rhodes is a perfect example) and not been bothered. However, those other ভ্যাম্পায়ার had flaws and weaknesses, something Smeyer's ভ্যাম্পায়ার don't have.

I consider myself to be a very open-minded and accepting person, but even I (even when I was a fan) wasn't happy about Smeyer's vampires.

No. You're not. The Cullens are not vampires- they are blehblehblehs.

(p.s. Is your mom a Twi-mom?)

No, not at all. Both me and my sister Astrid are antis and my cousin is a Twitard and she's always saying that I'm not open to a change in the vampire and werewolf rules. But what Meyer's doing isn't even changing the rules, it's almost like she's trying to redefine the rules, set দ্বারা authors that have লেখা skills (which she doesn't have).

Also, the Meyerpires aren't even ভ্যাম্পায়ার and the Meyer নেকড়ে-মানুষ aren't even werewolves, they're just glittery, bloodsucking Ken/Barbie পুতুল and Animorphs, which aren't even worthy of being called ভ্যাম্পায়ার and werewolves.

No.