cassie-1-2-3 A whole lot of vampire stories don't say anything about bats. A whole lot of vampire stories don't mention coffins at all. There are multiple vampire stories that include vampires without fangs. There are other vampire stories that include vampires who react to the sun. (Out of curiosity, how many vampire stories are you familiar with?) I'd give specific examples, but it would require a little research that I am not able to do at this very moment. I can provide them upon request, though. They are shape shifters, not werewolves .They are shape shifters, they are not tied to the moon. They have this trait because the spirit warriors were able to communicate while outside of their bodies. (Simply reading the series would provide you with these answers)

RonGetYourWand In answer to your question, I mostly read the different myths about vampires but I've also read House of Night, Tantalize, Eternal, ect. I know there are a lot of books about vampires that don't have all these qualities, but they at least have explaination to why or one of the qualities. Twilight has next none of the same qualities besides blood drinking. There should be some way of explaining why, I would even accept her saying it's a different breed or branch of vampires, but she doesn't.

cassie-1-2-3 Well, it looks like that's just a personal standard you as an individual have and not a legitimate criticism of the story. It would only make sense that the same applies to all the other vampire stories that don't provide all the answers in the world (Which is likely close to all of them). Unliess this is a special preference specially reserved for Twilight. You know, holding it to a higher standard.

RonGetYourWand In a way, yes, you could say I hold it to a different standard. Because it seems like a different creature from vampires. For example; there's a book called Wings that has a completely different version of a fairy than normal books, but it explains how they came to be and their biology. In my mind, Stephanie created a new brand of vampire, and that's great but she never shows us how they became that way or what their biology works. Because she created a new brand of people, I expect her to know how they work and to show the reader all she has created.

cassie-1-2-3 A lot of vampire books don't talk about biology. Really, it's rather rare in vampire literature. But the truth is, there was biology in the series. Again, this is all your personal preferences. Instead of wanting books to change to fit your desires, why don't you find a book that does? If you can't find one, write one. It's pretty obvious that you have ideas about what you think books should and should not be. Everything in the world can't please YOU (because "there's not enough biology" is not a common complaint). Twilight doesn't have everything you want. I'm sure a lot of books don't. Why is Twilight so special?

RonGetYourWand The difference is Meyer said she wanted to create new type of vampire but did nothing to show why they differ so much. It just seems strange to me that someone gets labeled as great for creating a new breed when she doesn't explain it at all. I understand that some books are just for fun and don't need to make perfect sense, and that's great reading for some people is a way to escape and just not think, even I do that sometimes. But than you don't create a new breed of people if you don't wanna back it up. I'm not saying this as a way to just bash twilight, I have friends that enjoy the books and don't think much of it. I just think she would have gotten less hate and criticism if she had either used one of the widely accepted views of vampires or explained her breed more well. She even could have written a companion explaining it and it would have helped. You seem to come at me like you think I only hold Twilight to this but I don't. Whenever I read a story that differs from myths with no real explaination I point it out and try to fill in what the author left blank. Twilight isn't the only one but it's kind of the point of this spot. And from what I've seen 'not enough biology' is a main complaint from people I know about the series. Are they dead? Are they living? Are certain parts of them living? How can that happen? These are all questions I hear from even fans of the Twilight books when they are late in high school. I wonder these things too, and do far no one can explain it. Which makes it seem like there is no answer. If you know an essay about it or something ( I'm being serious) send a link, but from what I understand no one thought it through.

Minervina Good articale! Don't listen to cassie-1-2-3 she will defeand twilight no matter what

Flickerflame Regarding the werewolf points tied to the moon, it's mentioned in Breaking Dawn that there's another type of werewolf, which is more like the stereotypical werewolf (turned by infection instead of genetics, turn into wolves at a full moon etc). Therefore, it's likely that in the Twilight universe, those legends about werewolves would have originated from the Children of the Moon, as they're called, not from the Quilete wolf shape-shifters. Regarding the sunlight thing, that's briefly explained as just something humans have assumed because vampires avoid direct sunlight (or the shining will betray them). The Short Second Life Of Bree Tanner (a spin-off novella) also suggests the idea that the shining could be mistaken for fire by a human seeing it from a distance.