Am I really narrow-minded?

Meyer wasn't 글쓰기 a horror novel, so she didn't make her 뱀파이어 scary.

It is true that 뱀파이어 don't exist. Saying that Dracula doesn't sparkle in the sun, so Twilight 뱀파이어 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 또는 criterion for things that do not exist.

I think it's true that many people can be 더 많이 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 당신 like something 또는 not, and 당신 have reasons why. 당신 stated your reasons (or some of your reasons) on why 당신 "dislike" Twilight, and if she couldn't accept that, fine. No matter WHAT creature you're 글쓰기 about in a story, if they have a mind of their own, they need to have CHARACTER FLAWS, something Stephenie Meyer's 뱀파이어 seriously lacked. (Nothing against Stephenie Meyer as a person, though!) Yes, 당신 could say 당신 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 당신 don't like 뱀파이어 that sparkle, that's your personal input on things. That doesn't making 당신 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, 뱀파이어 are supposed to be scary not sparkley

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

Anyway, I Think 당신 Are Being Narrow-Minded With The Fact That Stephenie Meyer's 뱀파이어 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 당신 Don't Like Stephenie Meyer's 뱀파이어 Doesn't Mean Your Imagination Isn't Good! Really It's Just Opinion! A Vampire Storie With The Frightning Gore That 당신 Expect Them To Have, Compared To The Cullens. . . Yeah, I'll Admit It's Defenaitly Changed! 당신 Could Be A Tad 더 많이 Open Minded But It's Really Opinion!

Hope I Helped! :)

I doubt it. 뱀파이어 can be portrayed differently due to different people's creativity, but 당신 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 의해 a writer, because it takes away what they are.

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

Also, the Meyerpires aren't even 뱀파이어 and the Meyer 늑대인간 aren't even werewolves, they're just glittery, bloodsucking Ken/Barbie 인형 and Animorphs, which aren't even worthy of being called 뱀파이어 and werewolves.

No.