Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Starting today. Even though it sounds good I'm not enthused it my be the six other books in my pile.

I have a really hard time feeling any sense of gravity in stories of

A) Vampires that don't feed on human blood.
B) Supernatural creatures roaming around in broad daylight, living pedestrian lives. Doing yoga?

What they really need to be doing is some Zumba
...booty shake, booty shake, booty shake...let me see ya booty shake...

Yoga rules. Nothing against zumba but yoga has withstood the test of time. :)

Indeed, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous a thing for vampires to do, IMHO.

Well according to Anne Rice the older s vampire becomes the more like statues they become so in a way they kind a do but yeah you're right.

LOL. They better watch out. They might get stuck in down dog.

That is a great image. I've tried twice before to reply to that and couldn't.

To business: I am on page 44 and bored out of m uh skull. I read Shadows in Flight and 200 pages of the Killing Floor since I last picked up this book. Does it get any better? Or should write my own ending now in which all the witches, daemons and vampires kill Diana, take Michael and kill with a variation on water torture using Holy Water. Then storm the Bodleian, kill the staff, find Ashmole 782 and have sn epic battle in Gillian Chamberlain wins because this was all her grand design?

OMG! You must have skimmed ahead, Jim. How else could you know all that? LOL

Actually, I'm afraid your version is quite a bit more exciting than where we are at page 255. I'm also nodding off a bit. This is definitely a "morning read"!!!

Why, you haven't even gotten to Yoga class and the AMAZING wine tastings yet, how can you possibly give up before that???

you know I have read all of the Dan Brown books except the most recent and combined they have spent this much time in the library talking about folios and such and in Angels and Demons that was central to the plot.

I'm having a difficult time focusing on this book. Like Jim, I've taken several breaks to read other books. I feel that this one is almost a chore to read.

However, it has seemed to spark discussion on the board about what a vampire should be like. So what characteristics do you think a vampire should have and do you think the vampires in this book exhibit any of them?

Well, for one thing, I think vampires should be SCARY. I can see giving them a certain charisma, but the way I always thought of vampires (prior to the recent reimagining of them) was that they might seem attractive on the surface, but it was only to lure the victim in. Once you got close to one, you were basically done for. The idea of "vampire protector" that seems so popular in these romantic fantasies just seems ludicrous to me.

I can see it being a plot twist in ONE vampire story, perhaps, that a certain vampire might have such a character trait. But now it's become part of the vampire archetype that they are "fiercely protective". I don't accept that.

I also don't accept any vampires that don't DRINK BLOOD. That is the defining characteristic of a vampire, period, IMHO. To me, it fails the test even if they "don't choose to" drink blood. They are COMPELLED to drink human blood. That is what makes a vampire a vampire.

If everybody wants a handsome, supernatural boyfriend that is fiercely protective, has ungodly strength and reflexes, has lived a long time, can read minds, etc, then why not make up a new character class and stop tacking traits onto vampires that don't make sense.

Oh, and they can't be out in the sun either. And not because they look "too conspicuous" to humans. They can't be out in the sun because they'll burn up and die!

The stakes for vampires in the current book are incredibly low. In this book, she explains things like this as being the remnants of things humans believed about vampires that have a shred of truth. In the case of not being able to be out in the daylight, that wasn't because they would die, but because they would be more "noticeable". Oh boy, that's terrifying, isn't it?

In this version, the vampires (and other "creatures") are the way they are because of simple DNA mutations. However, they are sworn to never spend too much time together. Because it will lead to disaster? Oh, no...it's because it will attract too much attention from humans.

Oh goodness, I'm shaking in my boots!

Ok, so you can see I have a lot to say on this topic. I just hate it when people go out of their way to inject REALITY into a perfectly good FANTASY.

Count Dracula and Barnabus Collins minus the Jossette obsession.

Finding out the Matthew was/is the president of the "Knights of Lazarus" and the ruminations by Diana about how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead made me wonder if we'll be facing the revelation at some point that Matthew is, actually, Jesus.

I hope not.

I think vampires should have to drink human blood to survive, just like zombies have to eat human flesh. I think they have to be difficult to kill - essentially immortal except for stake through the heart, fire, and decapitation.

I don't think the death by sunlight is a must. I think it makes for a nice departure every once in a while. I've read a few authors whose vampires can walk in daylight and I find some of them more frightening or interesting than traditional vampires.

I also like both vampires who still retain some of their humanity and those that are more bestial. Both can make for an interesting read if they're done right. Also, both versions can be pretty scary, although the vampires in 30 Days of Night are TERRIFYING and they fall more into the bestial side of the spectrum.

I think a vampire would be more obsessive or territorial, not necessarily protective. The protective angle can move a plot along in a paranormal romance (you need something to redeem a blood sucking monster), but if you're not writing romance with the Vampire as a lead I don't think protective really fits with what a vampire "should" be. Again, if it's well done, I can get behind this plot device.

Denise wrote: "Finding out the Matthew was/is the president of the "Knights of Lazarus" and the ruminations by Diana about how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead made me wonder if we'll be facing the revelation a..."

Well that's something to look forward to. :/

I think the disconnect for me is the huge, apparently unstoppable trend in making vampires into romantic leading men. Like you, I can see that sometimes something offbeat can be a nice departure. But it seems to me like an entire genre has been built on the idea of vampire romance. It would be like if, now that Isaac Marion has broken into the romantic life of a zombie, an entire genre of zombie romance began to fill the shelves. Over time, it might become the standard that zombies were gallant, dashing heroes, rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

Personally, I've never been a huge fan of "monster" type stories, anyway, so it's not like I'm upset that my favorite character type has been "de-fanged" or anything. I think it's more amusing than anything else! But the amusement reaction really takes away from the seriousness I think I'm supposed to feel about love with a vampire.

Amy wrote: Well that's something to look forward to. :/ ."

Haha! Simply a hunch, not a spoiler in any way. I just know there's a story about Jesus and Mary Magdelene having a family in the south of France. Maybe she won't go there, but I wouldn't be surprised...

Dan Brown covered. Good book bad research. ... I like what I wrote. Think I'll stick with it. Read The Killing Floor (Very good and at least two twists I didn't see coming.) Now I'm on Die Trying and then Dracula. Bought a new one for this year. Read every October/November.

Am I the only one who kept reading this? I am marking it as "read" but I think the last 30 pages may have to be a total skim job. I can not believe this book was published, much less made the NYT bestsellers list. (Not to mention the reviews on the first three pages from everyone from Oprah to the Pope!) The only reason I read it was that it illustrates perfectly just about every piece of advice I've ever read about how NOT to write a book.

For awhile it was entertaining in kind of an MST3K kind of way. I enjoyed reading parts of it to my husband and us "heckling" it together. But after awhile, even that got old–like it wasn't even interesting enough to poke fun at anymore!

My faith in traditional publishing is seriously shaken with this offering.

I'm still reading it, although ever tempted to quit. I keep putting it off, but I should have it finished by the end of the week. Like Denise, I'm baffled by the popularity and acclaim of this book.

It has a sequel and is supposed to be part of a trilogy. I cannot stress how much this book disinterests me. Never in my life have I stopped reading a book before I finished the first hundred pages.

Yeah, I have no interest in reading the other two books either. I'll be doing good to finish this one.

Doing better than me. There is a chance I'll finish it this weekend. Feeling guilty.

Don't feel like you have to finish it because I did. I would not be that cruel! I'll be happy to fill you in on what happened at the meeting if you don't make it all the way through. I'm sure they way I would tell it would be a lot more entertaining anyway :)

probably. I still like what I wrote too. although I didnt have wine tastings or yoga classes

I was sick last week. My loathing of this book did not keep me away. I think this was a great pick. It seems we all had a really strong opinion about the book. :)