Twi-blight

I despise Twilight.  I can't help it.  I know, lots of folks really enjoy the books and the movies, and I may - at times- be accredited with poor taste (I still jam out to RJ Dio), but that doesn't change how I feel.  With a strong desire to pin down my misgivings, I came up with the following analysis.

As I mentioned in Fangbangen', it really torques my crank that Eddie-boy doesn't possess any proper fangs.  That's a staple of the vampire mythos, right?  Fangs, pointy teeth, hissing noises, the vorpal bunny, munchy slurpy poky canines!  Not too much to ask for, right…

 Secondly, the sparkly sunlight-skin seems thematically inappropriate.  If the story was about, say, faeries or elves (Sooki?), then -okay - I might buy it.  If it's on sale.  

So, that' my small summary of issues I have with Twilight's vampires.  After writing these down, I was curious how historically founded these iconic tropes are in regards to my obsessive fault-findings with Twilight.

When did vampires get fangs?
The folklore involving vampires and vampire-like critters is quite extensive.  Much of the folklore involving vampire does NOT specifically state whether these creatures do or do not have fangs. 

I was trying to find the "baseline" for the folklore behind their physiology and here are the more interesting tidbits.

In the legends, I cannot find any evidence to support whether vampires had fangs or not.  Mesopotamian and Hebraic references mention "Lilith" who was the Demon Queen and/or Adam's 'first wife' (who became a demon?  I lost track of what is folklore and what is video game lore).  Did she have fangs?   She was described as bestial, so maybe (?).

Fangs were definitely described in Bram Stoker's work.  I admit, when I found this, I was rather shocked.  I was certain that the folklore would have solid references to gnashing fanged teeth and whatnot. It looks like Dracula was the progenitor in more ways than one. If someone finds literature supporting that vampires having fangs prior to the 19th century, please drop a comment. 

Vampires, always burnt in sunlight, right?
Again, I was saddened to learn that, historically, this was not the case.  Nothing that I found in early folklore suggested nastiness in the event of sunlight contact.  All the 'early cases' on vampires seem to indicate that the creatures were nocturnal, like -I don't know - a bat or a wolf.   Interestingly enough, in Bram Stoker's work, sunlight seems to have caused agitation and lethargy, but I didn't find a passage that supports, "Draky got crispy." 

Given the type of nocturnal animals present in Europe, I wonder if this provided the precursor for both the hazardous effects of sunlight (the burning) and fangs akin to other (mundane) night wondering beasties? 

The overall conclusion I came to was that all the historically pretentious reasons that I thought I had for disliking Twilight are inaccurate. Now, I have to reexamine what makes Eddie so deplorable to my aesthetic sensibilities.  That's probably something my psychiatrist and I will talk about (kidding….kinda).  In the meantime, my new official reason for despising is Twilight is:  it's a sophomoric, angst-riddled, and juvenile high school drama that features things not-quite undead that become ravers when exposed to sunlight.