N.R.L.E.

It's amazing the shitstorm one can cause when they say they don't like 'sparkly angst-y vampires'...

A common argument people use when you say you don't like something is 'You haven't even ________ it, so how do know you don't like it?'  This is a versatile argument that can be used for a variety of topics, as referenced above on my views of the "Twilight' books and movies.  A similar question is also asked to those who write:  How can you write about what you haven't done personally?

I personally have always found the argument bullshit.  My answer to this line of questioning is always the same:

'I don't have to eat a cat turd to know it tastes horrible."

So Stephen King can't write about the end of the world since it has never happened?  Chris Claremont can't describe how to pop out metal claws or read minds because he hasn't done either?  George Lucas can't make movies involving Death Stars or light sabers since they really don't exist?

Nope, the answers to both variations of this question are simple... and linked.  For the second, it comes down to the suspension of disbelief.  A lot of things done in works of fiction will most likely never happen in real life.  A writer must prepare his fiction in a way that makes it easy for others to suspend their disbelief in what they know cannot happen.  Some people are harder to do that to than others- which brings up to the first point.

The purveyors of works that I choose not to follow have not intrigued me enough to warrant suspending my disbelief for them.  And NO amount of your slavish fanism will change my mind.  Look, I can understand COMPLETELY such devotion to something and hatred of those who just DO NOT GET IT. 

When I try to convince someone to try something new, I use what I think would hook them as a selling point.  And I try to be up front that they might not like it at first, but give them incentive to stick around for it to get to them.  I am not always successful (even I eventually realized Heroes was a lost cause), but sometimes I get a check mark in the win column (Torchwood).  Using the 'You haven't, so you can't' argument just makes people who use it look like petulant twits that are insulted that you cannot see the goodness for yourself.  You have to sell it to me, NOT treat me with the equivalent of using 'YO MOMMA!!' to any insult against you.  It's like arguing in sound bites rather than actual facts.

So what's the bottom line with this rambling rant?  While it's a plus, having no real life experience in a subject is not necessary to have an opinion on something.  Said opinion may not always be the best, but don't dismiss it out of hand.

And for the record:

I would rather chow down on Garfield's lasagna binge excrement than invest ANY interest or time in the aforementioned sparkly angst-y vampires.

If I want to watch vampires, I'll stick with Near Dark or Buffy...