How Can Someone Like Dostoyevsky, But Not Like "Twilight"?

[sapphi_snake]

Final-Fan said:

I've been exposed to a considerable amount of secondhand information (a surprisingly good fanfic that basically tries to imagine Twilight if Bella had a completely different, and interesting, mind), so I think I can make a reasonable attempt to talk about Twilight vampires (AKA "sparklepires") versus more traditional vampires. 

Traditional vampires drink human blood; sparklepires can drink any blood but like human blood better. 
Vampires and sparklepires are both physically superior to humans, immortal, cold to the touch, and unnaturally attractive.  Sparklepires are MORE superpowered. 
Both can also convert humans into beings like themselves. 

That is the sum total of the similarities between the two as far as I can recall at the moment.  (Sparklepires don't need to breathe and have no heartbeat but I don't know about vampires.) 

A short list of differences (not necessarily comprehensive): 
Vampires: 
Die in sunlight
Hate garlic
Have no reflection
Can't cross moving water
Can be killed by wood stake through heart but beheading also does the trick
Can take form of bat or maybe wolf or mist

Sparklepires: 
Sparkle in sunlight
Don't like food in general but have no particular aversions
Have consistency roughly that of stone? 
Can die only by fire (if you tear them to pieces they can reassemble themselves)
Red eyes if drink human blood, gold eyes if animal blood, black eyes if hungry
Can father but not mother children
Conversion process consists of three days of pain utterly indescribable except that it feels like burning

And this isn't even getting into the werewolves.  But let me say this:  there are TWO very different types of werewolves in Twilight.  One of them -- the one they don't see much/any of -- is the traditional type of werewolf. 

Can female vampires also "father" children? Also, this sounds very sexist (then again the author of the books is a mormon, so that's not a surprise).