![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Anne Rice: "OMG STFU! No one understands me!"
On ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
canon_sues someone linked to the Amazon.com reviews of Anne Rice's new novel, Blood Canticle. A lot a lot a lot of people hated it, accusing it of cardboard characters and uninteresting storyline and downright insulting diction -- Lestat, apparently, has modernized so completely that he's now talking like a seventeen-year-old beachball-brained surfer, either black or out of a terrible movie. (Quotha: "Yo." "I don't deconstruct nothin'." "It's time to boogie!") I didn't think that "modernizing" had to mean leaving your brain at the door of the 21st century.
But I don't want to review the book. I want to review her review of other people's reviews of the book. It amuses me terribly.
A lot of people hated the book and said so on Amazon.com, and Anne Rice, it turns out, is a big follower and reviewer on Amazon.com, and she posted a response to their reviews. In one gargantuan paragraph that I estimate to be a page and a half of text, she proceeded to rant about how these people were not worthy of having an opinion on her story. She said, "I'm proud of having waitresses in trailer parks reading my novels, but who do you people think you are?" Because if you're a waitress living in a trailer park and you read Anne Rice books, she's proud of having reached your social class with her writing, but if you dislike her writing, well, you're just an uneducated slut wallowing in the mud, how dare you?
She continued, complaining about how "Lestat was with her" when she wrote these books, that she could "hear his voice" more clearly in this book than any other, ever. I understand what that's like, but it's not an excuse to get you out of bad writing. Maybe Lestat's a bad narrator (because how many of those reviewers complained about how bland and uninteresting he came off in this book? the defanged wishywashy brat prince?). You can't absolve responsibility for crappiness by saying you speak with the character's voice. It's your responsibility as a writer to make the narration readable and enjoyable -- even if, I don't know, Lestat wanted you to get jiggy with the diction.
Also she said, I swear, "And yo, dudes, Lestat speaks the way I speak," and I wanted to eat my fist to keep from dying of laughter. That would explain why you get less and less respect these days, huh, madam? Aren't we a little old for that sort of thing?
I have to laugh reading it, because it's just like every Mary Sue writer who ever whinged about people not liking her Sue, only with words like "Dickensian" and complaints about how even her "democratic soul" was outraged by this public misunderstanding. She claimed to not need editors or proofreaders to offer their opinions; apparently she writes, speaks, and shits pure gold. Anne Rice, you are the most pwecious widdle laugh riot. Let us know when you can accept that when thousands of people don't agree with your solitary BIASED opinion they might, sometimes, occasionally, have a legitimate point. If only because they're the reader and if your books don't make the impression you want on them, you have failed.
Today's political newsbyte is: In voting news, the Pentagon has restricted access to the website overseas voters, both military and civilian, can use for registering to vote, citing attempts to hack it. The story was first reported by the International Herald Tribune. Is the Pentagon, with its billions of dollars, incapable of building a simple website that is difficult to break into? And is the answer to attempted break-ins to disenfranchise overseas voters, including the servicemen and women who are defending this country with their lives? Is this how we support the troops? By taking away their right to vote?
canon_sues someone linked to the Amazon.com reviews of Anne Rice's new novel, Blood Canticle. A lot a lot a lot of people hated it, accusing it of cardboard characters and uninteresting storyline and downright insulting diction -- Lestat, apparently, has modernized so completely that he's now talking like a seventeen-year-old beachball-brained surfer, either black or out of a terrible movie. (Quotha: "Yo." "I don't deconstruct nothin'." "It's time to boogie!") I didn't think that "modernizing" had to mean leaving your brain at the door of the 21st century.But I don't want to review the book. I want to review her review of other people's reviews of the book. It amuses me terribly.
A lot of people hated the book and said so on Amazon.com, and Anne Rice, it turns out, is a big follower and reviewer on Amazon.com, and she posted a response to their reviews. In one gargantuan paragraph that I estimate to be a page and a half of text, she proceeded to rant about how these people were not worthy of having an opinion on her story. She said, "I'm proud of having waitresses in trailer parks reading my novels, but who do you people think you are?" Because if you're a waitress living in a trailer park and you read Anne Rice books, she's proud of having reached your social class with her writing, but if you dislike her writing, well, you're just an uneducated slut wallowing in the mud, how dare you?
She continued, complaining about how "Lestat was with her" when she wrote these books, that she could "hear his voice" more clearly in this book than any other, ever. I understand what that's like, but it's not an excuse to get you out of bad writing. Maybe Lestat's a bad narrator (because how many of those reviewers complained about how bland and uninteresting he came off in this book? the defanged wishywashy brat prince?). You can't absolve responsibility for crappiness by saying you speak with the character's voice. It's your responsibility as a writer to make the narration readable and enjoyable -- even if, I don't know, Lestat wanted you to get jiggy with the diction.
Also she said, I swear, "And yo, dudes, Lestat speaks the way I speak," and I wanted to eat my fist to keep from dying of laughter. That would explain why you get less and less respect these days, huh, madam? Aren't we a little old for that sort of thing?
I have to laugh reading it, because it's just like every Mary Sue writer who ever whinged about people not liking her Sue, only with words like "Dickensian" and complaints about how even her "democratic soul" was outraged by this public misunderstanding. She claimed to not need editors or proofreaders to offer their opinions; apparently she writes, speaks, and shits pure gold. Anne Rice, you are the most pwecious widdle laugh riot. Let us know when you can accept that when thousands of people don't agree with your solitary BIASED opinion they might, sometimes, occasionally, have a legitimate point. If only because they're the reader and if your books don't make the impression you want on them, you have failed.
Today's political newsbyte is: In voting news, the Pentagon has restricted access to the website overseas voters, both military and civilian, can use for registering to vote, citing attempts to hack it. The story was first reported by the International Herald Tribune. Is the Pentagon, with its billions of dollars, incapable of building a simple website that is difficult to break into? And is the answer to attempted break-ins to disenfranchise overseas voters, including the servicemen and women who are defending this country with their lives? Is this how we support the troops? By taking away their right to vote?
no subject
She officially doesn't use editors, too. After "The Vampire Lestat" she TOLD her editor that she wasn't allowed to make comments or changes anymore, the woman just has to summarily accept it and pass it on. There's a statement on Rice's website about how HER editing process is SO complete and perfect that anything after that point is unnecessary.
It boggles my mind.
I personally UNDERSTAND why she would dislike fanfiction, but I don't agree with it at all. I would be full of glee if people started writing fanfiction about my characters -- it's the best form of tribute, the best sign that your work affects people the way it affects you. (Although... not necessarily the SAME way. God only knows what they'd do to my intended pairings in a real fandom.) I do understand, though, the niggling feeling that these people don't really KNOW my characters the way I do, that I would be unable to really enjoy reading them knowing they were OOC, and I probably would be somewhat uncomfortable with any big perversions in my character -- if big incest fans suddenly seized hold of my storyline and put something "special" between Daniel and his father, I would probably want to cry -- but still I can appreciate that they do it because they love my characters. I don't steal candy from babies, I don't take action figures from six-year-olds, and I don't take the opportunity of creative interpretation away from the literate teens and young adults of the world. She doesn't complain when people write theses based on Memnoch the Devil as if it were some sort of genuine philosophical treatise, but it's just a nonprose form of fan tribute. ^^
I personally like J.K. Rowling's approach to it better. "It's an honor to know that people like Harry and his friends enough to want to write their own stories about them," she says, and she also says, "but Draco and Hermione are NOT going to get together. Sorry, fanfic writers."
That's what I'll do. XD