Bitchery reader Sarah (not me, another Sarah) send me a link to a long rant from LK Hamilton’s bulletin board about why the genre gets no respect. Sarah (not me) attributes the rant to LKH’s PR person Darla, though I’m not easily able to figure out who it is specifically. I’m not logged in so I can’t view profile data, and I really don’t want to join or log in. So I’ll take her word for it.
Either way, the rant? All oooooover the place. Sarah (not me) says that she’s certainly speaking out, but she’s not sure what on exactly. Me either. However, a few parts of the many many words jump out at me:
But no one does genre bashing better than the romance genre.
Sadly, I think romance readers are its worst enemy. No other genre tags its authors with disparaging names like Mary Sue or any of its variations, flinging it about with disdain as if it was utter fact.
*chokes on coffee*
I’m not sure what to address first. As a reader of romance, am I its worst enemy for pointing out what works for me, what doesn’t, and what trends I wish would die already? I’m “bashing” the genre if I call an author to task for phoning it in and asking me to pay retail for it? Hardly! I’m the customer, and if the product isn’t up to my standards, I say so.
Here’s the thing: you don’t have to agree with me, or even listen. I’m one of two Bitches with a hot pink website, and if you don’t agree, there are at least a few other sites that might agree with your opinion. I fail to see how calling a book or a series on its flaws is bashing the genre, or specifically what damage I’m wreaking by doing so in the first place. You really think an editor says, “Well, Sarah didn’t like it so we can’t publish the sequel?” HA! As if!
After a description of what a “Mary Sue” is, the writer continues:
Mary Sue is often used against female authors who write anything with romance or sex in it. Often by those who are not happy or uncomfortable with the topic or the author. Americans are especially uncomfortable with sex. We use sex to sell everything from toothpaste to cars. But we are extremely uncomfortable with the topic to the extent most school districts won’t even teach sex education for fear it will encourage kids to experiment. Really? Then why do we discuss the dangers of drugs and alcohol? Should we worry that they will try that too? But I digress.
Oh, yes you do. I’m not sure how you got to American obsession and discomfort with sex from Mary Sue-ism and sexism against female authors, but I can only guess that the barge between those two points was named “Anita” and the accusation that’s being refuted has to do with her status as a gleaming orifice®.
No one suggests murder mystery authors secretly harbor a desire to go out and slaughter people enmasse. Do western writers all want to live out on the plains punching cattle and riding horses all day long? Do war authors all secretly harbor a fantasy of mass destruction of people and places? Would they act on them if they could? I don’t know, maybe a few do or would but I haven’t seen any of them say so. Yet, let a woman write about sex in a book and suddenly folks are positive that she is writing her sexual fantasies out on paper. I know there is the occasional author who has said it is so. But if any woman puts sex to paper a minority of readers are sure she is sharing her deepest, darkest fantasies and they want to pillory her for it.
I am officially dumbfounded. And I have to at this point surmise that the writer is indeed discussing Anita and the backlash against her gleaming orifice-ness®, so I will answer using that example.
Mystery books, westerns, and even fictional tales of war often feature sexual scenes. Sex, as part of human nature, is therefore a logical part of a human experience, and no matter the genre, good fiction is an account of a human experience. Yes, romance writers, readers, and the genre itself are held up for ridicule due to the sexual content, much of it purply purple in its purple prose, and yes, authors have marketed their books or dedicated them to their husbands and boyfriends or girlfriends with thanks for the help with “research” (My reaction: Do Not Want!) but if the problem being addressed here is the non-stop sexxoring in the Blake series, I think the point of the criticism has been missed entirely.
Sex is natural, sex is fun, but sex is Not a Plot. And in my opinion, the latter books in the Anita series are more sex than plot, and less about Anita’s evolution as they are about Anita’s orgasms. All ten of them. On one page.
Just because a female character enjoys sex doesn’t make her a bad person or is necessarily a reflection on the author.
As to whether Anita = LKH, I truly, truly do not want to go there. I rarely assume that the author = character in any book I read. But the concept of a Mary Sue is not always a clear and direct parallel, to my understanding. It’s wish-fulfillment in simple and obvious form, and in terms of fiction, it’s often elementary, self-pandering, and utterly boring. This is partly why I don’t read that series any longer.
I do, however, read a lot of romance in many, many different subgenres, and I do appreciate a female protagonist who enjoys sex. I also appreciate a well-written and evocative sex scene. Not once do I think, “Man, this author is messed up since she apparently likes what-what in the butt given how many times the hero and heroine use the back door.”
If anything is reflecting poorly on the author, it’s the continual unraveling of what used to be one of the best female protagonists I’ve ever read. I fail to see how I’m romance’s worst enemy as a reader for saying that and saying it often. I read the books up to a point and had to stop reading them for specific reasons. I’d have to say that those who dismiss the genre without ever having read it are far, far worse of an “enemy.”
The ranting argument rapidly falls apart, and really, I’m having a hard time following the rest.
So maybe everyone’s happily ever after doesn’t include belonging to a single someone for the rest of your life. Nothing wrong with that if it does or doesn’t. But if romance as a genre wants respect, then its own readers need to start by respecting themselves and others. Then books won’t have to transcend genre before they get respect and recognition. We need to accept that not everyone is us. And for those that are not us, then they too have the right to be different, to seek out different things that may not appeal to us. And that we can do that without trying to pass off caustic remarks as wit and intelligence simply because we disagree. If we want respect, we need to learn to give it.
I’m sorry, what now? I never said Anita had to be monogamous, and I never said that multiple partners was a bad thing. I said her character went from multi-faceted to, well, being a gleaming orifice®.
More importantly, there are some people who prefer a monogamous pair in their romance, and having a preference is not in and of itself disrespectful. They have a right to their preference just as I have a right to prefer certain qualities in the fiction I read.
I think what’s missing here is the definition of respect, and clearly yours differs from mine. If I give my time to read a book, and I don’t like it, it’s not respectful for me to tell everyone on the internet “This sucks. I didn’t like it.” It is, however, well within my right to say, “I really, really didn’t enjoy this, and here are 137 reasons why I didn’t like it,” thereby backing up my argument with my opinion.
Just because my opinion isn’t favorable to you doesn’t mean I’m necessarily disrespectful. And I’m well aware you probably aren’t directing this screed at me personally – though I do suspect that the target defined as “Anyone who isn’t us” is anyone who didn’t drink the Kool-Aid and who refuses to accept whatever is published in the Blake series as the Gospel of Everything That Is Right With Romance Fiction Amen.
And yes, I’m being caustic, but I’m irked at being told I’m disrespectful because I don’t like a particular set of books and detail a laundry list as to why I don’t.
Turning the argument that there are flaws in characterization and plot into an argument that those leveling the criticism have problems with sexuality, gender, or respect is a profoundly silly way to make a rebuttal.
However, the writer of this rant does raise a big issue that we deal with repeatedly here: why does romance “get no respect?” Is it because romance, as Nora Roberts once said, is the “hat trick of easy targets: the celebration of emotions, relationships, and sex?” Or is it more that the genre continues to flood with books of poor quality, and those that disagree with that claim attempt to silence those who protest with accusations of lack of respect and sexual frigidity? I think the answer might be somewhere between, or, to use the Smart Bitch Term of the Year, a conflation of the two.
Though my reference to WikiPedia was its presence in the actual posting, I still say it screams “too lazy to do the actual research.” All WP entries are questionable. Why not cite an actual source?
It’s useless in making a valid point since WP “knowledge” is dubious in nature.
There are actual sources. WikiPedia exists so that people who are pissy can find something to quote on internet forums. If they don’t see what they want there they can always make it up and post it.
WikiPedia exists so that people who are pissy can find something to quote on internet forums. If they don’t see what they want there they can always make it up and post it.
Good God. Really?
I think she might have a bit of fear involved also. The last Anita book Harlequin? Despite some buzz that said the writing was a return to better days, i.e., it had a plot, it debued on the USA Today Bestseller list at 26 then was at 80 by the end of the month. By the middle of July it was out of the list. It only spent about three weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list.
While this certainly doesn’t suggest failure it also isn’t as good as last year’s Danse Macabre which spent 4 weeks on the NYTBSL or 2004 Incubus Dreams which also spent 4 weeks in the limelight. Micah didn’t seem to even make it.
Chrissy, I think you’re being needlessly pedantic. Exactly what alternate source are readers supposed to use to explain the definition of “Mary-Sue”? Seriously.
Anyway, I’ve always found the LKH fans who hate her books but still buy them to torture themselves (and her) were crazy and LKH herself a weeeeeeee bit too involved in her fictional world if those wacky blog posts are anything to go by. And all over an arguably good series that turned into an excellent example of objectively godawful fiction as anything these days.
Since when were her books romance? (Ideas about the particularly “emotional” qualities of romance readers are henceforth deemed remarkably silly.)
I’ve never understood the stance of romance readers or writers in wanting literary “respect” or whatever it is, chanting Austen’s name desperately, while simultaneously bleating that they’re only writing “entertainment” after all, and not to expect too much. It’s very old and very futile.
So basically, Sarah’s saying What!? What!? to the rebuttal.
Sarah is now saying, “BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.”
<
< And I think the Mary Sue label was applied with Super Glue once she wrote in a new character who happened to look just like her new boyfriend. What did she expect? >
>
Yeah, that and the fact that Anita’s previous boyfriend (who was loosely based on LKH’s first husband) suddenly became a whiny, suicidal homophobe. . . who somehow slept with a hundred different women in 3 month’s time (because this somehow made Anita’s dozen new lovers seem tame by comparison??).
Yeah, I’ll admit it, I’m a recovering Anita Blake addict. But I really loved the horror/pulpy mystery blend of the first half dozen books.
But after book 9, the novels suddenly became porn.
And to make matters worse, they became BAD!porn. (I can’t force myself to call them erotica, because I *like* erotica – and there is absolutely nothing erotic about LKH’s overly-talky/angsty, bodily-fluid-happy sex scenes.)
People aren’t complaining about Anita Blake because they, ‘OMG!, phear teh SEX,’ they’re complaining because the author drastically altered the characters, threw away plot lines, and tossed in a deux ex machina to change her series from horror into horrible-erotica.
Huh? What? Who is this woman and what the hell is she talking about?
And crap it all, I’m pretty sure I agree with Robin again.
But mostly because the rant in question is complete nonsense
But . . . LKH’s books aren’t Romance novels—by any stretch of anything. So what’s the what?
I’m too tired to figure this out tonight. May try again tomorrow.
Glad you liked it Bitches!
I read it and just sort of went “Wuuhh huh? LKH writes romance? SINCE WHEN? In what Universe?”
What really threw me for a loop is most HEA romances tend to shy away from the polyamory and tend to stick to the tried and true. BUT there are presses out there for the more exciting. Romance covers a lot of ground in terms of relationships and sexual proclivities. But the main factor of Romance (at least in my view) is that there is a certain amount of concentration on the RELATIONSHIP. The love between the characters.
When I first started reading LKH it wasn’t for relationship reading. It was for a story about a woman who raised zombies and kicked vampire butt. The disturbing switch to try and make LKH “romance” I believe really does a disservice to Romance.
Plus this little rant is another “I can’t handle criticism well.” moment from Team LKH. I often wonder what sets them off. And I get a little evil chuckle going while I imagine. *evil moment*
Either way the label of Romance seems to be a new deal for any kind of Urban Fantasy writer to get themselves under to snatch up Romance readers. I’m merely grateful the Bitchery is smarter than that.
<
< Huh? What? Who is this woman and what the hell is she talking about? >
>
That would be Darla Cook, LKH’s personal assistant, head mod (on her forums), and PR person. As for what she’s talking about. . . your guess is as good as mine.
She often does LKH more harm than good, IMO.
When the AB:VH books started their nosedive down the drain, Darla’s flaming and banning of critical readers on the LKH boards fostered a lot of negative feelings (and probably helped spawn an anti-LKH forum or two).
With all the cross genre books out there now, a writer like LKH can, when behaving badly, offend fantasy, horror, erotica and porn fans. Quite a feat. Don’t do neck biters, so I only read the last 2 Merry and her men books. The, er, condensed version linked by iffygenia was fabulous. Definite LMAO material.
Methinks Team LKH got wind that Anita is listed as a Mary Sue in the Wiki definition…
I am so tired of this type of rant from her and her people. Us ex-readers or either frigid and hate sex, or we just don’t get the darkity darkness. Now we are disrespectful for speaking our minds. It’s called THERAPY Laurell. Get some help, sweety. Seriously.
>>It’s very old and very futile.<<
Thank you, Arethusa. Futile. That’s exactly how it feels to me. I’m not saying if we can’t change the world we should just go buck wild. I’m saying as long as we have self-respect, then we’re doing just fine. What else can you control, really?
The press? Who the hell does the press show respect for? Any hint of sex related to any kind of subject and someone in the press will jump on it. Do we REALLY want to try to fight that battle? Yes, some people in the press will do pieces about romance in a positive light. Some won’t.
The literary world? Does it benefit them at all to raise us up to respectability?
Again, I ask, Who are we trying to get respect from?
I wrote Aretha Franklin to find out the answer to this perplexing question, but she just sent me an autographed picture. 🙁
1) The work of a good writer goes nutty-bad.
2) Aforementioned writer gets her husband who can’t spell worth a damn to run her blog.
3) Aforementioned writer has a PR person/personal assistant/head moderator who appears to have very little concept of what constitutes good PR, and in fact, regularly creates bad PR for the writer.
To me, this is all adding up to someone who might have a chemical problem (imbalance or excess of the recreational varieties) and who is being taken advantage of by parasites.
But that’s pure conjecture. I haven’t even read LKH’s books – only the comments and links here.
Juicy stuff. Me loves me some cattiness.
WTF?
Sorry, but I’ve heard a lot more sci-fi and fantasy readers and writers bandy about terms like “Mary Sue” than I have romance readers. I’ve known SF/F folks to be extremely condescending to genres outside their own; some almost as bad as the literati.
Romance readers and writers have been, in my experience, incredibly inclusive. They don’t read just romance; they read nigh on everything.
Sounds like someone is pissed because a few too many people have called LKH’s precious babies “Mary Sues.”
I had gone so long without thinking about LKH; now it’s over.
The rant was the same as other stuff I’ve seen. Trying to put people on the defensive for not liking the crap she writes. When did AB or MG become romance? And who does she want respect from?
But this Mary Sue stuff is puzzling to me. I read that the term originated in Sci-fi and closely linked with little Wesley Crusher of ST TNG. I can even see the MSish with AB.
However, on the nanowrimo board I found a link to a quiz to see if your character was a ‘Mary Sue’. (I’ll find the link if anybody’s interested) No matter how I answered the questions my characters popped out as Mary Suish. My characters are nothing like AB or MG – they’re not even much like me or my fantasies. Their main qualifier was that they were the center of attention. Well hell, they were my main characters! I decided the quiz was pure crap.
Some things are a waste of time.
weirdly, anita doesn’t actually have all that much sex anymore. this could be because it generally takes a book to get through 24 hours at this point in the series (much like merry – when *are* you going to get to the goblin court, merry?) but all the same, i think anita gets her stomach ripped open more often than she gets nekkid in the latest book. (yes, i still read them, even though i know they’re terrible.)
as far as lkh writing herself into the series goes, i have no idea what direction she intended to take when she first started, but it seems clear that she jumped at the chance to work up the mystic mindmeld sex ‘n’ violence thing, presumably when her publisher decided the industry & the public would stand for it – so i’m guessing she has some personal interest.
You know what makes a genre look bad? Crazy rabid fans who shout down opposition and best-selling authors who flare up at criticism like the most thin-skinned of newbies.
I have never understood why LKH cared what her detractors thought. Her stuff still sells (just not to me). Why waste time with rambling blog posts when she could be swimming in her money a la Scrooge McDuck?
Also, I don’t quite understand what LKH’s books have to do with the Romance genre. I’ve never considered her stuff “romance”. It’s as if someone decided that because LKH’s books are written by a woman, and because they contain teh S-E-X, they are Romance. Not so. My local bookstores shelve them in “Horror” or “Sci-Fi/Fantasy”, and that’s exactly where they should be.
As long as there’re websites like SBTB and romance authors that’re intelligent people with an excellent sense of humor, then the romance genre is getting respect from the people that matter.
Romance is a dominant genre, and will hopefully continue to improve itself thanks to the broad range of quality produced. Those who don’t read books in the romance genre are more in the minority than in the majority of the reading demographic. Even if romance isn’t actively read, you can’t escape romantic elements in entertainment.
Anyone who says they don’t read or watch romance is most certainly full of it.
Aren’t the people who’re intelligent and emotionally comfortable enough to see the diamonds inside the romance genre enough as far as ‘respect’ goes? Does everyone have to be enlightened, as if reading romance is some kind of crucial element to THE TRUE religion?
Or am I neglecting the practical aspects of ‘getting more respect’? I get all my romantic needs and interesting discussion from the vast online community of romance readers and authors.
If the romance genre gets a jab or two from the stereotypes and cliches that curse its lesser works, must we get all worked up?
I suppose the most critical element is that it has become a feminist issue. It is used in a perjorative manner representing what women like… does this mean we must soften up on all the derision against the ‘dumb’ activities of men: sports/porn?
Bitch, please. I have a Master’s in English, so I’ve read plenty of challenging books. I hate your books because they are teh suck now.
OMG – awesome, Rachel!!
LKH’s rants are good entertainment value (unlike her books). And they’re free (unlike her books).
Yes! (Yay, iffegynia!)
I’m one of those ex-readers of all that is LKH. I buy her books on ebay now – because I refuse to plump those sales numbers and I’m hoping – withfingerscrossedohmygodhoping – that her sales have peaked. Nothing makes you take a good hard look at your work like a reality check in the bank (it’s more like a massive withdrawal, if you know what I mean).
Here’s the thing… From the LKH post: Genre has its uses: chiefly as a way to organize books so people can find them, but it also serves as a way for people to categorize that which they don’t like and dismiss it.
So negative! I look at genre as a way to find things that I LIKE.
But since we’re talking specifically about the romance genre – since when has anything LKH written been considered Romance? Seriously?! According to the post, Romance books are almost exclusively written [edit] with female main characters who are central to the plot. She is often hooked up with the wrong man and then the right one comes along, sweeps her off her feet and is her everything, ever after. [edit] Sometimes it is he who straightens out her life. Sometimes it is her love that heals that which is broken in him. Most of the messier details are left off.
Er. Most of the romance novels I read have the messier bits cleaned up by the last page. But the main issue seems to be how Team LKH’s definition of the Romance Genre essentially EXCLUDES all AB:VH books from the genre. A) Anita’s life is not straightened out. B) Anita’s love hasn’t healed anyone – although I think it woke up a few vampires and raised some dead.
Strangely enough, I Googled that Wikipedia page on Mary Sue several months ago because I wasn’t familiar with the term. At that point, the entry did not mention LKH or Anita Blake. It mentioned Bono and Honor Harrington, I do remember that. Perhaps someone clued in the LKH posse to the additions and that’s what led to the latest hissyfit.
Some Amazon reviews on the latest Anita book are saying that it’s a step in the right direction. My jaw dropped when I read that because this book is by far the most violent of the entire series. I guess violent sex + sexualized violence = profit?
Whatever. As others have said here, the latest Anita book is by no stretch of the imagination a Romance—nor are any of the books in either series by LKH—and the term Mary Sue comes from fanfic, specifically SFF fanfic. At least get basic facts right, please, if you expect me to overlook your garbled syntax and laughable attempts at spelling. Is it possible they hired on Harriet Klausner? She’s probably got a few spare minutes, right?
“Mary Sue” is one of my hot buttons. The term “Mary Sue” pre-dates Wesley Crusher by some years. It was coined, as far as I remember, in either ‘73 or early ‘74 by the Star Trek fans commenting in the fanzine “Warped Space” on the, erm, more juvenile types of female protagonists.
The ur-example was in a story where a fifteen year old girl, experimented on by Klingons ends up as “Premier Captain, Premier Science Officer, Premier Medical Officer, and Premier Engineering Officer” of the Starship Enterprise. The entire bridge crew thinks this is a wonderful development because she’s just so wise and sweet and kind. She and her little dog, Minka, make life so much better for everyone. And even though the Klingon Death Ray killed her at the end of the story, she willed herself back to life.
I have not read any of the Anita books, or indeed any of LKH as that kind of horror is not my thing, so I can’t say if she really descends to the level of banality that the word “Mary Sue” conjures up in my mind. For example (This is from one of the stories that was the catalyst for the term “Mary Sue”. It was published in part in the fanzine “Turnabout” as an example of how not to write a fan story. I won’t cite the author, because whoever wrote this in ‘73 is probably writhing in embarassment):
(The door to the briefing room opens and Minka, the American Eskimo dog, rushes in to see Svetlana) Ahh, Minka.
Chekov: I have been wanting to ask, is that a miniature Samoyed? (Svetlana nods) Where did you get her?
Svetlana: I saved a man’s life in the ship and I lived with him during the six months after we returned. He also paid for my education. He was like a second father to me and I was like a daughter to him. Before I left, he told me he could not replace my relatives, but he could take away some of the loneliness. Then he gave me this dog. She is great company. We share a lot of secrets. (all frown) Mental telepathy, of course. (She looks about the room) I believe I have left no unanswered questions. I have had a long day and, frankly, I’m a bit tired.
Kirk: Go ahead, (he smiles) you deserve it. Chekov escorts her out.
Kirk: You know, she’s the only female that gives me security.
Scott: That’s true. And she’s got a way with engines.
McCoy: And a wonderful healing hand.
If LKH is THAT bad, she deserves the “Mary Sue”. If not, well, I think the term is often used a bit too loosely.
Gwynnyd
Old enough to remember fanzines before slash and when Mary Sue had no name.
I think Mary Sue is more commonly associated with women because men get away with it.
Me too.
(In fact, I wrote a nice, long rant about this a while ago.)
As much as I think the criticism the LKH gets is deserved, I usually hate it when people use term Mary Sue, or even canon Sue, because it’s such a sexist term. Yeah, technically we have Gary Stu’s, but they are much less likely to be called that.
The basic term is female rather than male because the fan fiction that inspired the term – and it’s continued popularity – tend to be written by women (girls, really, most of the time) and feature female characters. But since I think that this happens because there are fewer Mary Sue like stories featuring women in mainstream media, it’s just another example of women getting criticized for reacting in a normal, human way to the bias around them. (ie filling the vacuum that privilege blinded producers/writers/directors/etc. create)
I’d say she is that bad. Anita is the most powerful Necromancer on the face of the earth. She is one third of a triumvirate of power (a very rare occurance) that is so powerful no one really knows how powerful it may become. She carries 4? 5? 6? strains of therianthropy despite a previously established rule that she couldn’t catch any strains due to the triumvirate of power, and an originally estabilished rule that even if you could get one, one is all you could get. She gains power, endless wonderful orgasmic power through sex. Every desireable man in the series desires her. She is always right. Anyone who disagrees with her suffers from mental illness or racism.
And when Anita has sex with someone new, all her boyfriends (yes, all, she dearly lubs every one of them, all 15, including the one she met yesterday and the one who she always thought of as a child until she OMG lubbed him) are terribly terribly understanding and grateful to her and just love her new guy, whoever he is, who is also now her boyfriend.
I’m not being pedantic, I’m being snotty. I dislike Wikipedia because it’s not a legitimate source. I didn’t say people can’t quote it, I merely said I disregard any argument using it as a source as a weak argument.
It’s lazy. It’s right there, like Google, but like Google it can render either truth or nonsense.
I’d also flunk a student who dared submit a paper with Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source, btw.
Anyway, people are free to use Wiki. I just find that whenever I see it, my reaction is “weak assed nonsense that the poster was too lazy to be serious about.” It generally comes across that way.
But so does Ms. Hamilton.
I certainly don’t mean to pick on wiki posters/fans. But I do dismiss them mentally and that isn’t going to change. It’s too close, intellectually, to “I know a guy who swears he saw it happen.”
Just my opinion, and certainly not a vital one.
oooh, an aside…
Most of the time, when I hear the term Mary-Sue used, it is in relation to fanfic. I’ve also heard it used as a criticism of younger women, who (or so it was said) tend to write these characters more often.
It’s not a term I come across often, but generally when I see it there is some snide sexism lingering at its edges—the old standard that chicks write wussy sci fi and fantasy.
I have a hard time understanding LKH’s point sometimes, but I also suspect she often has no freaking idea what she’s saying. I’ve also wondered on many occasions of the “assistant” she has posting all over hell and creation is really her. The style sometimes has a familiar flavor.
Anyway, my point… umm… OH YEAH!
Is this self loathing? Is it superiority? Is it really, in any way, connected to LKH in any way she didn’t invent?
Discuss? 😀
I really am interested in what the Bitches have to say.
Word: english65
tres coolios, my undergrad major and the year I was born!
You would think that LKH would learn a lesson or two and take away Darla’s hall pass, since it has clearly been proven the woman doesn’t play well with others. Not that LKH has learned to play well with others either, but if this post came from Darla then I have to say consider the source.
As someone who used to hang at LKH’s boards, I’ve got a bit of knowledge of Darla and her blow-ups. They tend to happen with remarkable frequency, as if they need someone else stirring the pot over there. LKH usually does a fine job on her own of pissing people off. So since Darla has been doing this every year or so, you have to think that LKH is on board with Darla’s rants. Way to make friends and influence people.
I’m one of those who was wild about AB, in the beginning Anita was da bomb. She got to kill monsters legitimately, shoot guns, hang out with scary people and generally get into messes. Now she’s the Goddess of all Powers, and as SB Sarah as pointed out, has a magical gleaming orifice(tm). (Did I get that right?) The thing that really irritate those fans who have managed to plow through the last few pieces of dreck she’s published is that the characters have devolved to such an extent that they no longer resemble themselves. And as Sarah so aptly pointed out, “Sex is Not a Plot.”
I’m always amazed by the argument that anyone who doesn’t like the more recent books has to be a prude, because if you don’t like them it must be about the sex. Ah, no. It’s because they are flat out bad. Most of us loves to read us some hawt sex, in all it’s multiple varieties. We just tend to like a good story and plot to go along with it. Call us odd that way.
As for me I’m not even buying them anymore, it’s off to the library if I feel the need for an AB fix. At least then I haven’t spent my hard earned dough on her, even if I still am a glutton for punishment and read the damn things.
When did they become romances? That would be when the bookstores started shelving them in the romance section. Sometimes it’s different depending on what store you’re in, but I have consistently seen them shelved there, when previously they were usually in sci-fi/fantasy or horror. Her shelving has always been a bit fluid. The only thing I can think of is that since they have so much sex in them, the bookstores feel more comfortable shelving them in romance.
The thing I find interesting is the Mary Sue comment, because the first time I saw that term was on her boards. Previously I hadn’t ever heard of it. And sorry, but if the term fits…just saying.
If she wants people to stop making comparisons to her real life then I’ve got a hint for her, stop blogging. Completely. She doesn’t do it well and she doesn’t know when to keep her mouth shut, so stop it all together. Next, stop writing new introductions for existing books that reveal way to much about her personal life. All a fan has to do is read some of her blogs, and the new introductions and you can draw your own conclusions. She really is her own worst enemy.
I’d also flunk a student who dared submit a paper with Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source
That may make sense in teaching students about research, but those are pretty broad statements. I was taught to match the specificity of the citation to the specificity of the viewpoint. A general-knowledge statement (e.g. an uncontroversial definition) should be backed by a generally accepted source like Britannica. A single-viewpoint statement should point to the original source or to an article describing the context.
Sure, Wikipedia’s a tricky source to use for some things. E.g. this article gives an instance of a Wikipedia article being “written and revised continually” by the subject’s supporters and detractors.
But again, it’s a very reasonable source for discussion of Mary Sues. Particularly since the text concerning Anita Blake, IN the Wikipedia entry, may be what set off the rant to start with. In this case, Wikipedia is pretty damn close to an original source.
Let’s focus on the real issues here. I don’t fault the ranter for quoting Wikipedia, particularly if Wikipedia set off the rant. I fault the ranter for making strawman arguments, placing blame everywhere except where it belongs, blasting an entire genre, defensive antagonism, pointless finger pointing, incomplete syllogisms, overdone shit stirring, attempting to obscure the real issue, and general incoherence.
Oh… no…
My husband found a photo with Darla in it.
I know this is going to seem hideously mean, but oh… man… damn.
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/15/nyt-bestelling-author-laurell-k-hamilton-has-officially-lost-her-mind/
I am going to weigh in on the Wikipedia tangent, because the LKH Anita Blake issue just makes me sad. In my entire 35 years I have never seen such a fantastic character so completely ruined or an author so stubbornly self indulgent. I AM DONE.
As for Wikipedia, I think it is great. As long as one knows what it is and knows it’s limitations, it is a valuable research tool, not as a source to be quoted, but as a starting point. I would never quote Wikipedia in a research paper, or use information I found on Wikipedia in a research paper without checking the facts, but when I am starting a paper on a topic with which I am not very familiar, Wikipedia is often one of the first places I go. It is great for a brief, informal overview of a topic, and often excellent “real sources” can be found in the related links and bibliography sections. Maybe it is lazy research, but I believe that anything that makes a hard job easier without sacrificing the quality of the work is a godsend. Oh, and the quality of that work was good enough to earn me A’s on every paper I have written for my Master of Library Science course work. There are lots of ways to go about collecting information, but hey, what the hell do I know? I’m just a librarian. OK, technically I am not a certified librarian yet, but I don’t think I am out of line in considering myself very well informed on the subject of “looking shit up.†Several individuals with PhD’s in the field concur. I personally believe the phrase “intellectual snob” is an oxymoron. Good information can be found in the damnedest places if you are able to recognize it when you see it.
I agree with Iffygenia. For a pop-culture or sub-culture reference, I would be much more inclined to take the word of a Wikipedia poster than a newspaper reporter or an author of an article in a scholarly journal. I would be very interested to know what would be considered a legitimate source for this kind of information. The Urban Dictionary, perhaps?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mary+Sue
If you want something more in depth about the Mary Sue phenomenon, I would recommend Camille Bacon-Smith’s Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular Myth. It’s out of print right
now, but I think most libraries would be able to lay hands on a copy.
The enthnographic information was collected prior to the popularity of the internet so there are a lot of things that sound quaintly old-fashioned even to people who remember those far off days—mimeographed fanzines for one thing.
Now it’s really too early to understand all this, but:
~Romance books are almost exclusively written [edit] with female main characters who are central to the plot. She is often hooked up with the wrong man and then the right one comes along, sweeps her off her feet and is her everything, ever after. [edit] Sometimes it is he who straightens out her life. Sometimes it is her love that heals that which is broken in him. Most of the messier details are left off.~
This inaccurate, sadly simplistic (and awkwardly written) description of Romance novels is from someone complaining about lack of respect for the genre? At least she might’ve defined the genre, as much as it can be, correctly.
And she’s decided it’s the readers’ fault for the perceived lack of respect (due to puritanical Americans, assumptions that if women write about sex a minority (huh?) of readers assume she’s writing about herself and the term Mary Sue).
Where does she get the idea that readers feel if a female character enjoys sex she’s a bad person? And how is the character’s go-sex attitude a reflection on the writer?
~We need to accept that not everyone is us.~
Who are we? Who is everyone else? I’m confused. I don’t know if I’m us or the else. But I believe the us or else that is Darla needs to take a pill and lie down.
This rant was originally posted by Darla Cook (LKH’s personal assistant) on Amazon on Tuesday in the forums linked to “A Lick of Frost”—stupid effing title by the way. As someone here mentioned, team-LKH always seems to do something like this right about the time that a new book is coming out. Last December, with the release of Mistral’s Kiss—which had even devout fans complaining because it was 208 pages at hardback prices—Laurell posted her infamous “Negative Reader” rant on her blog. Now we’re a few months after The Harlequin and a couple months away from the release of the next Merry Gentry novel, and Darla’s got a gripe about something.
But like a lot of you here, I can’t figure out if she’s mad because there’s no respect for romance—and she feels that Laurell’s books now qualify as romance because Anita and Merry are in luuuuurve with twelve men apiece and bumping uglies every other chapter—or if she’s mad that some people are considering Laurell’s books to be romance—which, of course, they’re not. Or maybe she’s mad at all the people who have a problem with the fact that monogamy is not for Anita (or Merry). Who the heck knows? Mostly, I think, she’s just mad…or at least that’s how team-LKH comes across when they post these little diatribes. Escapees from Bedlam—now I think I’ve come across something like that in a romance novel a time or two.
First, my American Eskimo dog, Logan, is perfect in every way, but I don’t think he’s telepathic.
I’ll ask him though.
And how wrong of me is it that when I saw the title “A Lick of Frost,” my first thought was, “Yeah, and I know exactly where he’s lickin’ too.”
“Or is it more that the genre continues to flood with books of poor quality, and those that disagree with that claim attempt to silence those who protest with accusations of lack of respect and sexual frigidity?”
I disagree with that claim, not because it’s not true, but because I think “books of poor quality” flood all genres, and basically the written word in general, but it’s generally only romance (with sf/f running a close second) that gets called out in this way because of it. (That was a hell of a run-on.) And I think that is because to The Other, romance=women and womenz is stoopid.
Huh, so Mary Sue is the almost-official term for a wish fulfillment character? In my house, we call them Lieutenant Karens – in honor of a truly stinky bit of fanfic written by a friend from high school. Oh yes, my dear Bitches, it was scaaaaary bad.
And as far as the LKH debacle, it was in part the rants made by herself and her PR Princess that turned me off from reading her novels. Authors (and the people who work for them) need to maintain a level of professionalism in their public persona, just like people in any other field. If the CEO of a company threw hissy fits and insulted her shareholders when they didn’t like what she had done with their money, she would not remain CEO for very long. We, as readers, are an author’s shareholders. It is our right to voice our opinions, to say what works and what doesn’t. To insult the people who keep you in business (and whether you or your representative actually do the deed, it is YOU who must bear the responsibility) is only to dig your own grave.
So, throw all the tantrums you like – just do it in private.
Why LKH gets “Anita is a Mary Sue” cricism:
1. She admitted that her then husband (now ex) was the inspiration for Richard, the werewolf love interest.
2. As soon as her husband became the ex-husband, Richard’s character was turned into Mr. Angsty Worthless Man.
3. She married the president of her fan club and said he was the inspiration for Micah, Anita’s very sudden new love interest.
4. Anita started as a strong but very flawed character. Sometimes she even lost—like in “Bloody Bones.” Other characters even called her out on her problems. Now…any opposing characters (Ronnie, Dolph) have either by written out or written as shrews who clearly do not understand our girl anymore.
Now, I don’t know how much of LKH goes into Anita. Only she does. I’m just listing the reasons to why she’s vulnerable to the Mary Sue accusation.
I do know the first five books were amazing. LKH did something awesome, which was create a whole new genre, a seamless meld of horror, mystery, SF and romance. It was really, really glorious. It made me want to write, that’s how good I thought it was.
And she spent ten books setting up her readers to accept a three-way romantic relationship. Ten books. And everyone was with her.
And then, SEVEN chapters into “Narcissus in Chains,” she basically said, “uh, forget all that stuff. Micah is da bomb.”
It’s not like DG wrote Claire out of “Outlander.” It’s as if she rewrote the series to show that Claire and Jamie hadn’t really ever been in love, that this totally new character was really Jamie’s true love, and turned Claire into a two-dimensional scorned woman with no character consistency.
It’s the worst train wreck I’ve ever seen in a series writer and it makes me sad because she’s clearly capable of more. I mean, I’m over it, but I still get wistful about so much lost promise.
And I think LKH gets such nasty blowback because she and her inner circle produce rants just like the one quoted on a fairly regular basis. I don’t know why she gets so defensive. She’s clearly still making good many and people not buying her books anymore shouldn’t really be on her radar. Basically, she should be laughing all the way to the bank.
I think that Mary Sue is often thrown around too much as a criticism, especially to women, but I can’t really say LKH didn’t open herself up to it by her own actions.
I have a hard time understanding LKH’s point sometimes, but I also suspect she often has no freaking idea what she’s saying.
::choke coffee spray::
LOL
BTW – the link to the pictures… you need disclaimers for stuff like that. I was eating breakfast.
final18 – is that how many books it will take to end the reign of the gleaming orifice(tm)?
Finally! My ten years of reading fanfic are actually relevant to a discussion here! *g*
The best way to distinguish a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is to note whether s/he is, essentially, too good to be true. Hallmarks include improbable physical features (“amethyst-colored eyes” is a perfect example, or cream-white skin coupled with jet-black hair), incredible powers (in the SF/F world, this can mean anything from amazing deduction skills to having telekinesis *and* the ability to fly), and the impossible ability to be always right.
Actually, the last quality will make a character a Mary Sue/Gary Stu even without the other two; if your main character’s theories are always right and s/he is never wrong in any circumstance, you got yourself a Sue (or Stu).
As for whether LKH is guilty of Mary Suism (it’s a lifestyle!), I can’t judge, having never read any of her books. Certainly, judging by some of her rants, she’s overly invested in her characters; my favorite story was when she posted that she often picks up an item in a store as being a perfect gift for someone, and is halfway to the cash register before remembering that this person is a character in her books, and therefore isn’t actually real. That is some well-aged crazy, hoo doggies.
Perhaps it’s this over-investment in the Anita Blake *world* that’s causing so much weird behavior by LKH and her posse: It isn’t just that they *love* the characters, they want to exist in the world that’s in the books. That’s a feeling I understand well, except I was eight and the book-world in question was Narnia.