Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Adastra ([info]fictionbya) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2004-09-20 18:24:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Fantastico
Entry tags:creator wank, interrogating from the wrong perspective, meme origins, person: anne rice

To quote rhiannonhero from LJ: "Anne Rice wouldn't last a day in fandom, yo."
Apparently Anne Rice is upset about some of the reviewers at amazon.com for they have strained her Dickensean principles to the max!

(Scroll about halfway down. You are looking for reviewer "Anne Obrien Rice" and a paragraph that never ends.)

ETA: You will now have to click on "Next" under the customer reviews to locate the "Anne Obrien Rice" review. Just click and scroll down. It's hard to miss.

Also, iconage has happened at [info]fwank_icons.


Son of ETA: Amazon.com seems to have deleted the Anne Obrien Rice review (and the crop of reviews that came after it). Fortunately, some things which are posted on the internet have a way of being preserved forever.

From the Author to the Some of the Negative Voices Here, September 6, 2004
Seldom do I really answer those who criticize my work. In fact, the entire development of my career has been fueled by my ability to ignore denigrating and trivializing criticism as I realize my dreams and my goals. However there is something compelling about Amazon's willingness to publish just about anything, and the sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul. Also I use and enjoy Amazon and I do read the reviews of other people's books in many fields. In sum, I believe in what happens here. And so, I speak. First off, let me say that this is addressed only to some of you, who have posted outrageously negative comments here, and not to all. You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it. And you are giving a whole new meaning to the words "wide readership." And you have strained my Dickensean principles to the max. I'm justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks,in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you? Now to the book. Allow me to point out: nowhere in this text are you told that this is the last of the chronicles, nowhere are you promised curtain calls or a finale, nowhere are you told there will be a wrap-up of all the earlier material. The text tells you exactly what to expect. And it warns you specifically that if you did not enjoy Memnoch the Devil, you may not enjoy this book. This book is by and about a hero whom many of you have already rejected. And he tells you that you are likely to reject him again. And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art. Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat. I was with him more closely than I have ever been in this novel; his voice was as powerful for me as I've ever heard it. I experienced break through after break through as I walked with him, moved with him, saw through his eyes. What I ask of Lestat, Lestat unfailingly gives. For me, three hunting scenes, two which take place in hotels -- the lone woman waiting for the hit man, the slaughter at the pimp's party -- and the late night foray into the slums --stand with any similar scenes in all of the chronicles. They can be read aloud without a single hitch. Every word is in perfect place. The short chapter in which Lestat describes his love for Rowan Mayfair was for me a totally realized poem. There are other such scenes in this book. You don't get all this? Fine. But I experienced an intimacy with the character in those scenes that shattered all prior restraints, and when one is writing one does have to continuously and courageously fight a destructive tendency to inhibition and restraint. Getting really close to the subject matter is the achievement of only great art. Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine. You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else. But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses. Now, to return to the narrative in question: Lestat's wanting to be a saint is a vision larded through and through with his characteristic vanity. It connects perfectly with his earlier ambitions to be an actor in Paris, a rock star in the modern age. If you can't see that, you aren't reading my work. In his conversation with the Pope he makes observations on the times which are in continuity with his observations on the late twentieth century in The Vampire Lestat, and in continuity with Marius' observations in that book and later in Queen of the Damned. The state of the world has always been an important theme in the chronicles. Lestat's comments matter. Every word he speaks is part of the achievement of this book. That Lestat renounced this saintly ambition within a matter of pages is plain enough for you to see. That he reverts to his old self is obvious, and that he intends to complete the tale of Blackwood Farm is also quite clear. There are many other themes and patterns in this work that I might mention -- the interplay between St.Juan Diago and Lestat, the invisible creature who doesn't "exist" in the eyes of the world is a case in point. There is also the theme of the snare of Blackwood Farm, the place where a human existence becomes so beguiling that Lestat relinquishes his power as if to a spell. The entire relationship between Lestat and Uncle Julien is carefully worked out. But I leave it to readers to discover how this complex and intricate novel establishes itself within a unique, if not unrivalled series of book. There are things to be said. And there is pleasure to be had. And readers will say wonderful things about Blood Canticle and they already are. There are readers out there and plenty of them who cherish the individuality of each of the chronicles which you so flippantly condemn. They can and do talk circles around you. And I am warmed by their response. Their letters, the papers they write in school, our face to face exchanges on the road -- these things sustain me when I read the utter trash that you post. But I feel I have said enough. If this reaches one reader who is curious about my work and shocked by the ugly reviews here, I've served my goals. And Yo, you dude, the slang police! Lestat talks like I do. He always has and he always will. You really wouldn't much like being around either one of us. And you don't have to be. If any of you want to say anything about all this by all means Email me at Anneobrienrice@mac.com. And if you want your money back for the book, send it to 1239 First Street, New Orleans, La, 70130. I'm not a coward about my real name or where I live. And yes, the Chronicles are no more! Thank God!



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: *yawns*
[info]elfy
2004-09-21 03:51 pm UTC (link)
Let me see if I have this right:
- You've been "on the comm since the first post on LJ".
- You know "we don't normally let people know they've been wanked". [There is no "normally" about it. It's not what we do. But then, you've been on the comm since the first post on LJ, so of course you already know this.]
- You do it anyway. Because this "one single solitary time, it seemed irresistable".

Nice to see you know better.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *yawns*
[info]misswindy
2004-09-21 04:59 pm UTC (link)
Right. Me and like ten other people in this post, including a F_W mod who flamed her before I did. Catch up, will ya! She asked for people to bring it. I guess it was like a siren call, and bitter ex-fans are the sailors.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]elfy
2004-09-21 05:16 pm UTC (link)
I know I'm caught up. I think it's you who missed the boat.

So she asked for people to "bring it", did she? Which you automatically assumed meant for someone to link her back to here. Tell me, do you do this for everyone who acts wanky, gets wanked and asks for people to "bring it"? No, wait, you said it was OMG A SPECIAL CASE!

Me and like ten other people in this post, including a F_W mod who flamed her before I did.

You've obviously missed the point where I didn't mention flaming, haven't you? Just like you obviously missed where I did mention linking back to a f_w post. Which, I'm sure you also missed noticing, said f_w mod didn't do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswindy
2004-09-21 05:31 pm UTC (link)
I think you're creating a dichotomy that just isn't there. The rule is no linking to F_W *OR FLAMING* of the wanker. One is not considered a greater no-no than the other; in fact, in the past, flaming people directly in their LJs (or wherever) has been really rallied against by others here, much more so than, say, that person who went around posting a link to F_W in every wanked post a while back there.

It's not like we're The Skulls of Fandom and nobody's supposed to lead any outsiders back to our sekrit lair. While *obviously* they're 2 different ways of flaming (hi, straw man!) the point is they're both subclauses under the same rule, and at this point you're splitting hairs.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]backfromspace
2004-09-21 05:51 pm UTC (link)
What are you blathering about? If you were to actually look at the userinfo, you'd be arguing much more effectively, seeing as we didn't bother to write "subclauses" or what the hell ever you're going on about. But of course the info in the userinfo isn't nearly as oldskool as you.

You're also making accusations against people without bothering to back them up when challenged. That's really tacky.

The most annoying part of it is that you're obviously only harassing her so you can get cries of adulation for your much, much less elder followers. That letter wasn't for Anne Rice, it was for [info]misswindy. How about following the rules next time and avoiding the dramatic display, hmm?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswindy
2004-09-21 06:20 pm UTC (link)
I knew you'd be along ASAP. =)

If you were to actually look at the userinfo, you'd be arguing much more effectively, seeing as we didn't bother to write "subclauses" or what the hell ever you're going on about.

OK. What I meant by "subclauses" wasn't literal, but that flaming a person in their domain, and sending them a link to F_W, are both against *the same rule*.

But of course the info in the userinfo isn't nearly as oldskool as you.

=) Sorry you're still sore about that.

You're also making accusations against people without bothering to back
them up when challenged


Er? Nobody's accusing anyone of anything.

You're obviously only harassing her so you can get cries of adulation

I've already apologized on three separate occasions in this very post. Should clarify: Am I sorry I got a chance to vent at this incredibly stupid woman? Nope. Am I sorry I posted about it here? Yep.

How about following the rules next time and avoiding the dramatic display, hmm?

OK.

In all seriousness, you may want to make a general statement here or wherever, since judging by Amazon.com and the posts here (and um, hey, IMs from people last night, and flocked posts and all), at least 10 other F_Wers have flamed Anne Rice. Probably way more that haven't admitted it. It really did seem to me like she invited actual response from the general public, but you're right in that it is better to just follow the rule to the letter.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]backfromspace
2004-09-21 06:40 pm UTC (link)
I don't have any control over what people do outside FW, but I can do something about it if you insist on bragging about your bravado here.

You also made noise about some unnamed moderator violating the rules. [info]elfy called you on it. No response. That's so obnoxious even you should be able to recognize it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswindy
2004-09-21 07:03 pm UTC (link)
I see. This appears to be some kind of misunderstanding. I honestly thought the moderator thing was self evident seeing as what with the whole posting instructions on how to find her flame thing. I mean. I don't know what else to say. Not trying to get her in trouble at all, because as I said, I think what she did was understandable (and she said what I did was too). I know there are a lot of comments on this posts, though, so it may be hard to find.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]funkyhelix
2004-09-21 07:40 pm UTC (link)

She's talking about Sochar here in this thread, who patted her on the back. Though...Sochar didn't leave a trail of bedcrumb back, and also didn't brag about doing it in FW. That takes a special kind of asshattery.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2004-09-21 09:27 pm UTC (link)
Sochar didn't flame her anyway. That was constructive criticism. ;)










(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: *yawns*
[info]mrbimble
2004-09-21 06:11 pm UTC (link)
Somehow I see a difference between an individual person (who *happens* to be a F_W mod) going to Amazon.com and posting a review, as that system is set up and intended to do and you sending Ms. Rice a lovely note telling her to 'come on down'.

But, you know, you're obviously The Original F_W'er, so what do I know...

(and I didn't read Sorchar's review as a flame. she didn't call Anne Rice any nasty names. just told her Anne's review was pretentious and unreadable. which it is. big difference, to me, from flame. but again, I'm sure you know better than me. Believe me, I KNOW you know better-and you'll be sure to tell me... again)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *yawns*
[info]misswindy
2004-09-21 06:27 pm UTC (link)
"Pretentious and unreadable," especially said with *that* much sarcasm, looks like a flame to me. It sure wasn't meant to be concrit, esp. not when it was gleefully linked back from here.(As do the various one-star reviews that have gone up since last night.) I'm not criticizing her - it does look like Ms. Rice invited response, and in a really confrontational way, so it's understandable, but yeah, we all knew better. I did not tell Ms. Rice to "come on down." And the *only* reason I mentioned how long I've been here is to agree that I knew it was against Rule #2. It means NOTHING else, and I don't know how many other ways there are to say that. 'Tis all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: *yawns*
(Anonymous)
2004-09-22 04:40 am UTC (link)
WTF bitch, are you serious? The wankers get linked back to FW all the fucking time! And, yeah, seeing as how Anne actually *asked* for feedback, I don't see the issue with saying, look here for how your comment has been construed. I'm sure more than one email was sent to her with this link. MW just had the bollocks to sign her name here and post that she did and even copy what she wrote.

~spankywank~
(who wants a code someday....spankywank at gmail dot com)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *yawns*
[info]wankprophet
2004-09-22 07:15 pm UTC (link)
"bollocks?!?" It wasn't guts, kiddo. It was bragging. She wanted people to know what she'd done and hopefully get admiring replies and thanks. Luckily, there's always little anonymice like you to oblige. On the other hand, some of us who actually understand the comm rules objected. She almost certainly knew we would, and knew why. She doesn't deny she shouldn't have done that, only claims the behaviour of others as a mitigating factor. The rule is there for a reason. If people get linked here, it's all good. But a comm member going out and linking them back smacks of trollery and taunting and deliberate provocation to create more wank.

And, no, I'm not going to give you a code. I'm not inclined to facilitate the entrance into the comm of someone who, as far as I can tell, would be more than likely to go trolling by splooging all over the journals/sites of those being wanked.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

jf accounts
(Anonymous)
2004-09-23 02:24 am UTC (link)
Codes aren't used on journalfen any more since they did an 'upgrade' to be more like LJ.

1. the admins (http://www.journalfen.net/users/system) turn on and off account creation at their own whim. But, as you can see, you don't have to have a jf account to play around here.

2. wankprophet is not god - nor even a mod - despite his high-horsed waffly cabalistic blathering so do yer own thing!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: *yawns*
[info]deoridhe
2004-09-23 03:49 am UTC (link)
Trolling is lame.

People who troll are lame.

If you wish to be lame, then troll. Then brag about it. THen people will know you are lame.

Teh end.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map