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)

mary sue go home
(Anonymous)
2004-09-21 07:31 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure how applicable fanfic standards are to original fiction, specifically in the case of Mary-Sue/ Gary-Stu. As far as I understand it, fan fiction is a form, or school of writing, which has evolved specific criteria in the same way magical realism, or say, impressionist painting has. It has a history and de facto standards have evolved, with some common goals and many, many ideological wars being fought over the validity, or even in some memorable cases the existence, of these goals.

The definition of fan fiction can be the easiest and hardest thing to pin down. There seem to be two main opposing positions to approach it from. The first is authorial intent--author A is a fan of this media, and therefore the fiction that she writes that is specifically inspired by that media (whatever that might be) is fan fiction. The second is audience experience--reader B is a fan of this media and the fiction she is reading is an extension of the media she is a fan of.

(And then it gets messy, because reader B doesn't see author A's inspiration, only her product, so it seems to be a meeting in the middle: fan fiction is something that can be recognised by both parties. But once you've entered fandom, fan fiction isn't just about the show any more, it's about fandom too. So Angel and Spike can be racecar drivers and it can be fan fiction, not of Angel: the series but of Angel: the fandom.)

Anyway, what are the pillars of the fanfic way of writing?

One: it must evoke a existing media, in language, philosophy, structure (monster of the week, frex) and/or environment and by environment I mean Sunnydale/ vampires/ wizards or whatever-the universe that the stories live in.

Two: it must imitate (though it is free to explore) the social order of that universe. So though Xander may be the main character of the fic, he cannot be the center of the universe (because Buffy has her name in the title); this is related to:

Three: it must be, essentially, a performance, a reproduction, an act. You must speak someone else's lines and mean it, and the no-one's given you the script, and all you have to go on is your experience as a member of the audience in the first half of the play.

It's a very specialised form of writing; it's one I can't do; it's a specialised and difficult art form. I respect it and am fascinated by it.

But it is very different to original writing and I think it is a mistake to apply the specialised standards of one form to another. Mary Sue is not welcome in fan fiction, because the point of fan fiction is recreate and expand on an extant text, not to create a text and not to warp a world around an author.

Each original piece of writing creates a world that is all about the author, whether it be a magical world or a version of the real one. It is a deeply individual and personal expression, and that's one of the things that is *good* about it. I'm trying to politely rephrase what I said on IM, but I can't think of a more accurate description of my opinion on this. So to paraphrase: levelling the accusation of Mary-Sue at heroes of original fiction is silly, and to me it sound like one is so subsumed in fandom one has forgotten that individual expression is not automatically bad and that originality is not against the law. To me, it seems like reading prose and complaining that it doesn't rhyme. It's a different discipline; it requires a different critical criteria.

That is not to say that Anne Rice's characterisation may not be inconsistent, simply that there are different reasons for this being a Bad Thing. I've not read this book; I don't intend to, so I have nothing to say about the specific content of her book. I'm just sayin', Mary-Sue? Not applicable. Overwrought, tawdry norotica that gives genre novels a bad name? Applicable.

But as for her displaying all the qualities of someone who has disappeared so far up her own arse all that come out of her mouth is shit? Wank on my friends. BNF, celebrity, Nobel prize winner: when the behaviour is the same, the critical criteria must be also.

*explodes in an orgasm of wankish glory*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: mary sue go home
(Anonymous)
2004-09-21 08:28 pm UTC (link)
but self-insertion is funny!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
[info]iczer6
2004-09-21 11:31 pm UTC (link)
Wow, did you hurt yourself when you climbed up on that high horse of yours?

And were you under the impression that we, ya know, gave a shit?


Icz

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
(Anonymous)
2004-09-22 12:34 am UTC (link)
I'd say that it depends on how you define Mary Sue.


If I, as I'm trying to do, create a character who in many respects is drawn from me--goes to my university, has a few of my views--and who, yes, is the heroine and generally positive, well and good if it's OF, if she seems like a real person, if she fucks up sometimes and has problems and so on and so forth. See: most King heroes, many Rowling characters.


If I create a character who's gorgeous, has an incredibly angsty backstory such that people are supposed to feel sorry for her whatever she does, is beloved by all who know her, and who is capable of more-than-Einstein-level brilliance, then I have created a Mary Sue. Doesn't matter if it's fiction or not. See: Ayla.


If I then proceed to give aforementioned character my middle name, my cat's name (Hi, Karen Marie Moning. Cyanide is tasty, yes it is...), or anything else that signals my wild overidentification, then I am engaging in unseemly displays of public masturbation.


--funwithrage

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
[info]amasaglajax
2004-09-22 03:01 am UTC (link)
tl;dr

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
[info]puipui
2004-09-22 03:29 am UTC (link)
tl;dr

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
[info]llorelei
2004-09-22 06:32 am UTC (link)
Bohemian-whatsherface, is that you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
[info]anriko
2004-09-22 11:26 am UTC (link)
tl:dr

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
(Anonymous)
2004-09-23 02:38 am UTC (link)
But Angel and Spike are racecar drivers!

dodyskin

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: mary sue go home
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 02:20 am UTC (link)
Interesting essay. I'm not a reader of fan-fiction but I've seen a lot of complaints about 'Mary-Sue's and 'Gary-Stu's in same. Truth is, I sometimes like idealised characters as I like to get inspiration from what I read, whether it be fact or fiction. I'm not necessarily agreeing with your take on Mary-Sues being applicable to one set of books and not another. I'm just saying I, and I believe lots of people, actually like Mary-Sues!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map