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 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)

The Editor's View, Part 2

nyoda
2004-09-21 09:24 pm UTC (link)

And so, I speak.

In this case, the comma is superfluous and should be deleted.

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.

This sentence should begin a separate paragraph, as it clearly starts a new series of thoughts.

"Who have posted outrageously negative comments here" should not be separated from the main clause by commas. "This is addressed to those of you who have posted ourtrageously negative comments here" would be grammatically correct and much smoother.

You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective.

"Interrogate"--to ask questions of, especially closely, thoroughly and formally. The text of a book or a manuscript is not normally interrogated; indeed, the very notion makes me envision a book in a hard chair under bright lights being given the third degree by two hostile policemen.

Plainly, this is the wrong word to use in this context. I cannot imagine what word Anne was thinking of.

And "from the wrong perspective"? Granted, those who did not like Anne's book did not share her point of view that it was a good piece of work. But the fact that they disagree with her does not mean that they are wrong.

Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it.

Having already said "If you dislike my book, you're not looking at the work the way I do"--a comment I've seen several dozen times on FFnet--Anne then continues with the statement that those who dislike the work haven't read it (because to read it is to love it, of course). Indeed, disliking it proves that the person disliking it is projecting her own deficiencies onto the work, because obviously no one could dislike the work on its own merits...or lack thereof.

This sounds suspiciously like the comments of Suethors to LJ communities which specialize in mocking bad fiction: "You are all haters and evil and fat lesbo bitches, because everyone else LIKED my story!" The name-calling is absent, but the sentiment seems the same.

And you are giving a whole new meaning to the words "wide readership."

As being widely read is highly desirable for commercial authors such as Rice, I honestly don't know what she's getting at here, save that it is intended to be unflattering.

And you have strained my Dickensean principles to the max.

First of all, it's spelled "Dickensian," not "Dickensean." A minute with the dictionary would have informed her of that. Second, "Dickensian" means "resembling or reminiscent of the situations, poor social conditions and/or comically repulsive characters found in Dickens's work." I really was not aware that Anne had any principles that concerned the situations, poor social conditions and/or comically repulsive characters found in Dickens's work." If her principles are in any way similar to those of Dickens, she should be sympathetic to the lower classes, not scornful of their intelligence and judgment. Third, "to the max" is Valley Girl Speak. It sounds as if the author is straining too hard to be cool and up-to-date. "To the utmost" would be more correct in a formal review.

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?

I'm glad that Anne is proud of being read by those who live in trailer parks, as where a person lives is no indication of intelligence. However, since she turns around and says, "Who in the world are you?", I can only conclude that she is not proud of being read by those who disagree with her, wherever they live.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

The Editor's View, Part 3

nyoda
2004-09-21 09:27 pm UTC (link)

Now to the book.

This phrase should likewise begin a separate paragraph.

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.

Fine. So she's suffering from Robert Jordan Syndrome--infinite expansion of a given series. It happens to many popular writers.

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.

These two statements smack strongly of "If you don't like it, don't READ it!"

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.

The most common reason readers have for rejecting a character is that the character is not very interesting.

And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me.

I am relieved to note that Anne is not blaming anyone but herself for this unmitigated tripe.

If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it.

Anne dear--people have known for YEARS that you can't write.

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.

If this review of yours is an indication of work that you have edited, re-edited, organized and polished, you desperately need an editor.

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.

Being popular enough to have editorial control does not mean that you do not need an editor, or that you are qualified to act as your own editor.

For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art.

An editor is not a co-author. An editor improves an author's work. Believe me, Anne, your work drastically needs improvement, considering the number of misused words and ungrammatical sentences you utilized in your review.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

The Editor's View, Part 4

nyoda
2004-09-21 09:32 pm UTC (link)

Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat.

Another paragraph break is needed here.

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.

I would like to think that this is metaphorical, but having read elsewhere that Anne views Lestat alternately as herself, her husband and a real person, I fear that it is not.

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.

Similar scenes certainly have been done before in the Chronicles, yes. I'm not sure what the point is here, except that Anne is cannibalizing her own work.

They can be read aloud without a single hitch. Every word is in perfect place.

You mean like this sentence from Chapter 3: "A witch had me by the blood"? (By the neck I could understand, but by the blood?)

Or "I pulled back, dizzy, and clung to the post, each one is unique, staring down at her." If I read that grammatically, that means that Lestat, who was dizzy, pulled back and clung to the post, that each post was unique, and that each post was staring down at her. (Misplaced modifers will alter a sentence that way.)

The short chapter in which Lestat describes his love for Rowan Mayfair was for me a totally realized poem.

I will skip the pretentiousness and state simply that Lestat describes his passionate love for someone in EVERY book, so his declarations lack credibility at this point.

There are other such scenes in this book.

There have been such scenes in each book. What, exactly, is her point?

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.

Not at all. Suethors continually tell their audience more about their self-inserted characters than the audience wanted to know, and since Suethors tend to identify with their self-inserts, I think you could definitely say that they are close to the subject matter.

Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine.

A new paragraph should start here.

You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else.

The cry of the bad writer down through the ages--"If you don't like it, don't READ it!"

But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander.

No, it's not slander. Slander is spoken; libel is written. Libel is a tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

There are a number of defenses to libel. Truth is an absolute defense. If a person is a public figure, such as Anne herself, it is that much harder to prove libel, as stories and opinions tend to circulate regarding public figures. Satire and parody are defenses to libel. Offering an opinion, as people have done at Amazon and here at journalfen, is a defense to libel. There are numerous other good defenses to the charge. To prove libel, one must prove that the statement is false, stated from a sense of malice and damaging--generally in an economic way--to the person about whom the statement is made.

In this case, opinions were solicited and published by Amazon. They were clearly stated to be opinions of readers, so truth and falsity are not at issue. Anne would be hard-pressed to prove that the opinions were made maliciously, or that she suffered financially as a result.

And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies.

No, Amazon allows readers to publish their opinions. Anne can say what she wants, and those of the opposite opinion can say what they want. Annoying how free speech works, isn't it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

The Editor's View, Part 5

nyoda
2004-09-21 09:33 pm UTC (link)

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.

"How glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses." Doesn't this sound like a thirteen-year-old publishing a wanktastic poem about how sad and tormented she is by bad reviews, and how she's never ever writing another word in her series again?

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.

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh here. Lestat wanting to be a saint is like the Babyverse story that is--I swear to God--about Spike from Buffy becoming ambassador to the Vatican, savior of all vampires and being named "Holy Redeemer" by the Pope.

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.

He's a vain, egotistical show-off who likes to be on stage. What does this have to do with being a saint? Vanity, ego, pride and acting ability are not sterling qualities for saints.

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.

All I gather from this is that the books follow a timeline. Many series do. So?

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.

All of which boils down to "Everyone ELSE likes it and if you don't, you're just writing trash about me and my work!"

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.

To which I say, "Thank God."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 5 (Anonymous) 2004-09-21 10:23 pm UTC (link)
	tl;dr. nevertheless, I applaud your effort. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 5 arielchan 2004-09-21 11:07 pm UTC (link)
	I love you. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 5 tooticki 2004-09-21 11:28 pm UTC (link)
	I love you. A lot. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 5 (Anonymous) 2004-09-21 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	I'm a mouse. May I be your pet? (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: The Editor's View, Part 5

wankprophet
2004-09-22 12:40 am UTC (link)

As much as I hate to do so, I must correct your corrections a little. Don't get me wrong -- this is excellent work. Nevertheless...

-- "Denigrate" doesn't have to take a human as a object. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that criticism denigrates a text, especially given that not all criticism is equal. Constructive or valid criticism doesn't denigrate, but malicious or misapplied criticism very well might. And you're quite correct about "trivialized criticism"...but that's not what was written. "Trivialized criticism" and "trivializing criticism" are two different beasts in the context. The phrasing she used is just fine.

-- "proletarian" modified "soul" -- which gives it a metaphorical resonance that trumps the literal one, especially since "proletarian" is often used in a metaphorical sense to describe the possession of characteristics often associated with the so-called proletariat. Which, of course, doesn't make it any less ludicrous for Anne to be using the word, but it's not a demonstrably incorrect usage. Insofar as "Democratic" goes, you're quite correct. What's less obvious is whether she meant to use the proper noun variant. She might well have meant "qualities appertaining to the Democratic Party" (not an exclusively American term, incidentally -- many countries have similarly-named political parties.) She probably didn't, but the proper response in such a case is to just ask.

-- "interrogating the text," as I explained elsewhere on this thread, is a a lit-crit concept. One which she egregiously misuses, but that's a different criticism.

-- her point about the "Dickensian principles" is that they have been stretched, thus implying that her reaction springs from the fact that her normal sympathy for such types is being strained by the other reviewers. Fairly legitimate rhetorical construction even if it's patently overblown and pompous. There is a contradiction there, so my quibble with your editing is minor.

Don't get me wrong, though. I applaud this thorough and incisive analysis. Well done!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 5 littlest_lurker 2004-09-22 06:29 am UTC (link)
	smooch (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 5 elementalv 2004-09-23 01:41 am UTC (link)
	Will you marry me? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Editor's View, Part 4 lurker32 2004-09-21 11:31 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you for making this whine fest legible with your snark. mwah And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. ...wait, wait. People are publishing in urinals now? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Publishing in Urinals (Anonymous) 2004-09-21 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	Well, there's 'Capital Pee Press'. They had a stream of bestsellers. BAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAAA!!!! canTwat (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Publishing in Urinals (Anonymous) 2004-09-21 11:39 pm UTC (link)
	But, as Popular does not necessarily mean Best, most of them were piss-poor? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	On a scale of one to ten.. (Anonymous) 2004-09-22 12:07 am UTC (link)
	Yer 'n eight. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Publishing in Urinals nightfish 2004-09-22 01:01 am UTC (link)
	I remember reading some great stuff written in the bathroom stalls back in college. Quality would vary depending on whether you were by the science labs or the English department, tho... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	BWAHAHA lurker32 2004-09-22 02:26 am UTC (link)
	is twelve (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -