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)

Censorship
[info]lasha
2004-09-24 01:15 am UTC (link)
I find it sad that someone who claims to "love" FW would report anyone to TPTB and get them shitcanned. But then that's me.

And I had been reading all the reviews on Amazon. Yes, some of them were vile crap and only there to stir up trouble. Those I were clicking "no" as helpful, while the ones that were actually giving reviews about the book I was clicking "yes" as helpful.

But because of Fandom_Wank, I was directed to Amazon.com and after years of not reading Rice, had decided to give her another try, however after reading through 250 reviews of Blood Canticle, I've decided to pass on that Anne Rice book.

Amazon's recent decision to censor people's opinions because of people like yourself (if that is the case and not Anne's lawyers) is not only unConstitutional it is bad business in my estimation. The three Anne Rice books I bought today because my interest was stirred because of this wank (no Blood Canticle was not among them), well, I think I'll just go and cancel them ASAP. After I post this, I'll call Amazon and tell them I do not appreciate censorship in any form and pull my order.

Any thanks for the heads up, little mouse. Amazon has had my business for the last 8 years or so, I guess it's time to move to Barnes and Noble.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 01:18 am UTC (link)
I'm also actually thiking of deleting my account I have there. If they are censoring us because one little mouse whined about the review content, then they don't need my business either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 01:20 am UTC (link)
thinking*

*is the typo Queen today*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 01:35 am UTC (link)
Oh yes, because the loss of your business will surely bring Amazon to their knees. Spare me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 01:43 am UTC (link)
You started this, not us.

You came HERE boasting and bragging what you did.

So spare us.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 01:50 am UTC (link)
I didn't start shit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
[info]lasha
2004-09-24 02:03 am UTC (link)
Actually, I just got off the phone with Amazon and they said they do not tolerate "censorship in any form." And that the web site problem is an "anomaly" and it should be fixed within a couple of days. If it wasn't I should call back and report the problem again because they NEVER remove mass reviews off their sites. They may remove one or two because of bad language, but not because of public pressure or bad press. If so, then they'd have to remove a lot of books off their site (then the woman quoted me some controversial political books).

In fact she hadn't even heard of the Anne Rice debate, but when I explained about it, she wanted to know the URL so she could go and look. :)

So, I guess your bitching to them, didn't do jack crap. Sorry, little troll, your opinion doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Go whine to your Momma.

You must be new around here. Ask me if I care about your opinion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 02:04 am UTC (link)
I think this mouse is an Anne fan. Read his/her long winded reply to you. It found her review/rant helpful and all the replies 'inappropiate'

**facepalmheaddesk*

Now I feel stupid for arguing with this fool.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship - (Anonymous), 2004-09-24 07:43 am UTC
Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-26 01:20 am UTC (link)
It seems the reviews are still gone. =( The new flood of reviews of Rice's syphocants only pisses me off, and I think is unfair to the potential reader because they're very biased. A circle jerk in the name of the author doesn't count as fair warning of the book's quality, just a sign that the fans don't want to get on her badside.


--Not a mouse, a GERBIL. =3

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 01:33 am UTC (link)
Dude, like you mean everyone from here who wrote a wanky comment on the review section and never even read the book was better? You mean that every other FWanker that read those wanky comments (not legitimate reviews) and posted that "this review was helpful!" was better? Fuck you. I have every right to click "No, this review was not helpful." and then to further click "Report as Inappropriate" because, bloody hell, it IS inappropriate and it does not belong there in Amazon's review section. Anne Rice's review was not one I complained about. I nfact, I say it is actually helpful to ay of her actual fans looking at the book. Someone else reported that to get it booted. Do you think on FWankers read those things? No, plenty of Amazon customers read them and certainly saw that it was full of asshatery so they also likely clicked to basically say "WTF?"

I have every fucking right to use Amazon's rating system to express my opinions that FWankers should have remained here and not flooded their comments section. And Amazon has every fucking right to determine which submissions are helpful and worthy of staying there fore potential customers to read. Get over yourself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 01:42 am UTC (link)
Do you think on FWankers read those things? No, plenty of Amazon customers read them

Exactly! And how do you know that ALL the 'innapporoatie' ones were done only by members here? As you just stated. Plenty of customers read them. Which means anyone could have posted in your eyes innappropriate', reviews, commenting on Anne's. Seeing how she made her review/rant public for everyone to read. Even people who aren't members of this comm could have found her view to be batshit crazy and make a reply to it on Amazon.com. But you took it apon yourself to think "Well, this was done by an FWanker, I will report it".

And who the HELL are you to censor or try to censor anything? IT's like someone said, Amazon was going to leave the reples up becaue no one had been complaining. Oh but leave it you to want only 'appropriate' reviews on Amazon.

STFU and get over YOURSELF mouse!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 01:51 am UTC (link)
You seriously need to chill.

Celia

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 02:00 am UTC (link)
Well, it's like [info]lasha said I find it sad that someone who claims to "love" FW would report anyone to TPTB and get them shitcanned.

Which is exactly what this person did. Just for some reviews. I stil think this person is an Anne fan. They found her review/rant "helpful" and everyone that had negative response to it 'inappropriate'. They could have EASILY scrolled through the replies/reviews they didn't like, instead of doing what the they did.

But no, that wasn't good enough for them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 07:47 am UTC (link)
I believe, as I just read, they said that they did this for the reviews that were basically apparent that were NOT WRITTEN BY THOSE WHO'VE READ THE BOOK. Which, I have to say, Amazon has every right and should indeed take down. What's the point of hosting reviews for your customers if the board is mucked up with wanky folks just bitching about the author? It's not going to help Amazon any, that's for damn sure. And I think it was extremely immature and childish of anyone from here who has no clue about the book to go there and post flames that are in a section reserved for a specfic book review.

I think you need to seriously chill.

spankywank@gmail.com

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 06:25 am UTC (link)
Exactly! And how do you know that ALL the 'innapporoatie' ones were done only by members here?

I keep wondering that too. I mean, is it impossible to believe that others aren't getting a lot of amusement about of AR's insanity?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 02:03 am UTC (link)
You know, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who showed up at Amazon came after reading The Toronto Star article, or perhaps after reading among the proliferation of livejournal entries on the subject. Wasn't all FW over there, as you say.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
[info]lasha
2004-09-24 02:12 am UTC (link)
*blinks*

How many fucks can on troll post in a fandom_wank thread????

Go home, you little Anne-loving wind up doll and read Interview With a Vampire for the 1,315th time, it's okay.

Repeat after me, Lestat is only a character in a novel, he's not real! He's not real....

Louis & Lestat = OTP

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
[info]anriko
2004-09-24 02:14 am UTC (link)
Go home, you little Anne-loving wind up doll

LMAO! I <3 you!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lasha
2004-09-24 02:16 am UTC (link)
Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all week. *drum roll, please*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]anriko, 2004-09-24 02:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lasha, 2004-09-24 02:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anriko, 2004-09-24 02:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mrbimble, 2004-09-24 05:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lokifin, 2004-09-24 07:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snacky, 2004-09-25 01:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anriko, 2004-09-25 02:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2004-09-24 05:51 pm UTC
Relax.
[info]snacky
2004-09-24 07:25 pm UTC (link)
Anons are not automatically trolls.

Someone can think the TROLLING that people did at Amazon is wrong, without being Anne Rice's #1 fan (take me, for example).

Just take it down a notch, okay?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
tempestuous
2004-09-24 04:40 am UTC (link)
OMG!!!!FIVE!!!!! You saved the world from reading wanky reviews!!!!! You so rule!!!!ELEVEN!!!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 02:20 am UTC (link)
Amazon's recent decision to censor people's opinions because of people like yourself (if that is the case and not Anne's lawyers) is not only unConstitutional...

No, it isn't. The First Amendment applies only to restrictions on free speech coming from Congress/the government, not from a privately-owned and run website like Amazon.com.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 03:01 am UTC (link)
Yeah, sadly. They still suck cock badly, but they do so in a Constitutional manner.


--funwithrage

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Censorship
[info]lasha
2004-09-24 05:10 am UTC (link)
Ah, the Constitutional Internet lawyer comes out and plays. But I think you got the gist of what I was saying. :)

Or as Anne would say, "Yo, dude, it's undemocratic."

Wait, is that a big D or a little d? I need an editor!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Censorship
(Anonymous)
2004-09-24 06:16 am UTC (link)
Ah, the Constitutional Internet lawyer comes out and plays.

No, just someone who actually understands the First Amendment and hates seeing its meaning thrown about incorrectly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map