Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Well said. As for this nice rambling poster lady wondering about other genre authors using their work as wish fulfillment, I have two words for her: Clive Cussler. The man writes himself into his books, for Chrissake!

I don’t know, but I think LKH ranting about female sexuality in romance and why that may be taboo and censured by the mainstream going hand in hand with lambasting critics of Anita pretty much negates her point, because her getting het up about this really IS just annoyance that readers and reviewers are hatin’ on her girl.

It feels like she’s jumping onto a “you’re all prudes!” crusade so she doesn’t have to defend her own decline in writing and the blatant shift from bagging vampires to BANGING them.  I mean, dude, no one is complaining about the fact that there’s sex in your books, Laurell.  People are complaining because it’s bad sex, it’s recycled sex, it’s the same sex we’ve been reading for ten books and it’s not just your supposed Mary Sue, Anita, it’s Merry Gentry, too.

There is no doubt that there is a stigma on female sexuality, on romance as a genre, on anything that may mean a woman is off somewhere with a battery-operated device having fun without a man. But comparing that to the backlash against LKH’s books is like apples and oranges.

I wonder what it’s going to take before the concept of the Romance reader is excised from the vestiges of the *author fan,* an enigma I’m not sure has ever really existed in persona to begin with, at least not in the way it’s nostalgically invoked.

Also, if LKH is selling at the cosmically high numbers her camp insists on, why the need for such a thinly veiled kitchen sink defense to begin with?

That fact that there’s a writer named “Maugham” in The Razor’s Edge makes me wonder… See also:  Harriet Vane.

But no, this is a silly argument.  I don’t believe that romance authors automatically self-identify with their characters any more than someone like Cormac McCarthy self-identifies with his (egad, at least I hope he doesn’t).

Totally agree, monimala. I used to LOVE the LKH books. Like, unplug the phone, ignore the husband love. By Burnt Offerings, I felt the books were getting old, and after Narcissus in Chains, I hated them violently. And no, it’s not because I have some sort of sexual hang-up, as LKH or her minions would obviously like to think. I wish LKH could grasp that not liking her books doesn’t automatically translate into OMG UR SO FRIGID!!!111 Her books are hardly masterpieces of erotica, and I was VERY offended by her older rant about how if you didn’t like her books, you could go find other books that didn’t “challenge” you as much. To which I say, 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.

There is no doubt that there is a stigma on female sexuality, on romance as a genre, on anything that may mean a woman is off somewhere with a battery-operated device having fun without a man. But comparing that to the backlash against LKH’s books is like apples and oranges.

And maybe a wee bit belittling to the serious advocacy for and defenses of broader conceptions of female sexuality, both in Romance and society.  And anyway, I thought Hamilton wasn’t even *considered* Romance to begin with.  Plus some of the most vocal critiques I’ve read of her books have come from readers who are regular erotic Romance readers—you know, readers who are already on board with pushing the envelope regarding sex in the genre.

I never heard the phrase “Mary Sue” in relation to romance novels. I’ve heard it many times in relation to SF/F (usually F), though. It’s most commonly applied to fanfic (which exists in other genres, but SF/F fanfic has everything outnumbered by about a billion to one).

But non-crossover romance novels? Really? People make claims that romance novelists are writing Mary Sues? Even novelists who aren’t primarily known for writing supernatural romance?

People make claims that romance novelists are writing Mary Sues?

Generally they don’t, E! But they DO claim that LKH is writing Mary Sues, which helps strengthen the idea that she’s glomming on to an issue just to keep from taking a closer look at her own literary (snort. giggle) shortcomings.

Rachel, I echo your “Bitch, please!” Hop on Pop is more “challenging” than most of Laurell’s recent work. The “ur so meeen and u dunt unnerstan mah artz” excuse SO doesn’t fly here.

Robin, wordy mcword. It is SO belittling to the wide range of female sexuality issues out there to claim that the Anita Blake books come under fire because a woman is having sex. Please. Women have been having sex in books for years, erotica has existed for years.  And, yep, LKH is usually considered horror.  Rather approrpriate, though not for the reasons she thinks.

Um, wrong on all counts.  Mary Sue is not a romance term and is not strictly about female characters/authors.

From Wikipedia

Mary Sue, sometimes shortened simply to Sue, is a pejorative term used to describe a fictional character, either male or female, that exhibits some or most of the clichés common in fan fiction, making the character itself something of a cliché. Although the term itself is not limited to fan fiction, its origins lie in the name of a character from a 1973 Star Trek fanzine parody entitled “A Trekkies Tale”, and its most common usage today is within the fan fiction community or in reference to fan fiction. Characters were originally labeled as “Mary Sues” for being portrayed in an overly idealized way and lacking noteworthy or realistic flaws. . .

A male “Mary Sue” may be referred to as a “Gary Stu” [1], or a “Marty Stu” [2]. References to male characters being a “Gary Stu” (or similar masculinized term) are less common than those to female Mary Sues; this is probably due in part to the variety of masculinized permutations of the term (as opposed to the single feminine form), though it may be due to other reasons as well, such as the feminine dominance of many fiction sites, a history of male writers’ preference for focus on plot elements and technical details rather than emotional content and character development, or simply the zeitgeist of recent years; little if any statistical research seems to have been done regarding this.

But I must say, LKH’s rants are good entertainment value (unlike her books).  And they’re free (unlike her books).

Why is this about romance, anyway?  Does LKH mistakenly believe that her novels fall into the romance category?  That’s strange because they are more erotic horror.

But I so agree with the assessment that sex has replaced the plot in most books...and her lack of credible dialogue is astounding.

The last book I read, I don’t remember the title - I think I’ve blocked it from my memory, I remember thinking how does this woman who presents as so clueless about stuff in the underworld manage to survive.  Reading the dialogue is like reading something between a mother and a five year old.

Oh, and there’s that pesky issue of all her characters being perfect and beautiful, and somehow managing to be armed to the teeth when they aren’t wearing any clothes.  What universe is she living in?

“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.”
It’s not like the Anita books were tame for the first 10(ish) & then “Holy jeez dirty filthy sex!!” in the last.  I’ve always felt that her books weren’t for the squeamish. Hell, I remember Anita jamming her thumb into a guy’s eye because he was attempting to rape her.  Dead, eviscerated bodies, thumbs in eyes & ripping hearts out of bodies, but some sex is offending our delicate sensibilities?  I don’t buy it.  I’ll admit, a few of the sex scenes are good, but as Sarah succinctly puts it:
Sex is Not a Plot

Interesting how this stuff always seems to crop up when LKH has a new book coming out.  Just sayin’.

I think Mary Sue is more commonly associated with women because men get away with it. The protagonist of Robert Harris’s Fatherland is a classic Marty Stu: a humdrum, middle-aged schlub who somehow uncovers the story of the century, making him likely a future hero to millions, *and* gets laid by an ultra-gorgeous hip young woman 20 years his junior. Throw in an ex-wife straight from Evil Bitch Ex-Wife Central Casting and an array of unrealistic secondary characters and you have one of the worst supposedly “good” books I’ve ever had the bad luck to read.

I’ve never read an LKH book. Don’t know quite how I managed that, but there you are. I didn’t read anything particularly controversial or wrong headed in that post. As far as rants go I thought it was rather tame.

What I have noticed, as I click around the romance sites, is a huge amount of hostility to LKH, mostly from people who used to love this Anita chick, and don’t like the direction the character has gone in. And it seems that LKH has reacted to this hostility with a little hostility of her own.

I’m trying to understand the issue by wondering how I’d react if Diana Gaboldon wrote Claire out of the Outlander series, and replaced her with a young trophy wife for Jamie. Would I be furious? You betcha. Would I rant and rave about it online and at home? Probably. Would I hate Gaboldon for “what she did to my favorite character”? Nope. Probably couldn’t stand to read any more of the series, but would take a look at anything else she wrote. Mostly I’d just stop reading the series at that point.

What am I getting at here” I’m not sure but I’d like ask a question. Are romance readers more emotional about their favorite characters than other genre readers? I think we are. And I get kind of uncomfortable with the pressure on romance writers to produce what the reader wants, rather than what they want to write. I think the genre would get more respect if authors weren’t so pressured to meet fans/readers expectations for their characters. I think it would result in a lot more diversity of what constitutes a romance novel.

Maybe I’m just ignorant of what LKH did that was so wrong. I prefer to think that, not having read her books, she’s free to write what she wants, and we are free to read along - or not.

I think it says something about the Anita Blake series that it is now catagorized as romance, when I originally found the books in the sci-fi/fantasy section or even the mystery section. I’m not meaning to belittle romance (hello, look where I hang out online), but for the first few books Anita didn’t even HAVE sex. There was a metric butt ton of sexual tension, and people sometimes got naked, but no actual consummation (at least for Anita). Hell, Anita’s character got all prissy and uncomfortable around all the blatant supernatural sexcapades. And now she’s so busy having sex that vampires and werewolves could be eating babies and kittens left and right and she wouldn’t even come up for air. I think gleaming orifice(tm) might be giving her too much credit; gleaming to me implies a certain shiny attractiveness that I don’t associate with Anita anymore. I think early Anita is probably revolving in the literary grave LKH left her in, wondering how she managed to get replaced by a sex starved doppleganger.

anyone else find it incredibly bizarre that a forum belonging to an author who writes sexually explicit books and in the sited rant is defending said sexual explicitness has to write the title MOBY DICK as MOBY *****? WTFBBQ?

Not only are most of the professionally published Mary Sues that I’ve read in SF/F, but I could name one in mystery, too.

And I was pretty sure that the hostility against Anita was because:

1. Sex is not a plot.
2. They started as primarily urban fantasy/horror and now apparently LKH’s PR person, at least, considers them paranormal romance/erotica, meaning that a lot of people aren’t getting what they started reading the series for.  Which is probably why the Merry Gentry series doesn’t seem to get the same level of venom, in my incredibly unscientific observation: it’s been at least erotica-esque since the beginning, though it’s shelved as fantasy, so anybody who wasn’t looking for that isn’t reading them.

The first Anita book didn’t do much for me, so I didn’t read more, but I’ve been surrounded with LKH fans since high school, so I’ve been getting a lot of this second hand.

Thank you iffegenia! I was beginning to wonder if I was the only pleeb left who didn’t know what a Mary Sue was.

LKH lost me long ago when book by book Anita was so much more cooler-than-thou and frankly much less interesting. Sounds like I am not alone in that camp…

Bookworm, if you haven’t read the books, I can see why you don’t get the reason for all the hostility.  But there IS a reason.

The hostility isn’t mostly from romance readers; it’s a cross-section of LKH’s former fans, many of whom started out on the fantasy/horror end of the spectrum, not romance.  Her forums have always been mostly fantasy readers.

And it’s not about a character going in the wrong direction (not to me, anyway; I was never a huge Anita fan).  It’s about the series going down the tubes in every possible way--quality of writing is way down; plots are nonexistent; characters have morphed beyond recognition.  Maybe the Outlander comparison applies to some of the reaction you’re seeing, but to me it’s the least of it.

I agree, the “pressure on romance writers to produce what the reader wants, rather than what they want to write” is a bad bad bad thing.  But that’s not the situation here.  And it’s not restricted to romance either.  Sf/f fandoms are infamous for that kind of author/reader relationship.

Oh, and the icing on the cake?  Her rants against readers.  She’s up there alongside Anne Rice for “I don’t need no stinkin’ editor, what do you mean the writing’s not good?  You’re too stupid for my art!” attitude.  And my problem with her rants is NOT that she’s dissed me, a reader.  It’s that she NEEDS AN EDITOR.  She still has some of that distinctive voice, but it’s swamped in bad writing.  Somebody throw her an editor.  Please, before it’s too late.

I wonder how long before this one makes it onto Fandom Wank?

I’m particularly fond of this one. But apparently there have been a few.

Count me among those who’ve never read LKH. By the time I’d heard of her, I already had people warning me how terrible the books were getting.

(Anti-spam word is “summer86”. No, it wasn’t THAT long ago, thankyou.)

There’s also a LJ community called LKH_Lashouts.

I’m still lost in Wikipedia.  I wonder if this is what set off the rant.  From the Mary Sue Wikipedia article:

A “canon Sue” may also refer to a character whose canon portrayal itself is seen as a “Mary Sue,” rather than a character who has been altered in fan fiction. Typically, this refers to a character accused of being overly idealized or having other traits traditionally associated with fan fiction “Mary Sues,” such as being “special” by having a gratuitously tragic past, unrealistic skills, or a seeming inability for the character to do wrong. Characters such as… Anita Blake of the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series.

And from the Anita Blake article:

Blake bears a close Mary Sue-like resemblance to the series author, is somewhat idealized in terms of strength and fighting skill, and shares other traits with the author — Laurell K. Hamilton also has a fear of flying and lost her mother as a child. The character has been criticized as a mere stand-in or wish fulfillment for the author as the number of men who find Blake attractive has grown, particularly in later books.

The instant anyone quotes Wiki freakin’ Pedia they’ve run their argument and any chance of legitimacy into a ditch to die.

LKH has issues.  She yells at her readers, insults them, and whines on her blog.  She hints at all sorts of personal horrors like a 14 year old in need of attention but terrified of the kind she’ll get.

And her books are now showing it.  BIG TIME.

The instant anyone quotes Wiki freakin’ Pedia they’ve run their argument and any chance of legitimacy into a ditch to die.

Huh?

(1) I gave a number of reasons for my opinions.

(2) Wikipedia is convenient.  And as it’s editable by the public, it’s especially appropriate for a discussion on what the public thinks of something.  As long as everyone’s aware of its nature, I think it’s a very handy source to cite.

I guess I’m in real trouble. A reviewer (and now fellow Samhain author) wrote that one of my books (Love’s Alchemy) should be on the shelf next to LKH’s. At the time, I thought it was a compliment. Hmnnn…

Does she really, really lash out at her readers? Why are readers writing her to bash her rather than reading National Geographic instead, or buying a frappacino with the money? I don’t get it. It would never occur to me to write an author to complain about a book. I’d just stop buying them.

I was with her for like the first paragraph, but once she did the Mary Sue bit it turned into a big WTF?  Mary Sue isn’t something that has to do explicitly with the romance genre OR with oversexed females.  It is more an issue of the character becoming the author’s avatar or having a character that is nauseatingly loved by all and can do no wrong.

This was really a rail against those who have issues with the total destruction of Anita’s character rather than in any way being a defense of the genre. 

What is interesting in this case is how much her rebuttal reminds of Anita’s behavior.  In this rant, “admin” is really attacking the people who are complaining, suggesting that there’s something wrong with them for not liking Anita (and let’s face it, this really had nothing to do with romance in general).  In the same way, whenever someone doesn’t like Anita in a novel, it’s always because they are a mysoginist, or a hater of necromancers, etc.  It’s never because of something Anita does, only a result of the narrow-mindedness of the other person.

Iffygenia, from the rest of Chrissy’s comment, I think she was referring to the fact that the author of the rant quoted Wikipedia.  Though I agree that for popular opinion, it’s a reasonable source of quotes, and also that for a term like “Mary Sue” which isn’t exactly the kind of thing you’d look up in the OED, it’s a sensible place to look for all the details in usage.

Count me among those who have never read the Anita Blake series. I TRIED to read Mistral’s Kiss. Not really my cup of tea.

No, Ciar, I meant it as a compliment. And I don’t write for Samhain. All I meant was that Love’s Alchemy should be a mass market paperback, alongside other popular authors. It did not encompass her decline in quality, or her interesting attitude toward her readers.

from the rest of Chrissy’s comment, I think she was referring to the fact that the author of the rant quoted Wikipedia.

Thanks.  I realized that after I posted.  That comment coming right after mine was what confused me.  Though I stand by my defense of the ‘pedia for this purpose :)

I TRIED to read Mistral’s Kiss.

I have a tiny lingering curiosity about the Merry Gentry books, so I skimmed that one at the library.  It’s the duddiest dud of them all.  There’s a hilarious sendup of it here.

On the wikipedia side note… A relatively recent analysis in Nature found that Wikipedia was about as accurate (at least for science content) as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s important to keep in mind that no source is infallible.

I’ll put the link, but I’m not sure if others can access it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

So let’s see heeeere…

Hold on, I think this might be a compliment. Just reverse a few ideas here.

I have taste enough to see the latest writings of LKH (whining orifice)as unsexy freaky weak, Mary Sue crap (shining orifice).

Therefore I read Romance, because only Romance readers use the term Mary Sue in order to accurately identify the crap.

Yep, I think I can accept this.

I confess to not quite appreciating the “We get no respect” issue. (Yeah, I’ve said that here before.) I think most genre writers don’t get much respect, if we’re talking about the larger literary community. Westerns, horror, sci-fi… Aren’t we all sort of lumped in together? Granted, we add the titillation of sex to the mix, but sex is funny and/or disgusting to some people, so that’s only to be expected.

I’m not saying there’s absolutely NO sexism involved in the lack of respect, but I don’t think it’s any worse than nerdism against sci-fi/fantasy. *shrug* Aside from negotiating-our-pay issues, I’m not sure why we’re so damned concerned about non-romance-readers and their scorn. (Yeah, I’ve said that here before too.)

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?

Ciar - I’m one of those readers who did just stop buying her books.  I tried the new series and it just didn’t hold my interest either.  But, unless it was really offensive to me, I would never go to the trouble to write the writer to lash out at them.

I do think that I can handle character changes, even to favorite characters, but really the books just were no longer any good...even when I was somewhat intrigued in the directions her characters were moving.

I stopped buying her books as well.  Basically, by the time I hit Obsidian Butterfly, I was already on my way out of the franchise. I never bought that one, just got it from the library.  Eventually, it even stopped being worthwhile to check them out. I mean, geez, I can buy a doorstop at the dollar store, you know?

A decline in writing skill often happens, series lose their steam.  It’s pretty much the norm.  LKH is hardly the first whose work has suffered after several years on the bestseller list. Why she gets people so stirred up is because she persists in claiming it’s the reader, not the book and the author that’s at fault.  There is never a “mea culpa,” not even when Anita magically gets a new boyfriend when she does and she drops Anita’s two established lovers like hot potatoes.

You’re not Shakespeare! Where’s a *little* humility? A *little* self-awareness? How can tons and tons of loyal readers who’ve left the fold ALL be wrongheaded, sexually-conservative idiots?

Dear Authors,

Communicating with your fans is usually a good thing. Keep it up (Paperback Writer and her ilk).

However, usually the most preferable thing to do for your own career and for the happiness of your readers is to shut up and write. Not write anything, but write the stories that are inside of you.

Look at the example of Hamilton: What LK Hamilton is doing is insane. She should not acknowledge these negative comments, should refrain completely from ranting. If she believes so much in her own writing, then she better continue to write and ignore the negativity towards her series.

Although there is a saying that all publicity is good publicity; as far as I’m concerned, this wasn’t. Her own reaction brought much more negative attention to her books—especially to new readers—than any critic could have given. I am personally not going to pick them up because she pays too much attention to all these comments and constructed horrible defenses of her own position.

She is getting. too. worked. up. And ignoring her actual fans in favour of refuting others’ arguments. It’s not mature. By her general defence, she seems to have insulted intelligent people.

I guess what I’m trying to figure out… Who is it that we’re craving respect from, exactly? It feels a lot like “So & so says mean things about me!”

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.”

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.

So basically, Sarah’s saying What!? What!? to the rebuttal.

Sorry, didn’t have anything serious to add but couldn’t resist a bad pun.

So that’s “what-what in the rebutt,” right, Laura?

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.

<< 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?

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?  :D

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.

“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, myst