Courtesy of Jeaniene Frost who sent me much linkage, avast! A story so delicious, you’ll stick your own foot in your mouth.
Reporter Jane Henderson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted on her St. Louis Today book blog an entry that has made a lot of people reach for their high blood pressure medicine. In her entry Laurell K. Hamilton knock-off for teens? she discusses a galley she received of Melissa Marr’s Ink Exchange
Henderson finds the similarities between the book – despite not actually having read Marr’s novel – and Hamilton’s Merry Gentry story startling.
Herein begins what I think of as The Hat Trick of Stupid Things Written in One Entry and One Comment. Hold onto your feet, folks.
Of course the cliche is that ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’ but where does flattery end and copyright infringement begin? The book’s jacket even looks like the photos on Hamilton’s books.
Shit, if plots involving faeries are all infringing upon one another, especially in the legally sharp mind of that reporter, imagine the future wasteland of legal action to be enjoyed by each and every story featuring a vampire: “Your character sucks blood! MY Character sucks blood! YOU SUCK AND YOU ARE GOING DOWN, BEEEEYATCH!”
And the covers are similar? They do resemble the Jean Butt trend – except that Marr’s cover isn’t a jean butt so much as a shoulder. And doesn’t resemble the Hamilton cover as much as it does other YA books attempting to market a seductive tale to the YA market.
But wait we’re not done. Not satisfied to toss around the words “copyright” and “infringement” with such abandon as to make a barrister blush, Henderson goes on to say:
Another issue: A lot of parents might not think this series should be marketed to 12-year-olds, as it apparently will be. There’s a lot of difference between a 17-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl.
On the other hand, most of the popular series being marketed to teen girls seem to involve beauty, sex and lots of designer purses. Maybe fantasy tattoos and paranormal love interests are no worse. I’m not suggesting that books lead girls down the path to teen pregnancy. But with the sexualization of girls starting so young in all facets of culture, should parents speak up about what they see? Thoughts?
Wow, did you miss that jump? Let’s recap in slow motion like we’re a sports show: This book with a 17 year-old protagonist may be marketed to 12 year old girls, just like many other popular series for young readers that feature slightly older protagonists. Speeding up past beauty! Sex! Designer purses! Fantasy Tattoos and paranormal love interests! And then we come to a SCREECHING HALT AT TEEN PREGNANCY! Whoa!
Holy. Shit.
Man, that was a Could Have Been An Interesting Question About Teen Sexuality blindsided by some WTF-tastic non sequiturs. Oooh, ooh can I try? Can I? Here’s mine! “Are book covers for YA novels more sexy and dark in imagery now? Yup. Sure are. Have prom dresses been skimpy and over-sexualized since I went prom dress shopping 15 years ago? Sure have! So are YA novel covers reflecting a sexualization of young people that’s been a standard for years? Possibly – but then, the novels often depict consequences or at least some healthy dose of reality for that sexual exploration, whereas mere images just contribute to the glamour of it. But then, I actually read YA novels, so I don’t know what I’m talking about at all.”
And the finale to this jaw drop of a newspaper book blog entry: Lindsay York Levack of the blog UrbanFantasyland sounds off like merde and mon dieu on Henderson’s request for “Thoughts?” by nailing a 5 point list that knocks the extraneous bullshit off Henderson’s entry, and addresses the points Henderson attempts to make about YA, sexuality, cover images, faerie tales, and writing. York Levack ends with a pointed, “Do your homework.” Well played, Ms. York Levack.
Melissa Marr, the author, commented on that entry and said that, surprisingly, she did have input to the cover art, and thinks that it’s an “iconographic image that ties to the plot.” Further, Marr says,
Interestingly, the idea that a fully clad, not sexualized girl with wings is similar to LKH’s covers does confuse me a bit. No bare midriff or legs, no scanty attire—instead it’s a face and upper back . . . Hmm. To each his/her own, I guess.
Another well played for you, Ms. Marr.
And for you, Ms. Henderson: NAUGHTY CORNER! No Cookie! Why?
Her commented response to the Urban Fantasyland entry on her own blog:
The cover of the teen book is very similar to Hamilton’s covers, and the stories do sound similar. However that applies to many books. In the romance genre, it’s sometimes hard to tell one author from the next.
If you read carefully, you’ll note that I did not make any untoward accusations or accuse the new book’s author of anything illegal. In fact, for many authors, being compared to Hamilton would be a compliment.
It’s not YA, it’s romance! And she brings in that 90-year-old creaky, arthritic dog of an accusation (Oh, please let the poor thing lie the hell DOWN already): “You can’t tell romance novels apart anyway.”
Not to be outdone, Ms. York Levack responds to Henderson’s comment on UrbanFantasyland lining up both the cover images, and the book summaries of Hamilton’s and Marr’s novels, delivering a many-word WTF Smackdown.
I agree that many authors would consider comparison to Hamilton a compliment— many authors of adult stories would. However, (1) you did not compare Marr’s work with Hamilton’s. You accused her of being a “knock-off†and of “taking a pageâ€. This is not a comparison. This is a suggestion that Marr got her ideas from Hamilton. (2) If you are going to compare authors, please stick to authors of the same genre, same target audience.
And finally, the idea that you did nothing illegal is questionable. You have, by way of comparing adult-content with teen-content, damaged an author’s reputation with potential readers.
After a brief detour into the world of defining slander, York Levack again chastens Henderson most severely and ends with “…read the book first. Don’t start by comparing one author’s sexually charged work with another author who has sensitively navigated the issue of sexuality.”
Henderson responds by saying
I have read some of the upcoming book, “Ink Exchange,†and I have plenty of evidence for what I’ve written. There is nothing untrue about my comments, which are my opinions, and I am not intimidated by cyberbulling.
CueGennita Low’s Greek Chorus: You’re Soooo MEANNNNN!” Yes, disagreeing with you vehemently and calling you on things you wrote is exactly the same as bullying. Except not at all.
I see more than 300 books a week in my office. I have been a book editor for more than 12 years and when I say that something looks like a “knock-off†I have the experience and evidence to back that up.
My last thought before I go lie down and snuggle with that dog: You’d think after 12 years and 300 books a week, Henderson would know the difference between YA, romance, and adult paranormal fiction, let alone have developed some foresight before declaring a YA paranormal novel a “knock off” of a novel featuring exceptional degrees of explicit adult sexual content. And, for that matter, the difference bullying and incensed disagreement.
I’m with you 100%—Hamilton’s an idiot—except that York Levack falls into the same “all romances are the same” stereotype as Hamilton, and that’s annoying.
I can only assume that Ms. Henderson didn’t realize there’s an entire genre of urban fantasy faery books published in the 80s like Terri Windling’s Bordertown anthologies and the the novels of Emma Bull, Charles de Lint, Will Shetterly, Ellen Kushner, Midori Snyder and many others.
It is really bizarre to me that she would point to the Merry Gentry series as though it was the first to use faerie folklore in a contemporary setting.
Every one who wants to sound well-read has to look down on romance, it seems. Whether they have even held one in their hands or not.
And then they wonder when a romance reader responds just a tad testily…
spamfoiler: often91—way more often than 91 times I’ve been told that romance is all trash.
Holy hell, I was pissed off in the first paragraph when this chick admits she has not read books by either author.
Having read both, I can say with confidence: Apples and motherfucking Watermelons.
This person needs to stop talking about things she has not properly researched before she tries making comparisons and looks like an idiot.
Wait, too late for that.
KTG
Damn IT!
No one but no one used this prime juicy moment for THE SNARK COMMENT!
Oh shit I guess I have to do it…
Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut.
Well, here’s what Henderson’s diatribe accomplishes for me: I now want to read Marr’s book.
And since I have *no* desire to read Hamilton, I won’t be able to compare the two…but I’ll trust the words of those wiser than I, and believe that Marr is not a knock-off or an infringer. Ugh.
Also, not to sound like the Cassie Edwards fangirls of the past weeks, but isn’t this “rhetorical” question something of an accusation: where does flattery end and copyright infringement begin? You know, one of those accusations she claimed not to make?
I’m still aghast over the whole thing. Since Henderson is so quick to point out that she has 12 years experience editing, you’d think she’d know better than to idly toss out phrases like “copyright infringement” on a book she admits to not even having completed. Just WOW. And calling that a compliment? Here’s hoping she never decides to “compliment” one of my books!
I’m not understanding how she can compare two books she’s never read? That’s what I can’t get past.
If she hadn’t thrown around terms like copyright infringement, I would find it hard to take this woman seriously. She hasn’t read the books, and shows how little she knows. What an idiot.
I’ve read both Hamilton’s books and Marr’s book, and Wicked Lovely in no way reminded me of the Merry Gentry books. Because, what, the folklore surrounding fairies didn’t exist before Hamilton? Riiiiight.
In fact, as crazy as it may seem to Ms. Henderson, after finishing up Wicked Lovely and enjoying it far more than any of the Merry Gentry books, I then handed it over to my teenage sister- without once worrying that it may lead her to a life of teen pregnancy.
Seriously, who let this woman write about a topic she knows nothing about? It’s embarrassing.
Many authors would consider comparison to Hamilton a compliment?
No shit?
Whoa. We must root out these people and set them straight.
Who was that chick who wrote hundreds of Amazon.com reviews without having read the books? I think we’ve discovered her “serious newspaper” pen name.
Bzuh? Hamilton and Marr? I honestly can’t think of two more different writers within the urban fantasy subgenre. Aside from the faeries, the books they write are nothing alike, not in theme, style, plot or execution.
Hamilton’s the one who sounds like a bully here, and an unprofessional one, responding to a well-reasoned critique by bringing out her “twelve years of reporting” stick and whacking around with it.
She’s a sad specimen. A newspaper reporter trying to invent a story out of nothing. Maybe she had a quota to fill.
entire genre of urban fantasy faery books published in the 80s like Terri Windling’s Bordertown anthologies and the the novels of Emma Bull, Charles de Lint, Will Shetterly, Ellen Kushner, Midori Snyder and many others.
Well noted, Ms. Black. I suppose we are back to where Ms. Henderson ought to be doing her homework and so clearly hasn’t. From descriptions of the books, I would assume that Ms. Marr owes more of a genre debt to these authors than Hamilton’s Merry and her crayola colored men. And by genre debt, I merely mean that these authors certainly carved out a subset of fantasy that is both urban and has lots of fairies, a genre in which Ms. Marr seems to be writing.
Thanks to CE and the ferrets and now this ignoramus, the last couple of weeks have been the gift that keeps on giving. Who could make up this stuff?
Beyond the faerie element, the only similarities between these two series is that they’re both printed in black ink on nearly white paper.
Can we make some kind of flow chart combining this post with Candy’s table of like plotlines and somehow claim that J.R.R. Tolkien’s high fantasy trilogy directly influenced me to inject heroin into my eyeballs before becoming pregnant at 16?
Or even after, or during, I guess. *shrug* Once it hits the eyeballs I would imagine it’s all downhill from there, baby or no baby.
I have come to the conclusion that a vast number of people need to be educated regarding two basic facts:
1) the difference between sexualization and objectification
2) puberty now begins well before age 12 for a great number of girls
A large number 12 year olds are sexual – though one hopes they aren’t having sex with other people. Understanding and acknowledging this is very different from thinking it’s perfectly fine for adults to objectify children for their own pleasure.
Call me crazy, but I happen to find the plethora of YA lit that acknowledges that teen girls have healthy sexual desires – and aren’t simply the objects of desire – to be positively refreshing and probably quite a good thing for the teen girls in question.
Thus ends the children’s librarian’s rant o’ the day.
Oh, and the rest of the “review” was stupid as well. Regarding what Holly said; I actually thought of you first, Holly, 🙂 “What, she’s never heard of Tithe? Has she somehow managed to miss every single trailer for The Spiderwick Chronicles?”
oh you brought up what I was, Mickle! Damn! XD Yeah, the Spiderwick Chronicles should go down because that’s clearly playing off of faeries running amok in the real world thing.
My book is several months away from release yet, and I’ve already had someone comment on Amazon that it “isn’t original” because my heroine works in the same industry as another UF heroine (of whose books I was unaware when I wrote mine). It felt like someone had hit me in the stomach when I saw it; people are of course free to have and express any opinion they like, but something like this, completely unfounded, could very well have a serious impact on my sales and is personally hurtful in a way a bad review isn’t. Saying you read the book and hated it is one thing. Implying I’m a plagiarist without any proof aside from characters working in the same industry is just plain mean.
But I expect that sort of thing from Amazon reviewers, where there is no “professional standard”. (Not knocking Amazon reviewers, I’m one of them.) Anyone can say anything on Amazon. A professional book reviewer/columnist should know better than that, and I’m heartily disgusted that she wrote the column and that the Post ran it.
[peers into glass inkwell]
Nope, the sulphuric acid is all used up after the last week. Guess I’ll just have to shut up until I get a fresh supply.
About time I got back to writing fiction rather than rants, anyway…
It’s so full of the stoopid, beginning with the comparison without reading, winding through the careless implication of infringement, through the idiocy of genre fiction=teen pregnancy and tying it up with I’m too smart to actually have to read first, you big bully.
Definitely no cookie, but is there an Asshat Crown Of The Week?
*sigh*
The stupid, it burns.
And cookies to all of those fine readers and bloggers who called this woman out and illustrated, point by point, where she was wrong.
The stupid, it burns indeed, Darlene. Including mine. Sigh. Very first comment should read “Henderson’s an idiot.” Hamilton might be too (can’t bring myself to read the last two Anita books), but I definitely meant Henderson in my comment.
Sarah – you’re just saying all romance/erotica faerie stories and crapass blogging are the same, aren’t you?
The covers are similar in the fact that they are similar in style. They both look like they’ve been run through a lomography filter on ps, but in the area of content they are very different.
and it would be very very naive to think that 13-17 yearolds don’t read LHK…they do
Bah, both covers are derivative of Kushiel’s Chosen, by Jacqueline Carey 😉
I seriously cannot believe any legitimate reviewer could possibly judge a book by its cover. Of all people, they should be aware that the average author has little to no power over what the cover looks like.
yeesh!
(and the first line was a bit TIC, although that book does pre-date the other two by about 4 years)
Well, when you get right down to it, it’s ALL all the same, innit? “Some people did some stuff.” I mean, really, that’s what it’s all about, right? So why do we even bother. It’s all the same, so we might as well just give up and go watch paint dry—it’s just as much fun, because it’s all the same! Right?!
Breathe, Sarah F, breathe..!
Agreed with azteclady- Calm down, Sarah, and breathe.
If we went with your logic, that would not only apply to romance novels, but EVERY SINGLE BOOK out there. If we just say “Oh, every book is just about some people doing some stuff”, then we technically only need to read one book our whole lives because every single one is all about people doing stuff.
But that’s just stupid
Rereading over your post, I honestly don’t even get what point you’re trying to make anymore. All you’ve succeeded in doing is made yourself sound insane. And I don’t even know how to reply to it.
Anyway, back on topic- Henderson sucks and doesn’t know what she’s talking about. I’m surprised that an actual book reviewer who does it as her paying job admits that she hasn’t read the book she’s reviewing. I review books in my free time and I read every single one before posting a review. And I have to deal with classes, homework, extracurricular stuff, and a social life. I’m able to deal with it and read the books I receive- why can’t she?
Book Chic
Oh dear…
Book Chic, I don’t presume to speak for her, but I believe she was ranting against the idiot Ms Henderson. I apologize if my kidding mislead you into thinking Sarah F was serious.
You may find out more about Prof. Frantz over at http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/
Actually, even without your comment, I still would’ve thought she was serious. I had read all the comments in one sitting, and forgotten about her first comment bashing Henderson.
And it’s sometimes hard to realize that something is sarcasm on the internet. I apologize for the rant I made to Sarah.
Sounding insane every now and then is good for one’s health. 😉
Yeah, the sarcasm font wasn’t working, unfortunately. I was “responding” to SB Sarah’s cuteness with the logical extension of the argument of all the idiots who say that “all romance, no romance/urban fantasy, no anything with faeries! no anything with people, no anything at all!!!” is all the same.
Because it really isn’t. Repetition with a difference is what it’s all about and it’s a good thing.
I’d say that this woman probably just basis her opinions on books based on cover art. That said, it’s not surprising that she thinks all romance is alike considering that our beloved genre likes to do things like waste a decade of perfectly wonderful cover opportunities by using the same model for all of them (*cough* Fabio *cough*).
That said, does she not remember what it was like to be 12? I was thinking about sex all the time. And the old saw of teenage pregnancy was going then as well.
Thank you. I figured I might as well say it out here in public too . . .
M.
Have you seen the latest? In a later blog she mentions that she is a victim of online bullying. Back to the old defense when someone is called on their stupid behaviour-well y’all are just meanies/mean girls. Gaah.
That’s two new posts, michelle, count ‘em, TWO.
‘cause you see, we who commented? We are not ‘careful readers.’ We just like to ‘sound off.’
*head/desk*
I gotta stop watching this trainwreck. I really gotta.
How could she have missed the obvious fact that WATERSHIP DOWN is completely plagiarized from HARVEY?
I just commented on Henderson’s latest BS, but it shows that my comment is ‘awaiting moderation’. Gee, way to run an article, screening comments to prevent everyone from having a fair say. I’ll be interested to see if my comment makes it in the post, or if I’m deleted because I’ve been deemed too “bullying”. I quoted sources and links. That’s probably a no-no for Henderson.
Jeaniene Frost, not defending Ms Henderson aka condescending twit, but it could be that the links in your comment are stuck in the anti-spam software. Because I commented on the first follow up, and it posted no problem.
Have you seen the latest? In a later blog she mentions that she is a victim of online bullying.
Maybe she… IS LKH!!
It’s kind of… I dunno, serendipitous?… that so many journalists look down their noses at Romance but seem to keep finding their feet planted in poop when the romance readers take a critical look at their
crap
, ummm
pablam
, errr
worthless drivel
, ahhh articles.
I worked as a journalist. I worked as a teacher. I worked as a reviewer. Romance is immaculate by comparision.
meh… goway dumb people!