I mean, DAMN
Nov. 29th, 2004 09:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiperBrace yourselves, folks--this is me ranting in-depth about the decline and fall of the Anita Blake series. I haven't actually read the latest book, but after seeing a particularly choice wonderbunny of a sentence quoted out of Incubus Dreams, I just had to get this out of my system.
Okay, I'll admit, even back in the early days of the Anita Blake series, Laurell K. Hamilton's writing was never particularly good. Even from the very first book, her tendency to spend paragraphs of detail describing the allegedly sexy outfits her characters were wearing--and to conclude each with "... concluded the outfit"--drove me nuts.
(![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
solarbird chimes in that it's the "*whuf!*" of her outfit descriptions. This makes sense only if you are acquainted with our parrot Zoe, for whom a common quote is "BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK *whuf!*". In LKH's case, this sequence would be, "BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK *concluded the outfit!*")
Anyway, to a lesser degree, LKH's tendency for gratuitous gore also annoyed me. For several of the early Anita Blakes there was always one scene which was pretty much intended to gross out the reader. Just the imagery of a carpet soaked with enough blood that you could feel it squelching underfoot was pretty up there on the Gross-Out-O-Meter, and that was a mild day for LKH gore. But. Those scenes were memorable in their way.
Other things about her early writing are memorable to me on a level above that, too. Back then, she was capable of some interesting character ideas and vivid images. I really liked her Oldest Vampire On Earth--the little guy who was perhaps old enough to be Australopithecus rather than Homo Sapiens. And I liked--even though the notion might make me sneer in some ways as well--the vamp who was actually one of the Sidhe before he got vamped, because that actually made for a pretty spooky and unusual vampire. And I really liked that vamp NPC who willingly immolated in daylight, surrounded by a cloud of butterflies. That was a powerful image.
Now, we have the following quote from Incubus Dreams:
"It took him a blink to get the joke, but once he did, he started to laugh, and since he was still inside me, that made me writhe, which made him thrust inside me again, which made me writhe again, which made him writhe, which..."
The ellipsis is LKH's. And all I can say to this is DAMN. I've seen better-written sentences in tinysex scenes on MUSHes. I've written better sentences in tinysex scenes on MUSHes.
As I have mentioned before on my journal, I'm still peeved that she torpedoed Richard as a character. I have heard tell of the opinions of others that Richard always really was a passive-aggressive asshole and that his most recent appearances really have only brought to light something that was at the core of his character all along, and to some degree I can buy that. But. From a storytelling standpoint, I'm still annoyed and disgusted that she spent books on end setting up how Anita, Richard, and Jean-Claude were going to be not only a romantic triad but also a supernatural triad with power that would arguably make them the most badassed power in the eastern half of the United States--a situation that felt rife with potential for gritty, gripping storytelling to me--and she's now torpedoed this in favor of going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how many men Anita is shagging and sprinkling the occasional grains of plot in among the kinky sex.
I haven't read Incubus Dreams. After seeing that sentence I've quoted above, after hearing the testimony of others that her editor has apparently taken a hiatus (due to the profusion of spelling and grammatical errors), and hearing about the sex scene that goes on for THREE CHAPTERS, I don't intend to waste my money.
I will, however, sigh and lament the days when LKH used to actually entertain me with a story. Like I said, her writing's never been all that good. The title of the very first Anita Blake, Guilty Pleasures, really rather applies to the whole series--but time was when her writing was still fun.
Sorry, Laurell. You're not fun anymore.
Okay, I'll admit, even back in the early days of the Anita Blake series, Laurell K. Hamilton's writing was never particularly good. Even from the very first book, her tendency to spend paragraphs of detail describing the allegedly sexy outfits her characters were wearing--and to conclude each with "... concluded the outfit"--drove me nuts.
(
solarbird chimes in that it's the "*whuf!*" of her outfit descriptions. This makes sense only if you are acquainted with our parrot Zoe, for whom a common quote is "BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK *whuf!*". In LKH's case, this sequence would be, "BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK a BRAK a BRAK BRAK *concluded the outfit!*")Anyway, to a lesser degree, LKH's tendency for gratuitous gore also annoyed me. For several of the early Anita Blakes there was always one scene which was pretty much intended to gross out the reader. Just the imagery of a carpet soaked with enough blood that you could feel it squelching underfoot was pretty up there on the Gross-Out-O-Meter, and that was a mild day for LKH gore. But. Those scenes were memorable in their way.
Other things about her early writing are memorable to me on a level above that, too. Back then, she was capable of some interesting character ideas and vivid images. I really liked her Oldest Vampire On Earth--the little guy who was perhaps old enough to be Australopithecus rather than Homo Sapiens. And I liked--even though the notion might make me sneer in some ways as well--the vamp who was actually one of the Sidhe before he got vamped, because that actually made for a pretty spooky and unusual vampire. And I really liked that vamp NPC who willingly immolated in daylight, surrounded by a cloud of butterflies. That was a powerful image.
Now, we have the following quote from Incubus Dreams:
"It took him a blink to get the joke, but once he did, he started to laugh, and since he was still inside me, that made me writhe, which made him thrust inside me again, which made me writhe again, which made him writhe, which..."
The ellipsis is LKH's. And all I can say to this is DAMN. I've seen better-written sentences in tinysex scenes on MUSHes. I've written better sentences in tinysex scenes on MUSHes.
As I have mentioned before on my journal, I'm still peeved that she torpedoed Richard as a character. I have heard tell of the opinions of others that Richard always really was a passive-aggressive asshole and that his most recent appearances really have only brought to light something that was at the core of his character all along, and to some degree I can buy that. But. From a storytelling standpoint, I'm still annoyed and disgusted that she spent books on end setting up how Anita, Richard, and Jean-Claude were going to be not only a romantic triad but also a supernatural triad with power that would arguably make them the most badassed power in the eastern half of the United States--a situation that felt rife with potential for gritty, gripping storytelling to me--and she's now torpedoed this in favor of going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how many men Anita is shagging and sprinkling the occasional grains of plot in among the kinky sex.
I haven't read Incubus Dreams. After seeing that sentence I've quoted above, after hearing the testimony of others that her editor has apparently taken a hiatus (due to the profusion of spelling and grammatical errors), and hearing about the sex scene that goes on for THREE CHAPTERS, I don't intend to waste my money.
I will, however, sigh and lament the days when LKH used to actually entertain me with a story. Like I said, her writing's never been all that good. The title of the very first Anita Blake, Guilty Pleasures, really rather applies to the whole series--but time was when her writing was still fun.
Sorry, Laurell. You're not fun anymore.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:12 am (UTC)And yeah, I so agree with you about the Richard/Anita/Jean Claude thing. I really liked where the double-layered triad was going; the potential for story, and the potential for sex and relationship drama were so great. It felt like writerly coitus interruptus!
And I'm going...a 3-chapter sex scene??? Is it from 3 points of view? That could be...interesting...might have to try to write that. I do find myself enjoying the "Merry Gentry" series a little bit more than "Anita", because the Sihde is striking my fancy (which means I'm gonna be a very happy girl when yours is ready for the world /grin/). I like the plotting and intrigue of that one, and how the sex and slutty behaviour is "the norm" and how she has to "put it on" to deal with that side of her life. And there is occasionally some moral spasm about how she is losing herself in her "put on" costume. So.
Brain candy...mmmmmmmmm...feel my brain cells atrophying.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:33 am (UTC)Well, just so you know, there ain't no sex in Faerie Blood. There IS a smooch, but only one!
That said, I ain't gonna pretend Faerie Blood is high lit-ra-cher either! ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 01:31 pm (UTC)i have violated the sentence rule once (making i think three sentences :)
mine's not high lit-ra-cher either but i just wanted you to know it could be done :)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 09:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 09:06 pm (UTC)And there is such a thing as writing the story that's true to the characters you've developed. If that means you've got racy situations going on, hey, there's nothing wrong with that. :) I don't even have a problem with Laurell K. Hamilton's characters having loads and loads of sex, per se. It's just that it's gotten to the point where all that sex is destroying all other aspects of the universe she's set up, and the overall quality of her work has gone downhill dramatically.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 09:07 pm (UTC)That always did rank right up there with Elizabeth Peters' delightfully succint cue to the readers of the Amelia Peabody series that Sex Is On: "Oh, Emerson!" ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 08:56 pm (UTC)However, I'm very hard to impress with a sex scene in anything I read. I will react to the vast majority of sex scenes I encounter in a novel with "okay, fine, the characters have sex, can we get back to the plot now?" I need to be either seriously impressed by the language used, or else something extremely interesting and pertinent to character development or plot needs to be happening at the same time to keep me from skimming the scene.
And if one is going to be writing smut, I say, embrace it! LKH stopped writing fantasy/horror some time ago and went straight to smut with a veil of fantasy/horror on top--a veil that grows thinner with every new book she puts out. She should stop trying to pretend she's doing anything but. As Tom Lehrer once sang, "SMUT! Give me smut and nothing but! A dirty novel I can't SHUT! If it's un-CUT! And un-SUBT.... LE!" ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:26 pm (UTC)I enjoy all levels of smoochies/sex in my reading...I enjoy Evanovich's Stephanie Plum because it is restrained, left to the imagination; I enjoy LK Hamilton because it is explicit. It depends on my mood.
Long story short, I will enjoy your book for what it is, not expecting it to be like anything else. I just like reading. :)
(And reading high lit-ra-cher makes my teeth ache sometimes, tho I love your phrase!!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 09:17 pm (UTC)And yeah, there are some books that are considered literary classics that leave me with this huge impression of how the Author has gone out of his or her way to impress you with what a literary classic you have before you. Those are the sorts of novels for which I coined that phrase!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:20 am (UTC)"It took him a blink to get the joke, but once he did, he started to laugh, and since he was still inside me, that made me writhe, which made him thrust inside me again, which made me writhe again, which made him writhe, which..."
OMG, no f---in way!!! that is just too... awful... Reminds me of the story I referred to in my LJ last monday, when Zavie was relating about this psycho chick's story in which every sentance pair for 2 pages was 'X' asked "Did Kathy break her arm?" "Yes, Kathy broke her arm." ... well, granted, LKH isn't quite that bad, nor does she spend 2 pages going into detail about a giant red bird (like someone else Zavie and I knew), but for someone who's supposed to be a well published author, that's bad enough...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 09:21 pm (UTC)But yeah. I'm NOT kidding when I say I've read and written better sentences in tinysex scenes on MUSHes! And the LJ comments I was reading on another journal pretty much said the same thing--that that sort of sentence reads like it should have come out of the work of some 14-year-old whose work has started getting rejected by fanfic sites. ;P
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:39 am (UTC)And yeah, that post of theferrett's is probably on the money, not only in regards to King but LKH as well. I read several of the reviews of this book on Amazon, and despite the number of people who savaged the novel, more than a few of those still claimed they were going to buy the next book.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 08:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 08:16 am (UTC)From what I understand (from a bookstore owner who'd had LKH do several signings, I believe is where I got it), LKH only had 3 books planned, initially. Jean-Claude was supposed to die at the end of the 3rd book. But they were selling well and her editor said, "Can you not kill him, and write more?" She said okay, and... well. Unfortunately, she really only had 3 books worth of story. I thought #4 was fairly weak, #5 was pretty good, and OBSIDIAN BUTTERFLY rocked, but then, it was mostly about Edward. I haven't read any of them since that.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 12:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:05 pm (UTC)I really liked Edward, too. OB was a great story.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:45 am (UTC)http://www.likesbooks.com/ppp20032.html#anita
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:46 am (UTC)Fans of bestseller Hamilton's vampire hunter Anita Blake will be thrilled with at least one aspect of this transitional 12th installment (after 2003's Cerulean Sins): Anita finally resolves her relationships with werewolf ex-boyfriend Richard Zeeman and vampire boyfriend Jean-Claude. They'll also be pleased to see Anita finally get comfortable with her own behavior, despite crossing many lines—sexual, psychological, professional, paranormal—that she previously thought uncrossable. In her role as vampire-executioner and preternatural-crime investigator, Anita pursues a band of serial-killing vampires who prey on female strippers, but much of the novel focuses on her responsibilities as a leader in St. Louis's vampiric-lycanthropic community. Those obligations are often intertwined with sex, the basic tool of her ever-growing magical powers. The ardeur that compels her to have sex in order to fuel her two "power triumvirates" must now be fed with increasing frequency. Old foes threaten as new enemies emerge. There's plenty of life (and undeath) left in this series, and Hamilton's imagination is apparently as inexhaustible as her heroine's supernatural capacity for coupling.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
"... supernatural capacity for coupling." This cracked me up for some reason.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 10:16 am (UTC)you'll be able to do this, too.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 11:42 am (UTC)Cathy
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:25 pm (UTC)And that's another thing. The original triumvirate between Anita, Jean-Claude, and Richard was supposed to be this cool, extremely powerful thing. Now Anita's apparently spinning off triads of power as easily as breathing. She's got some sort of link to Micah, the new shapeshifter dude. And she's formed another triad in this book, I'm given to understand?
And apparently the only benefit Anita gets out of this is the ability to have more and more supernatural sex, as far as I can tell.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 01:38 pm (UTC)I have read the latest Anita book. It is an /awful/ lot of sex. It includes a choice moment where Anita ejaculates (really just TMI) and then LKH lectures the audience about how rare and speshul that is by having Nathaniel lecture Anita about how rare and speshul that is. *cue eye rolling*
It's the first book in which Anita is presented with a crime that she doesn't actually solve. They appear to chase the serial killer out of town by the end, but that's not the same thing as solving the 'mystery'. I'm kicking myself solidly, though, because even as annoyed as I am about the sex (the shine is gone, LKH, get back to plotting please and let your new hubby/bf/grand poobah/whatever spank you later), I can see how she's possibly set herself up with this book to have actual plot to explore in the next. We'll see.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 03:09 pm (UTC)I have to confess that even I have gotten to be disillusioned by LKH's work. I enjoyed the first several books up to Obsidian Butterfly ("OB"). I'd been warned that LKH's works were porn for porn's sake. The first 2-4 books had a few 'hotspots' in them, but they did not appear to be in there for the sake of describing porn exclusively for our benefit. However, as time has gone by, LKH has found "better and more" excuses to put Anita into a situation where she has to have sex with everyone (and -thing) that 'comes' into her..life. (pause intended for humor's sake. :) )
"Sorry, Laurell. You're not fun anymore."
Between the tepid storyline and gratuitous sex/orgy scenes, I have to agree. I'm not likely to be purchasing any further books of hers until and unless I hear that there is more actual story and character development.. and she gets a new editor to take care of her mistakes.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:16 pm (UTC)And as for the mistakes--I mean, hells bells, even aside from whether the editor is doing his or her job, LKH should bloody well catch more of her own spelling errors. I hear it said over and over that spelling and grammar checkers are just tools, nothing more, and that writers should not depend upon them to write a story for them. This is true. However, they're also extremely useful to catch blatantly obvious mistakes. Even the best speller in the world is going to mistype sometimes.
(This is me announcing that I do in fact write with Word's speller and grammar checkers turned on as I go, indeed.)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:18 pm (UTC)But seriously.. I agree that it should not be so very hard for an author to use a spellchecker before submitting any work to an editor/publisher!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:18 pm (UTC)And even aside from all of that, it's showing some respect for the craft. For the language. Even if you're telling a fluffy story, even if you're writing smut for Chrissakes, that's no excuse to do it in a shoddy fashion.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:57 pm (UTC)Cathy
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:01 pm (UTC)I'll have to keep an eye out, I suppose, for any trends I can identify in which publishers put out books with higher incidents of typos and just not take my work to those folks.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 04:19 pm (UTC)Because I generally wait for the paperbacks and I've not noticed nearly the incidence of typos and grammar problems and the like that everyone complains about.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 08:32 pm (UTC)