Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Context and Anne Rice

astolat wrote haven't read the fandom_wank response in particular, if that happens to be what mainly inspired this post, because in general I find f_w to be kind of disquietingly mob-like even when it's funny. But I have to say I'm on board with everything flummery said, and I do understand the general wave of hostile response.

Yes, it was the f_w board that I found unsettling.

I've read flummery's post and dissection. I agree with the first part -- the message sent is the message received. Full stop.

But while I agree with some of what she said, I think it lacks a certain context. She has, of course, quoted relevant sections of the Anne Rice rant. Which I won't bother to do, because, why cover the same ground?

Instead, for the edification of everyone who's reading this: Some of the annoying review bits at amazon.com that preceded Ms. Rice's very ill-considered response. I've selected only one (1) sample of each type of annoying bit.

"God willing she'll realize why people are so angry about this book. …To all of you who enjoyed the book, I regret to say you have been bamboozled."

Realizing that because she's the author hers is an overweening arrogance, I'd just like to say that I saw about eight variants of this -- all pre-rant of course -- and just chose this one. It is the inverse of her unfortunate rant:

Anyone who likes this is stupid. Which is just about as meaningful, and probably somewhat upsetting -- to her. Otoh, the author not being Anne Rice, I doubt anyone else really cared.

Okay, I can't count (again). The next two (2) snippets are examples as well. They're of the "question authorial identity" variety, as in "this wasn't written by her".

"… Even when her books are mediocre (Pandora), she still makes the reader feel as if they were in the room, you can almost smell the atmosphere. her descriptions of places, cities, homes, feedings, hatred, and death are exquisite. ... That is why I do not think this book was even written by Anne Rice. … Please Anne, if you read this, we, your loyal fans will forgive you if Lestat awakes and we find out this book was a dream sequence, (ala Dallas) and you decide to do this right."

Note that this ends with a lovely offer of forgiveness, which is very … magnanimous. Or condescending. Depending on your authorial frame of mind. I'm sure that all the authors out there would accept this in the generous spirit with which it was offered.

"I know many diehard fans may wish to throw stones at me for what I am about to say but it must be said. Please to not take it in poor taste in speaking of the dead, but after the drivel that I found in Blood Cantacle it left me curious as to whether Anne's departed Stan may be the real writer behind the Vampire Chronicals and perhaps other of her works as well. It seems totally incomprehensable that the same author who gave us Memnoch the Devil could spew forth such juvenile literary garbage."

This is much worse, to me, because she was by all accounts enormously fond of her husband. It's the happy double-dig; one: he must have written all her books because now that he's dead they suck, and two -- well, two, he's dead, remember? Bound to make me a happy, rational, logical person if I were the type to, say, hold on to my period of mourning. I of course failed to correct the amazon reviewers' mistakes because. Well. I'm that kind of nice.

So Anne Rice's rant about every single word being written by her were in part a response to these. Of which there were very, very many; they were more numerous than the "you're stupid if you like this" variety, which I suppose supports the theory that not every amazon.com reviewer wants to insult their reading audience.

I failed to clip out anything that I thought was merely harsh textual criticism, and which she thought was obviously an attack; there's no point. We've pretty much all agreed that it's the job of the writer to make the reader understand, and the onus therefore lies on her text, and her.

There were a lot of "get an editor" or "the editor should have been ashamed of him/herself", but I'm not entirely certain those weren't genuine instead of somewhat disingenuous.

flummery -- and everyone else whose been kind enough to post about this particular segment today (and that does include you, schulman) -- are completely right about the "words too perfect to be edited", so she gets the full chin-hit for that.

I've felt that myself -- but it's always about someone else's work. And, umm, rabid a bit about defending what I think is perfect in someone else's work. I've otherwise been blessed by a yhlee sense of certainty and confidence in what I am writing at any given point, about what I have just finished, and about what I am required to edit.

And for my last clip, because I posted too many over at Making Light and will stop now, honest:

"Anne Rice, do us all a favour, STOP WRITING. Mourn your dead husband instead and shut up."

Which I thought was the height of sensitivity, but hey, it's the Century of the Internet (which is entirely unlike the Fruitbat), and all sorts of sensitive and caring behaviour is given free public rein. Or paid public reign (no, wait, no religion or politics. Ahem. Sorry about that). flummery seemed to feel that the author was allowed to respond in these "discussions" only if invoked directly. And you don't get much more direct than that.

Shortly after that one, I lost heart and ground to a halt in my reading of the arranged-by-inverse-date reviews; there were of course more, but I'd established for myself some context in which to set the rant. I therefore have no idea if the first reviews were as heated, as entitled, or, in the last case, as cruel. There were certainly multiple and equally unflattering "Anne Rice if you're reading… we'll forgive you if … you owe us this … you owe your fans …" posts that I could have picked, but one of above had two examples of button-pushers rolled into one.

So… do those count as the questions to the Author that would allow the Author not to "Just stay the hell out of it and let people have their discussion, unless they ask you a question directly"? At the point that she is being addressed, usually at the tail end of a lashing, for her horrible crime of writing a bad book which she believes is a brilliant book, is she then allowed to partake in what is otherwise effigy burning, or is it still a big case of her huge old ego? At what point do the direct appeals, ugly and less ugly (there were some nice ones, too) allow her, in your opinion, to respond?

I mean, yes, clearly she's not able to step back from her work, and I was wincing on her behalf too, but I also think she was deliberately asserting an unreasonable level of authorial privilege. From her previously-posted comments in the essay, I think it's fair to say that she does in fact believe in that level of privilege, that this was not simply an explosion of frustration. And I think fandom, at least the highly engaged, interactive side of fandom, naturally rejects that notion with great force.

I don't actually understand what you mean by "asserting an unreasonable level of authorial privilege." :/. I have my own views on fandom, texts, etc., which I'll also respond to in a separate post. This wouldn't have been separated out into its own post but it went -- everyone look surprised -- long.


Sep. 23rd, 2004 01:24 pm (UTC)
Re: Something I posted on Making Light
I have to say, just going on Amazon and bitching out the twits who post about your books is where the problem starts, in my mind. I mean, you can tell they're twits because they misspell the titles of the books they're talking about. So, why did Anne Rice go read these reviews, and having read them and been unable not to respond, what possessed her to respond in the same forum?

No one -- not even me -- has said it was wise. In fact, I think I said almost exactly the opposite. But it's clear that she was very, very attached to her husband; if nothing else, the last of the posted review snippets would make me go ballistic.

I'm a geek; I can go ballistic in a hyper-logical way. It's my life experience, however, that some people can't -- when they do the emotion Vesuvius impression, they're all heat and molten rock, and very little sensibility.

I've said it was understandable. I've even said why it was understandable to me. Given what's been posted there, I'm not entirely certain why she has to be held to a higher standard of emotional behaviour than anyone else who's posting there, or -- now -- everywhere else. She's a writer; she's not a perfect person. She may very well be a twit, like the twits she's responding to. But since everyone else is taking her to task for her monumental arrogance, I thought I'd take the twits to task for theirs.

And given my general imperfections and my not-infrequent lack of public dignity, I'm not in a position to throw stones, because, you know. Glass Houses.

I didn't mind the West Wing episodes about crazy people on the internet, fwiw <g>.
Sep. 24th, 2004 09:16 am (UTC)
Re: Something I posted on Making Light
I minded the West Wing episodes because they screamed "Look at my wonderful axe! See me grind my wonderful axe!" which, on the whole, tends to make for crappy television. (I mean, I've come to the conclusion that Aaron Sorkin is just clumsy and earnest in the bully pulpit, but that kind of bitter tends to signify a weak cause.)

FWIW, I don't expect writers of any flavor to be better people than anyone else. I have (sadly) even come to the conclusion that I cannot expect adults (writer or not) to stop acting like they are in high school.

It is kind of funny, though, that the editorial function is so soundly dismissed, in a discussion that would benefit from the firm hand and kill-file in which editors (and moderators) specialize. That's irony even a pop star can't bungle.

Sometimes, I think I am the laconic cowgirl narrator of fandom, settin on a chair at the bowling alley, waiting for The Dude to get a strike.