[identity profile] zgirl714.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] lkh_lashouts
Um. Snotty, much? Jeez. How many best-sellers and devoted fans do you have? Hmmm. Let me guess. None? Good grief. The arrogance of youth is just astonishing. Once you’ve got over a dozen books on international best-seller lists then feel free to critique your heart out. But this is clearly a case of "Those who can, do. But those who can’t, sit around and b*tch about those who do." Ms. Hamilton’s stories remain cutting edge. And if you did a random check of the top 50 books on the NYT List, you’d find typos galore. It’s certainly not limited to laurell K. Hamilton novels. Reading is about pleasuring the mind, not hunting down misplaced punctuation. If it causes an emotional repsonse, then it’s a success. Hyper-focusing and being "nit-picky" is ridiculous. Go write the kind of literary perfection you so obviously expect and then come back and trash talk Ms. Hamilton.

That is the comment from Elizabeth on this post.
(deleted comment)
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-10-20 10:50 pm (UTC)
havocthecat: the lady of shalott (Default)
From: [personal profile] havocthecat
Google it.

Or I could ask the person who made the obscure reference, thereby tactfully alerting said person that the reference was, in fact, not a universal one.

Basically, the gist is [snip]

Thank you!
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-10-20 10:59 pm (UTC)
havocthecat: the lady of shalott (Default)
From: [personal profile] havocthecat
I was curious, I asked. That's really all. You're the one who's decided I should google it, instead of dreadfully imposing on you.

I seems to me that you're being oversensitive about the issue. Can we get back to bitching about LKH's latest foibles instead of snarking at each other over silly stuff?
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-10-20 11:08 pm (UTC)
havocthecat: the lady of shalott (yzma)
From: [personal profile] havocthecat
*dies giggling* Isn't it just? But I'm about to have dinner, and I don't want to spoil my appetite.

Date: 2006-10-20 11:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] oohasparklie.livejournal.com
I wasn't aware that fandom wank's policies applied here.

Date: 2006-10-20 11:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rantingmule.livejournal.com
Neither was I. :( Kinda a depressing thought.

Date: 2006-10-21 12:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] freyalorelei.livejournal.com
You could ask Pith, but I'm sure they don't.

Seriously guys, plz to not be picking at each other. Laurell is fair game, but snarking about fellow members is just Not On.

Date: 2006-10-21 04:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] oohasparklie.livejournal.com
Oh, good, thank you. That self-important "eat your own" bullshit is what drove me out of communities like fandom wank, and if this community ever got this way, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat.

Date: 2006-10-21 11:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] freyalorelei.livejournal.com
Eh, I don't have a problem with it in Fandom Wank, but dude--we ain't Fandom Wank. We're here to mock one specific target (well, two or three if you count Jon and Darla; more including the trufen), not to consider the whole world as fair game. It's lkh_lashouts, not lkh_wank. Leave your Hive Vagina at the door, plz.

I LIKE Fandom Wank, and find it endlessly entertaining (and would give a significant body part for an account, sigh!), but their rules don't apply to this community.

Date: 2006-10-21 11:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] oohasparklie.livejournal.com
I used to like fandom wank, and then it went from being funny to just being ugly and mean and pretentious. Some of the older people there still get it, but those are few and far between these days.

Date: 2006-10-20 11:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thesaneminority.livejournal.com
I'm more confused about the fact that you told her to Google it, and then explained it to her. Isn't that negating your entire point?

Date: 2006-10-21 12:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salveo-opes.livejournal.com
Unlike some people who can't look up the word pastiche. LOL

Date: 2006-10-21 09:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] onyx-noir.livejournal.com
Er...my connection sucks booties. Sorry.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-10-21 04:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] klmorgan.livejournal.com
That's WHY it's named after him, actually. As in, just because he's horrible at making movies (see exhibits A and B) doesn't negate his ability to be a very sound movie critic.
(deleted comment)
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-10-21 03:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] freyalorelei.livejournal.com
Clarification on Ebert's Law (http://www.journalfen.net/community/jurisimprudence/10082.html):

Derived from Roger Ebert, a film critic who is not actually in the filmmaking business, but nonetheless capable of judging a film's quality based on experience and his own taste. Anyone who says "If you don't like ____, I'd like to see you do better!" or a variation thereof is guilty of invoking Ebert's Law.

While Ebert's Law is obviously not a valid legal term, like Godwin's Law* it is useful in debate situations to identify holes in the opposing party's theories.


* "The first person in a debate to compare the opposing side to Hitler and/or Nazis loses the debate."

Date: 2006-10-21 04:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brandiweed.livejournal.com
Actually, Roger Ebert has written a few screenplays. (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001170/)

Mind you, this might only muddy matters further...

Date: 2006-10-21 04:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] klmorgan.livejournal.com
No, no, that's actually where the law comes from.

As in, Ebert clearly isn't a good film writer.

But that doesn't appear to have stopped him from becoming a prolific and respected film critic.

Ebert's Law proves that you don't have to be personally involved in a situation/field of study/profession to have a valid opinion on it.

Date: 2006-10-21 04:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] klmorgan.livejournal.com
It negates a person's opinion if they haven't done exactly what the person they are judging has done.

Actually, the point of Ebert's Law is that you CAN'T "negate a person's opinion if they haven't done exactly" etcetera and so forth. Eberts's Law means that, for example, even if you're not a fashion designer your opinion on Project Runway contestants is still valid.

Date: 2006-10-20 10:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] twilight-ashes.livejournal.com
I find it funny as hell that the someone used "The arrogance of youth.." and "Um. Snotty, much?" in the same rant.

And LKH's stories are cutting edge? Funny, but I think Hustler prints similar stories (and they even have the pictures!).
From: [identity profile] randomsome1.livejournal.com
. . . and I don't feel like typing out why that comment's dumb. So without further ado:

Image
From: [identity profile] dinsedaledarby.livejournal.com
omg. *falls out of chair laughing*

Date: 2006-10-21 12:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salveo-opes.livejournal.com
Let's just say that LKH is an exemplary example of what those of us who are writing do not want to eventually achieve. *is helpful*

Date: 2006-10-21 03:17 am (UTC)

Date: 2006-10-21 03:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwg.livejournal.com
Exactly! I hold up LKH as a poster woman for exactly what not to do as an author. In that respect, she's a fantastic role model.

Date: 2006-10-21 03:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salveo-opes.livejournal.com
Yeah. I knew at least one person would agree with me on that one. LOL
(deleted comment)

Date: 2006-10-21 01:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] freyalorelei.livejournal.com
If it causes an emotional response, it's a success.

Funny, the last time I looked disgust, revulsion, anger and contempt were all emotional responses. Just because something causes strong feelings does NOT mean it is GOOD.

The "how many bestsellers do YOU have? Hmmmmmm?" response is just laughable. Success does not automatically grant complete immunity from criticism.

And hon? Hyper-focusing and nitpicking is WHAT MAKES BOOKS PUBLISHABLE. If you just had editors give the manuscript a once-over and go "Yeah, whatever, looks good! *thumbs-up*", then I bet you 99% of what's on the shelves would be ILLEGIBLE. And criticism after the fact is valuable too...it lets the author know their weaknesses and what needs improving in the future.

I like her quota, too...that it can't just be ONE book on the bestseller list, no, it needs to be a DOZEN! YEA!* Anything less than that and you're not a REAL author! Six books? Pshaw. LKH > JANE AUSTEN!

...okay, I just made myself a little sick typing that. :p


*To quote The Infallible Leader Herself.

Date: 2006-10-22 08:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ravenhaley.livejournal.com
I think this just goes to show that when someone can't think of something smart and/or a good come back to the "negative" reviews they have to hit at the reviewer. Elizabeth just doesn't know how to debate back without hitting below the belt. She can't say anything good about LKH's writing or the characters because they are terrible.

Date: 2006-10-23 11:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drisoscele.livejournal.com
It's an awful big and erroneous assumption to assume that just because ones current career goals do not currently include writing fiction for publication that said person is neither qualified or competent of providing an accurate literary analysis of a piece of fiction.

Funny how they never ask for the professional credentials from all the drooling sycophants who offer up nothing but glowing, ass-kissing praise about Hamilton's self-indulgent drivel.

Hyper-focusing and nitpicking is exactly what a good editor does. Being a published name is the only thing keeping Hamilton's current work out of the "slush pile".



Profile

lkh_lashouts: (Default)
LKH Lashouts

January 2023

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 17th, 2025 02:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios