Comment From A LKH Fangirl
Oct. 20th, 2006 03:22 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
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.
That is the comment from Elizabeth on this post.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 10:50 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 10:59 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 12:50 am (UTC)Seriously guys, plz to not be picking at each other. Laurell is fair game, but snarking about fellow members is just Not On.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 04:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 11:15 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 09:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 04:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:12 am (UTC)Example:
Girl 1: That is an ugly skirt on that rack there.
Girl 2: You're not a clothes designer! How can you judge that?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:57 am (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 04:10 am (UTC)Mind you, this might only muddy matters further...
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 04:15 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 04:14 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 05:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 10:46 pm (UTC)And LKH's stories are cutting edge? Funny, but I think Hustler prints similar stories (and they even have the pictures!).
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:07 pm (UTC)They say a picture's worth a thousand words . . .
Date: 2006-10-21 12:03 am (UTC)Re: They say a picture's worth a thousand words . . .
Date: 2006-10-21 03:10 am (UTC)Re: They say a picture's worth a thousand words . . .
Date: 2006-10-21 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 12:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 01:44 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 03:07 am (UTC)There are loads of hacks who sell a ton of books *cough*LKH*cough*, but do they have the skill of a Andre Dubus? No.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-22 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-22 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-23 11:21 am (UTC)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".