Comment From A LKH Fangirl

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[havocthecat]

Ebert's Law?

[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!).

[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!

[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?

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

They are so cutting edge. They cut the edge of good taste.

[havocthecat]

*dies giggling* Isn't it just? But I'm about to have dinner, and I don't want to spoil my appetite.

[oohasparklie.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that fandom wank's policies applied here.

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

I hate that law!

[rantingmule.livejournal.com]

Neither was I. :( Kinda a depressing thought.

[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?

They say a picture's worth a thousand words . . .

[randomsome1.livejournal.com]

. . . and I don't feel like typing out why that comment's dumb. So without further ado:

[salveo-opes.livejournal.com]

Unlike some people who can't look up the word pastiche. LOL

[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*

[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.

[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.

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

I know. And your last statement makes me kind of pukey too, but that is no doubt what Elizabeth thinks.

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.

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

I know. Yeah, I'm eighteen, but my English papers are better edited than LKH's books.

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

Indeed, good sir, indeed.

Re: They say a picture's worth a thousand words . . .

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

Heee!

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

It negates a person's opinion if they haven't done exactly what the person they are judging has done. Everyone is unique, so that means that no one can judge anything.

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?

[salveo-opes.livejournal.com]

LOL

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

I don't hate people on principle. So, I do as the good book says and hate the sin. But, yeah, I meant that it is extremely annoying when it is used.

[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."

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

Ah. OKay.

[onyx-noir.livejournal.com]

Er...my connection sucks booties. Sorry.

[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.

[salveo-opes.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I knew at least one person would agree with me on that one. LOL

Re: They say a picture's worth a thousand words . . .

[dinsedaledarby.livejournal.com]

omg. *falls out of chair laughing*

[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.

[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.

[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.

[zgirl714.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It would be different if she tried to make a arguement about the characters and the plot.

[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".