Dante's first book. I liked the story and some of the story telling and definitely the world. But the ending made me think it was thrown in so the protaganist wouldn't have everything and there were just raw rough moments that rubbed me the wrong way.
I couldn't figure it out.
Now thinking of it in terms of Mary Sue-ism and also a writer stretching so far outside of herself, maybe it begins to make sense. All I know is that I borrowed book two, but kept finding other things to read ahead of it.
I stayed up all night to read that book and then a read book 2 over four days. I love the concept, love the action, but I hate that Dante is such an obvious Anita Blake knock-off. I wish the genre would steer away from these women that are abrasive just to be abrasive. Can't say I cared much for Carrie Vaughn's overly passive main character, but can't there be a happy medium between wuss and super brat?
I admit that it took me a while work up to borrowing Carrie Vaughn's second book because of the passive protagonist. But then I realized that the character had gone through growth and change by the end of the book; sometimes despite herself. What more could I want?
And then I realized that it was a pretty good growth cycle for a normal woman who ordinarily wouldn't make waves, put in a circumstance where that kind of personality made her almost Omega by Wolfpack standards and how there's a necessity to change.
Which made me think about all the things that were hinted about but never really explained in Anita's world. Like was there anyway to change a non-dominant wolf into a dominant wolf? Was their personality growth? What happened if a high powered dominant man found himself turned by the full moon and suddenly he wasn't a top dog anymore? Would people try to kill themselves because of the dichotomy? Would they try to kill humans cause they could still boss them around?
The questions were enough to make me pick up the second book to see how she handled things. That and getting to watch the Supernatural Legal Status from the beginning
That was amazing. I want all my 'writer' friends to read that. It's something anyone writing a strong female protagonist needs to be aware of, isn't it? It neatly lays out all the pitfalls so sneakily awaiting the unsuspecting author who thinks their motivation is simply a love of their muse.
Anita and Merry were definitely the targets of that rant. How much more obvious could it have been aside from naming names? Lovely, accurate and sadly utterly wasted--even if LKH read it she'd miss the point. They couldn't possibly be talking about HER characters.
It's like LKH read this and decided that is exactly how her characters should be. I think someone needs to e-mail it to her so maybe she can get a clue.
Defintely. Urban fantasy seems to be full of it, or slight variations on it. It kinda gives me hope for my own series. But then I panic and think maybe I've created a Snappy Sue and I'm just too blind to see it. *frets*
While this Mary Sue is a definitely female phenomenon, the immaturity that gives birth to her is neither specifically female nor male. Instead, it's a crude understanding of strength as the willingness to get into, and the ability to win, conflicts. Other forms of strength, such as self-control and forbearance, require more patience and sacrifice than an undeveloped amour propre can countenance; as a result, Snappy Sue's displays are always cathartic and enjoyable rather than difficult and taxing. As a more conventional Mary Sue sucks love from other characters because an immature ego cannot, when fantasising about success, imagine not being fascinating, so Snappy Sue sucks victory, because an immature ego cannot imagine being wrong.
I think that this hits the LKH-nail on the head, and explains a lot. It could also explain why she Merrita likes submissive men so much - they'll forfeit an argument to her.
Even when Snappy Sue is wrong, she's right. Whenever she takes a decision, someone has to argue with her about it, so she can once again show her strength by putting them in their place; no one ever talks her out of anything. If she makes a mistake, it was an honourable one, and is generally there so she can fix it and look better than ever. She never apologises, or at least, not without getting to re-emphasise why she was right, and to enjoy the person (usually male) she's had a go at saying, 'no, I'm the one who should be sorry'.
HOLY SHIT, it's Danse Macabre summed up in 4 sentences.
and the proliferation of Mary Sues rest squarely on the shoulders of editors and publishers who allow this tripe to escape the slush pile and see the light of day. Just say NO to Mary Sue!
honestly, what editor in their right mind is going to tell someone who sells that much that they should fix things? I doubt she even remembers what being in the slush pile was like.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 09:36 pm (UTC)Dante's first book. I liked the story and some of the story telling and definitely the world. But the ending made me think it was thrown in so the protaganist wouldn't have everything and there were just raw rough moments that rubbed me the wrong way.
I couldn't figure it out.
Now thinking of it in terms of Mary Sue-ism and also a writer stretching so far outside of herself, maybe it begins to make sense. All I know is that I borrowed book two, but kept finding other things to read ahead of it.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 03:46 am (UTC)And then I realized that it was a pretty good growth cycle for a normal woman who ordinarily wouldn't make waves, put in a circumstance where that kind of personality made her almost Omega by Wolfpack standards and how there's a necessity to change.
Which made me think about all the things that were hinted about but never really explained in Anita's world. Like was there anyway to change a non-dominant wolf into a dominant wolf? Was their personality growth? What happened if a high powered dominant man found himself turned by the full moon and suddenly he wasn't a top dog anymore? Would people try to kill themselves because of the dichotomy? Would they try to kill humans cause they could still boss them around?
The questions were enough to make me pick up the second book to see how she handled things. That and getting to watch the Supernatural Legal Status from the beginning
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 10:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 10:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 10:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 01:07 am (UTC)I think that this hits the LKH-nail on the head, and explains a lot. It could also explain why
sheMerrita likes submissive men so much - they'll forfeit an argument to her.no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 05:44 am (UTC)HOLY SHIT, it's Danse Macabre summed up in 4 sentences.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 08:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 10:56 am (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 11:35 pm (UTC)honestly, what editor in their right mind is going to tell someone who sells that much that they should fix things? I doubt she even remembers what being in the slush pile was like.