(no subject)

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

First post. I'm not well-read in the Anitaverse at all (read one, skimmed others, read the comic, seen lots of excerpts and reviews), and so I've hesitated joining the com, or saying anything too mean (I'll probably continue hesitating on that one), based on, well, my scanty qualifications.

Still, I read something today that was rather like a lightning strike, and I wanted to share. (I've Googled to see if it's shown up in this community before, and I can't find it.) It's an old blog entry by Kit Whitfield (an author I first heard of in this com) on a permutation of the Mary Sue -- the "Snappy Sue."

The fit is so apt it's kinda scary, I think.

Writes Whitfield (naming no names):

"A variant of Mary Sue becoming increasingly common in female-written and -marketed fantasy fiction. Snappy Sue is an empowered chick, generally urban and frequently in her twenties or older, who's respected/admired/worshipped for being a Strong Woman. Unfortunately, the author continually asserts her strength by giving her a tendency to take her temper out on all around her. This, oddly, makes people admire her more."

[....]

"Though she owes much to the rise of feminism, Snappy Sue fundamentally doesn't like women. She tends to be surrounded by men and have few female allies - female heroism is in short supply here, and Snappy gets all of it. ..."

Full blog entry:
http://www.kitwhitfield.com/2006/09/mary-sue-gets-mean.html

It's really fascinating.

(The preceding entry is also pretty fun: Mary Sue in the time of George Eliot)

Comments

[slayra.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Snappy sue = AB to a tee. Also, I don't think it's mentioned in the article, but this snappy sue (Anita) tends to be quite the man in her attitudes. I guess it's implicit.

Attractive men find her a turn-on, though they tend to be 'strong' men themselves; perish the thought Snappy Sue's aggressive behaviour might lead her perfect mate to be a naturally submissive man
This part isn't true. AB breaks yet another record: there are no strong male figured around her.

In general, Snappy Sue can be seen as emotionally dominant but sexually submissive
Also, no. AB is the best in everything and she is so dominant that if she didn't have boobs I'd say she was a barbarian man from the Middle Ages.

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

I think AB vacillates. I know Jean Claude is supposed to come across as a Strong Male, at the start at least. Richard too. (Whether or not this is successful is another story.) And when I try to put the words "Anita" and "dominant" in one sentence, all I can think of is "shower soap lube." And then I sniffle a bit.

Snappy Sue and strong men

[rozasharn.livejournal.com]

Attractive men find her a turn-on, though they tend to be 'strong' men themselves; perish the thought Snappy Sue's aggressive behaviour might lead her perfect mate to be a naturally submissive man.

I would argue that Anita does fit this description. A lot of lashers say that Anita's men have all lost their backbone, but they seem to mean that the men all submit to Anita. That's covered by the scenario.

But a Real Man TM only has to be socially and physically strong. All her men are physically strong thanks to their supernatural qualities.

In the social realm Jean-Claude is the vampire equivalent of mayor or crime-lord, and enforces his dominance with violence. Richard wins every fight among the werewolves. Micah is the leader of the leopards. Those are all powerful, high-status men. They don't tell Sue what to do, but they do tell other people what to do.

[witchwillow.livejournal.com]

It actually has shown up before, though I can't think when. But I do remember clicking on the link and reading Kit's essay. I'd just tried reading her book too, so it was timely.

It'd good to see it again, though.

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. Should I remove?

[witchwillow.livejournal.com]

Why? It's your pov on it and how the essay affected you. I'd leave it up to the current mods to say something. It wouldn't be the first time someone rehashed something.

Things cycle. And the comm might ave new members since then who haven't gone through the backlog to find it.

[saucyirishlass.livejournal.com]

It was at the end of February I believe. You can find it if you check under the "wank: marysueism" tag.

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

Er... CAN I remove it? (Drat those n00bs!)

[saucyirishlass.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if you go into edit, there's an option at the bottom to delete the entry. But I'm with witchwillow on it. You could just wait and see what the mods say.

Welcome to the community, by the way. :)

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I like it here. ^__^ It's a learning experience!

[threeringedmoon.livejournal.com]

Leave it. I just joined the community so it's a new concept to me. Snappy Sue seems to be the old "Queen Bee" concept in a new wrapper.

[catskin.livejournal.com]

I posted it, but I literally just posted a link, nothing else. So keep you entry! It's much more insightful than mine, lol

Wow.

[theotherbaldwin.livejournal.com]

Though she owes much to the rise of feminism, Snappy Sue fundamentally doesn't like women. She tends to be surrounded by men and have few female allies - female heroism is in short supply here, and Snappy gets all of it. She also is seldom called upon to go for long stretches without a boyfriend, or at least a man in the background that she's temporarily staying away from, but will be waiting for her when she chooses to return. Her 'strength' never takes place in isolation, and never goes unnoticed: men keep pointing it out. As such, Snappy Sue isn't really that empowered: she needs a constant supply of male attention to keep going...

[ravenhaley.livejournal.com]

Anita is a Mary-Sue on all the levels.

LKH's written has become nothing more than a young girl's fanfiction.

Sad thing is I have read better Fanfiction than what is being dished by LKH.

This just reminds me of Karen Scott's blog about Forty + Things I’ve Learned In Romanceland This Week…

http://karenknowsbest.blogspot.com/2007/05/forty-things-ive-learned-in-romanceland.html

My favorite part: Just because you got published, doesn’t mean that you deserved it. Your editor may have been high at the time.

Which in LKH's case it explains a lot.

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

Hee! Oh, KS is mean. But having copyedited one or two of these... I don't blame her one bit.

But I think it really just supply and demand. Book sells. Publisher cries "awesome! more sales!" which becomes "we need more of same!" Author complies, regardless of whether there is inspiration, time, or a worthwhile story floating around in their head (and regardless of whether they were really talented to begin with). Deadline looms. Author hits upon formula. Formula sells. Fans get comfortable with the familiar. Author continues to dish out crappy formula. Lashers cry.

I've seen some stuff pass under my pen that has ASTOUNDED me in its... phenomenal, all-encompassing, unequivocal [insert string of adjectives and/or mute-handwaving here] badness. Stuff where I'm literally offended, where I've had to, like, put it down and go walk around the block. Seven months later I come face-to-face with wall-to wall gushing, five-star reviews on Amazon.com. So somebody's satisfied.

Every so often I think "DAMMIT! I know grammar! I can describe things! I could write this shit!!!"

But, ya know? I couldn't. I can't finish anything. Having the attention span and fortitude to complete some of this stuff is more than half the battle - more than luck. And if the masses are buying, the masses must want what they're getting.

So what can you do? I put the commas in, breathe deep, and try to read "better" stuff in my spare time.

Aw Jesus. Depressed now... ^__^

[ravenhaley.livejournal.com]

At this point, I don't think any Publisher care. They got only have one or two left on contract for LKH to write. After that, I think or at least I hope they tell her to fly a kite and they aren't going to publish anymore of crappy books.

Speaking of Amazon.com, they want to sell the books they have and get rid of them. I saw once they got the paperbacks of DM, they took down the most helpful review. Of course, that review was a one star. On the front page they had two five star reviews so people would think this is a good book.

Also if you see the tour LKH is going on, it isn't big. I think someone up stairs is cutting back on whatever they are taking. LKH is going to conventions and that is pretty much about it for this tour. So I think it is safe to say that LKH isn't going to get the sales she wants for this next book.

[freulan1.livejournal.com]

Something very odd seems to be happening at Amazon.com. I just looked at the reviews for _Narcissus in Chains_ and there seem to be at least three times as many positive reviews as I remember when it first came out. Also, the date of October 17, 2001, appears on a review describing changes made to the paperback, rumors from the years since the book came out, etc. Does anyone know how to find an older version of these pages and see if reviews have been moved, deleted, or had their dates changed to put positives in a more prominent position?

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

What I wonder as well -- do the reviews people leave for the paperback version get separated from the reviews for the paperback? I've seen movie/DVD reviews get smashed up into one long thread, but I'm still unclear on how books are handled. (On Amaonz UK, I've seen the reviews remain separate for separeate editions of a book.)

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

I mean the hardcover, dangit! Do the reviews people leave for the paperback version get separated from the reviews for the hardcover? (And my last-ditch attempt at editing after pushing "send" seems to have resulted in a website called "Amaonz"...) Amazon.uk!!

[freulan1.livejournal.com]

Both editions of _Narc._ had 555 comments; both of _Cer._ had 382, etc.

I've never seen two editions of the same book with two sets of comments there.

[sevariusjr.livejournal.com]

I want whatever that editor is on.

Not to use it, but to sell it. I figure I'll make a nice bit of pocket change for myself.

[ravenhaley.livejournal.com]

LOL --- it must be some good stuff.

[vmisery.livejournal.com]

The shame is, there are plenty of female urban fantasy characters who are "strong" and follow at least some of a formula, share a lot of similarities to their authors, but are still enjoyable to read.

Sadly, Anita hasn't been one of them for a long time. Since finding out as much as I have about LKH and observing the drastic decline of the series firsthand, I've even gotten rid of the books that I actually liked once upon a time. I can't bring myself to go back to them now, knowing what I know...

[threeringedmoon.livejournal.com]

This happened to me too. At one time I like the AB series enough to buy Obsidian Butterfly in hardcover, and my short list of novelists to buy in HC is about five these days. Not only have I not bought anything new in a long time, I sold back my earlier ABs to the used book store because I knew I would never reread them knowing what the Anitaverse turned into. About to sell back my MGs as well: because Mistral's Kiss had no plot. I only started reading MG because it was supposedly a story arc of six.

[cicipsychobunny.livejournal.com]

I remember seeing this when it was first posted here, and MY GODS it made a lot of sense. 'Tis good to be reminded of it.