![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
So, today I began choosing the books I'm going to be taking to my new dorm in a months time and I ran across the old copy of Narcissus in Chains that I rescued from my town's public library soon-to-be-trash bin a few years ago and I couldn't help myself; I actually flipped through the pages. I'm convinced these books have some sort of magnetic pull that entrances people for a few minutes. That's the only thing that can explain their continued success.
Anyway, I ended up wondering about some of the plot points that LKH pretty much forgot about. I only tried to read Ceruleans Sins after that, and I must admit it scarred my psyche, so I maybe she did mention some of this stuff and I just wasn't brave enough to wade through the horrifying attempts at a JC/Asher/Anita "threesome" (JC and Asher need the assistance of a woman to fuck? WTH?). So, I ask those of you who were strong minded enough to deal with the hell that were the next books, did LKH ever do anything with the following plots even if it was only at the "epilogue" at the end of all the books:
The thing with Dolph and his son marrying a vampire. That was the only part of Narcissus in Chains were I was actually interested in what was going on instead of just morbidly fascinated at the sheer badness of the book. Did Anita ever meet with Dolph's wife like she promised to do?
The werefox Jill. And while we're on the subject, why did LKH decide to characterize foxes as cowards? In all the legends I've ever read, foxes were either powerful tricksters and villains or sacred animals. Did LKH do her fox research from Dora the Explorer?
And no, I will not be taking that book with me to college.
Anyway, I ended up wondering about some of the plot points that LKH pretty much forgot about. I only tried to read Ceruleans Sins after that, and I must admit it scarred my psyche, so I maybe she did mention some of this stuff and I just wasn't brave enough to wade through the horrifying attempts at a JC/Asher/Anita "threesome" (JC and Asher need the assistance of a woman to fuck? WTH?). So, I ask those of you who were strong minded enough to deal with the hell that were the next books, did LKH ever do anything with the following plots even if it was only at the "epilogue" at the end of all the books:
The thing with Dolph and his son marrying a vampire. That was the only part of Narcissus in Chains were I was actually interested in what was going on instead of just morbidly fascinated at the sheer badness of the book. Did Anita ever meet with Dolph's wife like she promised to do?
The werefox Jill. And while we're on the subject, why did LKH decide to characterize foxes as cowards? In all the legends I've ever read, foxes were either powerful tricksters and villains or sacred animals. Did LKH do her fox research from Dora the Explorer?
And no, I will not be taking that book with me to college.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 10:17 pm (UTC)But this? No, too much wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 10:28 pm (UTC)Bad hair? Werewolf it away.
Missing leg? Wereleopard it away.
Giant peen that nobody can love?
WereleopardAnita will have sex with you because she's your omg, Leopard Queen.Lycanthropy is running a distant second to how sex is the answer to all. Including the cure for cancer, and the capital of Norway.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 06:00 pm (UTC)I also wouldn't mind having a list of all the sparkly things that Anita is, and then just something along the lines of, "all these villages share the same idiot."
Also, a t-shirt range of missing posters for characters and plot.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 06:19 pm (UTC)two days?!?!
Date: 2007-05-24 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 10:30 pm (UTC)Also, chaffing apparently does not exist in this universe.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 04:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re: two days?!?!
Date: 2007-05-24 10:54 pm (UTC)Re: two days?!?!
Date: 2007-05-25 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 06:26 am (UTC)I once watched Days of Our Lives for a fortnight solid. It really, really shows (the repetitiveness, not the symptoms of too much DoOL exposure) after a week.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-26 02:48 pm (UTC)*skips away having satisfactorily poked*
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 06:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 07:06 am (UTC)It's amazing when an author can give you the effect of unfulfilling sex in more than one way, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-27 03:08 am (UTC)