Anne Rice and negative fans.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

Today, I woke up to Anne Rice talking about "negative fans" over multiple Facebook posts and LKH gets her own special mention.

From Anne Rice's fanpage:

Today I'd like to discuss an internet phenomenon that I've been observing for years: the Negative Fan. The Negative Fan is, for me, some one who develops a hobby or obsession with attacking a writer whom the Negative Fan believes to be bad, inadequate, a failure. For the Negative Fan this is a form of career. And it puzzles me. Why would anybody bother? [link]

Laurel K. Hamilton has also remarked on these "negative fans." I used to think they were an artifact of Amazon.com. But they are in a lot of places. They campaign against the author they claim to find worthless. One has to wonder what is the point? All authors must face criticism, and they must face indifference. But the negative fan? One has to wonder at the point of it all. [link]

I can understand sustained negative campaigns regarding political parties, politicians, religions, religious leaders, etc. After all these entities seek to influence our lives, our laws, our taxes, our social and political values. But a sustained negative campaign against a novelist you believe to be terrible? Again. What's the point exactly? [link]

If I don't like an author, I don't read that author. Yet these negative fans will write in so many words: "This author has gone from bad to worse over the years, and here again is another terrible book that fails on all levels." What does this mean exactly? That the person has spent hours reading an author he or she is condemning? To what end? [link]

The lesson for me is this: the internet has enabled some negative fans who wage destructive campaigns against writers they dislike for personal reasons. So when I read a review, I carefully evaluate it. I never take a response to a novel at face value. I look for a context that makes the review trustworthy as honest, and relevant. [link]

Why do I discuss the negative fan at all? Because I think it's a relatively new phenomenon and one that can confuse people. In the old days, these campaigns didn't exist. Yes, a newspaper book reviewer, angry at having received a new novel by an author she hates, might blast that writer, true. But usually it wasn't a full blown or sustained obsession. The internet enables obsessions. [link]

That last one is particularly hilarious when you know that Anne Rice took out a phone and print campaign to shut down a business she didn't like and writing angry letters to people, also telling IMDB that they're wrong on the internet (back when she was Christian). Look, just peruse the Anne Rice tag on F_W and you'll see that this chronicles over ten years worth of wanky behaviour. The lack of self-awareness is boggles my mind! But thank heavens for how the internet never forgets!

The part about "look for a context that makes the review trustworthy as honest, and relevant" is even funnier given this article that talks about 5-star reviews on the internet can easily be bought. And honestly, I find the negative reviews of products to be far more insightful than the positive ones.

I've been avoiding most of the Facebook comments, but it looks like nobody's struck on the idea of "we keep reading in the hopes that it will get better." or "trainwreck syndrome of awful book + wanky author behaviour = CRACK." I quit the Vampire Chronicles around Blackwood Farm because it was so terrible and used a gift voucher to get The Blood Canticle out of morbid curiosity to see how bad the book was that Rice famously had a total meltdown on Amazon at the bad reviews. I still haven't read the book, I've had better things to do with my time.

(Sidebar: Did you know Anne Rice is now writing about werewolves?)

Let us bask in this moment. And hope that LKH responds.

Comments

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Since there's a lot of discussion going on here about The Vampire Chronicles...are they worth a read, and do I have to read ALL of them/read them in order?

I read Interview and enjoyed it, but Claudia was my FAVE character. I didn't fall in love with Lestat, I saw him as a villain (albeit a good one) and didn't particularly see Louis as anything more than the vehicle for the story...so when I picked up the second book, I pretty much put it down after the first couple of pages because I hated Lestat's voice, didn't have much interest in a whole book about him, and there was no promise of Claudia returning. However, I've heard other people I know speak of really enjoying the series, and I get the feeling I would like this "Akasha" character I've heard about...so, basically, is it worth reading if I don't much care for frilly-shirted angsty gay vampire romance and tend to prefer gore, interesting lore, and the like?

[regoddy.livejournal.com]

Are you giving me a chance to discuss the pros and cons of the VC? Poor move! I mean despite my snark above thread I fucking LOVE the VC. They're what started me on vampire/"urban fantasy" to begin with. So you'll have to forgive the overly detailed rest of this post.

If you didn't like Lestat's voice you probably wouldn't like the books, although he changes dramatically between IWtV and The Vampire Lestat (so much so that there's a bit of hand waving retcon near the end of TVL). You may enjoy reading Queen of the Damned since that has different characters narrating different chapters (although Lestat is still the main character in some sense) and it discusses the lore of the universe the most. And, in fact, you may enjoy Memnoch. People bad mouth it a lot, but I personally liked Memnoch, although more as a stand alone book than as a part of the VC series. Memnoch and QotD are also the goriest in the series iirc.

I was going to recommend the Armand book until I read you don't like angsty gay vampire romance :P In that case, steer clear. The other books probably aren't worth a read unless you're invested in the characters like I was.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Hey, snark can be a mark of love too! It means you enjoyed it enough to also think about its flaws ^^

I like that the books you've recommended are stand-alone, since I'm not in fact really into vampire genre books (Interview and the AB series are about the only ones I've read that were published after Dracula) I don't think I'd enjoy having to go through a whole series just for the parts I like. And, noooo, that is not my preference, I'm afraid, thank you for the heads-up!

Thanks also for the details, recommendations, and warnings, I'll remember them if I ever get a mind to go a-hunting for some Rice when the opportunity arises! I very much appreciate it!

[killiara.livejournal.com]

No, you don't have to read all of them in order, but... you absolutely will not understand Queen of the Damned without reading The Vampire Lestat first. It sets up alot of the action that follows, and what it dosen't set up is firmly in the 'Weird Shit' category.

I loved it as a teenage girl.
As an adult I refuse to read it again because I know it'll be nowhere near as awesome and I'll find a ton of things that make me go "YeeeeahNO."
I'd rather remember it fondly then confirm that going back would have me saying, "What the BLEEP was I thinking? Ew Ew EW."

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Ahaha, I have moments/fandoms like that too, I know what you mean XD

Thanks for the advice!