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]

HAHAHA that's terrific! I always wondered why vampires with human partners who wanted them to stop drinking blood from victims didn't just do THIS instead!

I love me some grossness in the vampire genre, since the fact they SUCK BODILY FLUIDS tends to get so romanticized and sexualized that it being shown in a way so nasty you can't get around it is actually something I'd have enjoyed reading about...even if I too would be squicking out the whole time XD

[regoddy.livejournal.com]

I think my favorite part is that he apologizes profusely pretty much the entire time he's doing it.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Considering how I remember him from the first book (only one I read) that totally makes me smile. The suave sociopathic villain-as-main-character is definitely a sort that I enjoy seeing taken down a peg by the author in such a manner when it's been earned. Does this mean he doesn't become as much of an Author's Pet as I've been led to believe by the swooning of Internet fangirls? *hopeful*

[regoddy.livejournal.com]

Haha, oh no, he's TOTALLY an Author's Pet. Lestat really is just like an escapist, over the top character. If you're looking for like real people, relatable fiction Anne Rice is not your woman. I mean, he's a 80s hair metal rockstar vampire who literally can't die. He MEETS GOD IN PERSON.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Oh wow if this was being written as something not to take seriously I'd probably really enjoy that, but from what I've heard that's sadly not the case...shit, man, I wish it was!