Zombie question

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

I remember there being some upset about LKH messing up her own continuity in regards to zombies, and I think it had something to do with the 'a zombie that was murdered will go nuts and seek out their murderer to kill them' thing that appeared (I think) in a short story in the Strange Candy collection? And that contradicted something about zombies in the earlier books? Can anyone tell me more specifically about it, like 'X was stated in this book, and now she's saying Y instead in this one'? Because I'm very vague on it, and it's come up in Flirt, which I've just started to read for the purposes of my spork blog, and if there's an inconsistency there I'd really like to know so I can ream it as deserved.

Comments

[dwg.livejournal.com]

It's laid out in Guilty Pleasures that murder victims were routinely raised to give testimony in court against their killers - also case in point, Phillip was murdered and was more confused than anything, asking to get put back in the ground. He did not go on a homicidal rampage.

It was Incubus Dreams/Micah where it changed, with a couple asking for their kid to be raised, only he was murdered so Anita said no and the grieving mother got so hysterical that she attacked Anita (and Anita fought back and lost control of her "beasts" and had to have sex with Nathaniel in her office, leading to the infamous rainmaker scene).

Plot twist: in one of the B&N chats, I managed to ask LKH about this inconsistency and she insisted that it was "always" supposed to be this way with the homicidal rampages.

I think it got changed again in a later book where it became illegal to even raise a murder victim due to the homicidal zombie rampage thing, with a penalty of automatic death sentence. Don't quote me on that last part, but I'm pretty sure it's now become A Thing in the books somewhere.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

It's laid out in Guilty Pleasures that murder victims were routinely raised to give testimony in court against their killers

Yes, I swore I remembered this, thank you! Excellent point about Philip too.


....so glad now that I never read Incubus Dreams...although I may have to spork it at some point, hearing that.

Plot twist: in one of the B&N chats, I managed to ask LKH about this inconsistency and she insisted that it was "always" supposed to be this way with the homicidal rampages

By which I supposed she means she thought it up only some time AFTER the contrary had been established in canon and decided this was cooler than what she came up with originally. Sigh. I can understand the frustration as an author when you've thought up something new to incorporate into your universe that is really cool but then realizing it won't work with the canon that's already been published, but the right thing to do in that case is not, in my opinion, to go ahead with it anyway and think that either readers won't spot it or shouldn't have a problem with it. You just accept you can't do it in this series, and hope you can use it in another work.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

By which I supposed she means she thought it up only some time AFTER the contrary had been established in canon and decided this was cooler than what she came up with originally.

I think you're probably overthinking this part. I mean, LKH famously does not keep a character bible or notes on her universe, she hits up fans on Facebook and Twitter for details in previous books. Darla reputedly had an Anitapedia and Merrypedia, but I'm pretty sure she took those with her when she left.

There's no set canon. I remember her tweeting something like she would totally put out a companion to her universe but she has no idea which facts to actually include, because height and ages change from book to book. And her characters are her friends! They're so real to her! You don't keep creepy statistics on your friends, do you?! *eyeroll*

So I'm guessing it's more of a case of LKH never bothering to go back over previous books and probably never keeping her post-it notes.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Wow. Clearly I had too much faith in this woman, yes. And considering how little that is, that is SAD.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

The amount of sheer FAIL! in this comment is as impressive as it is shocking. Not on your part, of course.

[duamuteffe.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure remembering the ages and heights of one's friends isn't a difficult skillset to have. But it does make the endless rehashing of characters' hair color and eye color and heights in every single book make a lot more sense; it's not for the reader, it's for her to remember which character is which for as long as it takes to finish the novel.

[astronauta.livejournal.com]

I think her attention to detail are just to Anita and her lovers. She mentioned in her blogs having flashcards for each character with their eye color, hair texture, clothes they wear, etc. My issue is that she tends to be authentic and detailed when it comes to things that do not matter.

If she applies the same level of detail and color to her world building, this series would be amazing.

[zhiva]

I wish Mark Twain was still alive. "Laurell K. Hamilton's Literary Offenses", anyone?

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

The previous poster listed my first example of the inconsistency - Phillip. So I'll move right along to my second point.

In the earlier books, Anita mentions that murder victims are raised to ask about their deaths and then, in later books, she says that the testimonies of murdered zombies aren't considered valid testimony in court. This all contradicts the second book (that's the one with the rampaging zombie, right?) when Anita raises a murdered vamp (I think) and loses control of it NOT because it was murdered but because in life it was a strong animator/necromancer and possibly more than a bit nuts. At any rate, I think that I remember the huge plot point in that book being that the client had deliberately kept secret the fact that the person he wanted raised had been an animator/necromancer so, presumably, it would've been okay to raise a regular, non-death-magically inclined person.

...Ever notice how Anita is never called on to raise were-people or dead-dead vampires?

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

Ever notice how Anita is never called on to raise were-people or dead-dead vampires?

I've wondered about that myself! Like, how does it work with them, can you even do it, etc. One of the many questions in the Anitaverse that sadly may never be answered because LKH only thinks about worldbuilding anymore if it involves making Anita more special or getting her more lovers.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

Especially since only the werewolves apparently eat their dead. (And can I just saw eww?) Also, what happens if a werewolf dies in a car crash or is autopsied for a murder or, horror of horror, their relatives get to the corpse first and just say NO to cannibalism.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

Yeah there was also a thing in some of the later books about how people who died from magical-related deaths are harder to raise/control.

And then after the new retcon of NOBODY CAN CONTROL MURDER VICTIM ZOMBIES! THE URGE FOR RETRIBUTION IS TOO STRONG! happened, of course Anita was strong enough to hold back that one dead guy in Micah for a short while. Because she's special.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

...Having never read Micah I'm still not surprised.

*rolls eyes hard* Of course previously done world-building must be negated and re-established in such a way to highlight Anita's spechulfulness.

[shadwing.livejournal.com]

I can see the 'logic' behind this move, since if you can raise murder victims to give testamony it would be a pretty lethal Deux Ex Machina to any murder plot. Just raise the zombie have him or her give statements/testimony and the murderer would have no way out.

So LKH could have handled this in a few ways. Have Defense Lawyers call the zombie's memory into question. "You have been shot in the head Ms Smith...are you sure you can remember who shot you?" Have an on going legal battle that would go to the Supreme Court about Zombie Testimony, a sudden rash of 'unraiseable' victims, people figuring out what they need to do to a corpse to insure it cannot be raised.

All of these could have been used without reconning what was established in the early books.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the testimony of murdered zombies destroying all murder plots since I'm pretty sure a significant subset of murder victims never see who killed them. And their suspicions as to Who Dunit are just as likely to be wrong as right. But all of that would take a great deal of plotting on the writer's part, something that LKH doesn't seem inordinately fond of.

But I like your other ideas a lot.

[duamuteffe.livejournal.com]

I have a very vague memory of someone mentioning that premeditated murders tended to take zombie testimony into account, and were arranged so that the victim never saw the murderer clearly.

[daphne-gateau.livejournal.com]

I'm open to the idea of changes in world-building as a series goes on or as a world expands. It can breathe new life into matters. It can be a character challenge to switch things up too. If it's deftly woven in as part of the story it can be fun.

I just don't like lazy, glaring retcons like this where there was no explanation whatsoever and it clearly is happening to make life easier on the author. LKH had a cool idea and didn't think the implications through. Honestly, the problems with sentient zombies in a murder mystery setting are pretty easy to forecast. So... she had to 'fix' it down the road so that Anita could still be superior to other Animators and yet still have to solve murders.

Personally, I like how they handled this on Pushing Daisies. The reanimated dead had only limited or misleading information and often they were just confused and spazzy with just enough info to point the characters in the right direction but not enough to do all the crime solving for them.