lkh_lashouts | (no subject)

Yet another Blog Flog.

Ah, the arduer. This is an Edward novellite, but that doesn't mean the arduer is gone completely.

WHY NOT?!?! No, really. The Ardeur is one of the most ill-concieved, poorly-written ANTI-plot device in history. I mean...okay, I think it COULD have been okay...had it not totally derailed...uhhhh...EVERYTHING, and made it all grotesque pornography.

I know that there is a group of fans that want Anita and Edward to get together in a more than just friends way. Not going to happen.

THANK FUCK. Pun intended.

Not to mention that we just don't think of him that way, nor he us.

Who here is creeped by the "nor he us" part? 'Cause, as cool as Edward is as a character, it scares me that LKH treats him as a REAL PERSON.

Actually it creeps me the hell out that she acts like ALL her characters are real people, when...they're NOT.

We've got him tied up in St. Louis with testimony in a child custody case for a lycanthrope that's in danger of loosing their kids.

Okay...WHAT???? I mean, uhh...WHAT? He's tied up doing WHAT? Who shot who in the what now???

Also...LOSE, not LOOSE!!! In danger of LOSING her kids! LKH, when you type LOOSE, you LOSE!!!

I've found that if a book is going well, then I hit a scene and it isn't going well, that there's something wrong with that scene. Sometimes, you don't need the scene.

It saddens me that she has the intelligence and foresight to see this fact when it's about a NOT-sex scene, but she feels that she HAS to write EVERY. DAMN. SEX. SCENE. EVER. I mean, I for one would appreciate an occasional fade-to-black so we can get back to PLOT STUFF.

I think we'll even go to see the local master of the city without the boys.

Holy crap, she remembered that cities have master vampires!!! There may be hope for us yet!!!

Nathaniel and Jason are getting to see a lot of the hotel room.

Now...I will admit this right here, I do hope Anita walks in on Jason doing Nathaniel or something. But, alas, LKH's aversion to homosexual stuff makes it so not likely as to be sad.

They'll get their time on stage, and we will feed, there will be sex, but the majority of the novellite has to be about Edward and the mystery.

Note her wording: WE will feed. SHE GETS SCARIER EVERY BLOG ENTRY, I swear.

Though I am somewhat heartened that she might attempt a plot in this one.

I guess the character who the novellite is mostly about will dictate the flavor of the book. Interesting.

She GUESSES that. She didn't KNOW that. HOLY CRAP, I HAVE THE FEAR.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Deleted an earlier comment because I thought 'him' was Edward and not Micah. That was giving me fits.

We've got him tied up in St. Louis with testimony in a child custody case for a lycanthrope that's in danger of loosing their kids.

A lycanthrope, as in one person is in danger of loosing their kids. Their is generally accepted as denoting more than one person! So either there is one lycanthrope with custody issues or there are two or more lycanthropes with custody issues. I have no idea and I'm starting to feel like Pooh tracking Woozles.

By referring to the lycanthrope as "that's" instead of "who is", it shows LKH/Anita views weres as second-class/animals even with all her very loudly states views on equality and removing discrimination against the "terminally-furry".

(deleted comment)

I have a bit of a thing about this. I like being correct about gender and number (call it the one thing I got out of years of French). It is just so inaccurate.

I suppose one could always use "ze" or "hir" but I just can't stand them for genderal neutrals. *sigh*

Ack, that should be gender.

I don't know of any style guide that recommends using "their" to refer to a single person. It may be common usage, but it's not correct. I'm not an authority, by any means, so I could be wrong, but what I most often see is the advice to re-phrase the sentence to avoid the incorrect usage.