Lest you think I'm only picky about certain things ...

[veronica_rich]

Excerpts from a review of "The Harlequin," Laurell K. Hamilton's latest literary train wreck (aka, Anita Blake novel):

Blake herself is a classic Mary Sue. She is beautiful, capable, sexually liberated, progressive and has pretty much all the powers it is possible to have in Hamilton’s world with none of the downsides ... What is also interesting about Blake is that she exists in an entirely masculine world. Aside from a were-tiger, the queen of all vampires and a few minor characters, she exists at the centre of a huge web of masculine attention ... Indeed, the various male characters that make up Blake’s life seem to have no real existence beyond their relationship with Blake. They are like Bishop Berkley’s material objects that pop out of existence the second they are not perceived. This is because the male characters exist solely as embodiments of issues that Blake has to deal with.

I stopped reading after book 11 or 12, once I realized Hamilton had dropped off the edge of the map with book 10 (book 9, "Obsidian Butterfly," is probably her best effort in this series - partly because it contains about the only male she WON'T sidle up to or have sex with, Edward). Her prior novels in this series were entertaining, intriguing, and had a great deal of plot and character development, for the most part. But after OB, they turned into nothing more than Hamilton's technical bedroom diaries - which is a betrayal of the characters, especially Anita, because this is NOT how they started out. What's really sad is that even if you considered the last few books strictly as erotica ... they're not even GOOD pr0n.

Comments

[wicked-swann.livejournal.com]

Authors like this are why I started writing my own vampire fiction. And pirate fiction, for that matter.

http://www.cynthiazeuli.com

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I understood how Hamilton's first Anita books were published; they were pretty good. But it boggles the mind that not only are her later efforts also getting published - after changing the character altogether - they're apparently selling better than the *good* books she wrote.

[sirriamnis.livejournal.com]

You lasted longer than I did. I got disgusted around about book five. If I want slash fic, I'll got get it on the net for free.

Sigh.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

But there's not even proper slash fic in Anita books! There are two male vampires whom we "see" kissing maybe twice and cuddling like once (help an old woman with her memory if it's faulty, won't you?) in the entire series. Upping the slash factor might have made the sex somewhat interesting after a while ... unfortunately for Laurell, it would've also meant it'd be THAT much less male attention Anita was getting, and we can't have that. Aside from that one instance, I was *amazed* that so many naked men could be in Anita's bed at once and NONE OF THEM were interested at all in one another. As Barbossa might say, it would strain credulity, at that.

[sirriamnis.livejournal.com]

You probably remember better than I do, its been years since I read any of them. I just remember getting disgusted around about then.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

You know, I think I told you that my name is "venusinchains" because "narcissusinchains" was taken. Why? Back when I was still in the Star Trek: Enterprise fandom, another fan told me I'd love her books. I went straight out and bought the latest paperback of hers (Narcissus In Chains). I thought, as porn, it wasn't bad (and I love the BDSM - the gore, not so much). A few years later, a coworker told me that the earlier stuff was different. I went ahead and ran straight through the first 6 or 8 - and kinda stopped short when I tried to reread Narcissus in Chains.

I can only assume that there are many people who don't remember her earlier stuff? Or maybe her fan base kind of migrated from the Horror!fans to the HardcoreHarlequin!fans? But, yeah, knowing how it was makes it hard to accept how it is (unless you love equal parts gore and porn, I suppose :-p).

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

Oops! Didn't mean to underline all that. It does kinda point out the only important bit, though. :-P)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

When I say it's not good porn, I'm not talking about the bondage - I was more judging it by general standards of exciting-ness. As in, watching paint dry gets me hotter than reading even her two-people-no-chains-or-biting-missionary-position stuff. But maybe it's just me?

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know you don't care for the Whips 'n' Chains stuff. When I first read NIC, the only porn I'd read was short form Star Trek stuff. I'd have to say NIC was pretty much what I expected - the bondage being the plus that prompted me to try and use it as a name for myself. Since I couldn't be bothered to finish it the second time around (after finally reading her others), it's safe to say I found it fairly dull (compared to the porn I'd moved on to :-p). I'd have to read it again to say why exactly, but that's probably not going to happen. I mean, there's J/W I've yet to read!

[mneiai.livejournal.com]

Haha, wasn't that review just wonderful? And so true. And so relieving to be coming from someone people can't say is just "bitter" because they "don't like the sexuality" of the books. ::rolls eyes::

[dejectedmadness.livejournal.com]

It's true. OB was probably one of my favourites, one of the most memorable books, and the rest is mostly badly written pr0n for sure. It's incredibly sad. At least with the Merry Gentry books she BEGAN with her main character as a slut, so it isn't bad characterization on her part. Hamilton seriously disappoints me, and that sucks because I enjoyed those books from the onset and then grew seriously disenchanted with them.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not a *great* fan of Merry Gentry, but at least I don't judge her behavior, because that's just what she is from the beginning. Once I get used to a character, I hate changes unless they're properly explained and make sense for that person.

(Very late in replying, oops ....)