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

[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!