Anne Rice

[Graymarketinggroup]

Ok, so everyone *raves* about her... So sorry, but I am a vamp lover, and her vamp books stink!! (IMHO) To be fair, I like the Beauty books she wrote under a different name, although they are a tad heavy (?wrong word, but can't think of the right one)..

[Alex]

Can I just "ditto" Sherri's comment? That's EVERYTHING I need to say about Rice and her books. Exactly. Verbatim. Etc.

[[deleted user]]

I read Interview With The Vampire 3 (count 'em THREE) times because people tried to convince me that Anne Rice is a great writer. They said I had to be missing something because Interview was "brilliant". After 3 reads, Interview, for me anyway, continues to stink, and I'm not reading it again just to be convinced otherwise because... well, been there, done that. Enough.

[Christina]

I will admit to enjoying the following Anne Rice novels: Interview; Queen of the Damned; Memnoch the Devil. Some of her books are fun, but they are not the begin-all and end-all some fans claim them to be. The fact that some little gothlings seem to think she is their prophetess disturbs me on multiple levels.

But nothing, I believe, was worse in her catalog than her Mayfair Witches series. Dear gods can we get through the verbose, rambling descriptions to something resembling plot and dialogue.

But if you think Rice is bad, take a look at Laurel K Hamilton. She should give up the idea that her books are horror and just market them as what they are, vampire porn. At least Rice attempts a plot.

[Jessica]

Sherri is so right about the "one-handed" value of the Beauty books, if you dig that sort of thing.

The only Anne Rice book I ever enjoyed was the one about the castrati in Venice, and that was because I was doing a data entry job and listening to it read on tape by Tim Curry, which was a wonderful bit of casting. It needed that wonderful campy scene chewing that he provided.

[Laura]

Jessica, did you ever read Feast of All Saints? It's about the colored people in New Orleans - all the different social strata and how they interact (mulatto, quadroon, etc.). I enjoyed that one.

[Alex]

I LOVED Feast of All Saints. I read it after having read Interview and was much more intrigued with Feast's social history lesson.

I ditto Christina's distain for the Mayfair series. I never even got through the first book. All that bouncing back and forth between "books" and no real plot development. *shudder* Gave me a headache.

"The fact that some little gothlings seem to think she is their prophetess disturbs me on multiple levels." ROTFLMAO

[Paul]

I have to echo some of the statements here.

I started reading her Vampire series after viewing Interview with the Vampire. Or is it Interview with a Vampire? I can never keep it straight.

I enjoyed the movie for what it was. The movie, while nothing noteworthy or spectacular, provided an entertaining evening with a decent story.

I picked up the book and read through it. I actually did enjoy reading the story and some of the information that was left out or changed for the movie.

I should have stopped at that point. For as much as I enjoyed reading the first book, the second was a chore. The Vampire Lestat just seemed to jump all over with little care for expanding on the information provided. It caps off with quite a ridiculous ending sequence.

I half-heartedly read The Queen of the Damned and thought it to be a bit better then Lestat. Then, I made the mistake of watching the movie version. I cannot honestly believe that was allowed to pass for the theatrical version of the book. It was as if the writer of the movie took from his adaption of the book that the title was Queen of the Damned and it had vampires in it. I, at times, thought I was watching a totally different movie.

After that, I stopped reading the series. I still have them, but I have no desire to finish the series at this point.

[Sandi]

Manky, are you a masochist? I don't care what other people say about a book; if I hate it, I hate it. I definitely won't read a hated book a second, much less a third, time.

The only exception has been "Stranger in a Strange Land". I read it about 25 years ago and hated it with a passion. I recently re-read it for a group. I still hated it, but I also found things I liked about it. More importantly, I was better able to articulate what I hated about it. Now, "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a science fiction classic; I don't think Anne Rice books would fall under any kind of "classic" label.

[Bbfirecracker Berman]

The only real reason I finished Interview With the Vampire was because I liked the movie and want to see the similarities. I had heard of Anne Rice and was excited to read it, but was sorely disappointed. Mainly I hate her writing style and characterization. Her huge paragraphs, lack of emotion, and flat and unlikable characters are reminiscent of some of the classics, with the difference that most of the classics are actually interesting. I have read portions or Lestat and Armand, and cannot believe this stuff is actually popular. She drained all the magic out of the vampire genre and left behind volumes of dried out homosexuals drinking blood.