Paranormal Romance & Urban Fantasy discussion

92 views
TV/Movies/Music > Magazine Articles

Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Anita (new)

Anita (anitaw) | 165 comments There was a great article in Entertainment Weekly this week about vampires, and it included interviews with Laurell K. Hamilton, Charlaine Harris, Anne Rice, and a couple other big authors. http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/07/31/thi...

I am a huge fan of LKH, but I have to admit, I thought she sounded unprofessional/a bit snarky when she commented on Stephenie Meyers' Twilight series. I've noticed that LOTS of readers have been introduced to PNR though that series, including me, and I know that I never would have discovered LKH if it weren't for Stephanie Meyers. I love both writers, though for different reasons. I think it's more professional of authors to be respectful of other writers, even the ones they don't like.


message 2: by Gems (new)

Gems (zadien) | 134 comments Of course LKH would find the idea of romance frightening, she would rather people just jump into bed together for wild orgies and forget the fact that they have other things to do. For example, Anita likes to forget that people are dying in order for her to have a wild orgy.

Sorry that was snarky and over-exagerated but I have long ago lost my liking for that particular author and it's no one's fault but her own. I prefer a story with a plot and characterisation and Anita lost her personlity somewhere around the ninth book. And while people are saying the 17th book is changing things again, I just couldn't stick it out that long.

Question though, how does she think she pioneered vampires? Wouldn't Bram Stroker have that honour? Or Anne Rice or any other of the many writers who wrote about Vampires before LKH even touched them? Yeah her first couple of novels were really good but she shouldn't be so critical about another person who writes for a different audience. I found Twilight so refreshing after Anita Blake Vampire whatever the hell she is; heck I found a lot of books refreshing after that.


message 3: by Ann aka Iftcan (new)

Ann aka Iftcan (iftcan) | 2659 comments Mod
another pre-dater for vamp expansion (non-PNR) was Tanya Huff. Her Blood series actually started a couple of years BEFORE LKH started the Anita books. I too am off of LKH and have been since about book 7 or 8 when she quit writing NOVELS and started writing porn. (Hum, maybe I'll pull out the last Anita book I bought that I never finished and read that for my Erotica for the August challenge--NOT)


I'm not sure why SOME authors get so, so--um well SNOTTY--when they start to be best selling authors. Its almost like they think that they are no longer required to be polite because they are "famous" and a best-seller. (Shaking head in puzzlement)

well, time to get moving and maybe actually DO something today.



message 4: by Willow (new)

Willow Brook | 47 comments Talk about turning off potential readers. Jeez. LKH comes across as a jerk in that snippit. I've never read her -- just never appealed to me. Comments like that sure don't make me want to give her a try.


message 5: by Anita (new)

Anita (anitaw) | 165 comments Personally, I love Laurel K. Hamilton's books after they transitioned from the books she thought would sell (horror/crime) to what she really wanted to write (erotica with some horror/crime thrown in.) Obviously, there are many people on the other side of this preference. I do wonder, though, why so many people flame her (I'm sure you've all read some of the venom posted about LKH) when they could just stop reading. I've tried L.A. Banks and Kelley Armstong, and I happen to not like their books, but I don't trash talk them - I just avoid the books. It seems just as bad to me to be nasty about someone else's favorite author as it was for LKH to criticize Stephanie Meyers. (I wonder if I will start a hail storm of criticism with this comment!)


message 6: by Willow (new)

Willow Brook | 47 comments Anita, I wasn't flaming her (don't know her work well enough to do so), just responding to the article and how she came across (which to me was poorly). If the quote is accurate, it doesn't strike me as a good marketing move for an author.


message 7: by Ann aka Iftcan (new)

Ann aka Iftcan (iftcan) | 2659 comments Mod
anita--why would you start a hail storm of criticism? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unfortunately for me, I was raised by a family of teachers. Which meant that books HAD to have a plot, character development, resolution or else they had to be books of poetry. Poor Oz was the ONLY 3 year old she knew who listened to her Granddad read Shakespeare for a bedtime story when she went to visit. She also was reading by the time she was 3. Mainly because she could NOT stand being the only person in the house who didn't have a book that they were reading (competitive genes do wonders for that kind of thing.)

I am so-so on LKH. I DID enjoy her earlier work--the first 6 or so of the Anita Blake books, the fantasy she wrote etc. She did such a good JOB Of the plotting, characterization and getting you to actually CARE about the people in the books that when she stopped doing that to write the erotica there were a lot of people who felt heartbroken and that the characters had "died" as it were. And lets face it--the harshest critic in the world is a former "lover" (in this case referring to lovers of her earlier work.) I think that's at least part of the reason for that venom. At least, I know it is on MY part. Because I keep feeling that she's such a GOOD writer that she should be writing plots, characters, stories with depth to them that when I come across one of the ones she's writing now, I feel betrayed again. I know intellectually that she won't go back to the other type of writing, but it still breaks my heart that I won't get any more of those stories.

Ann in VA



message 8: by Gems (new)

Gems (zadien) | 134 comments I don't read LKH anymore because I got fed up wasting money on her but I will say that one of the best books that she wrote was one that was written way before Anita Blake and involve mages I think. It was really interesting and more fantasy but the characters were interesting, the plot was solid and I was really interested in reading more about the two main characters.

But she's lost all of that now and when reading her later books, I actually began to hate the characters in Anita Blake which I never wanted to do. At least no other author has actually turned me against characters I once liked.

On saying that though, LKH was one of the earliest UF writers that I began to read. She's definitely good but I've come to realise that there are other authors out there for which I'm glad. That's why I didn't like her attitude, she seemed to think she was the only one allowed to write about vampires like it was her own concept. I would be sorely missing out if she was the only UF vampire writer. Though that could just be the way it was edited.


message 9: by Cathy (new)

Cathy  (cathygreytfriend) | 53 comments I'm a big LKH fan, but saying that she sort of pioneered the genre in an article also featuring Anne Rice was ill-advised. There were many horror vampire books before her, and many romances as well. But I do get tired of every discussion that mentions LKH in any way quickly turning into a discussion about whether the later Anita books are too erotic or not. It seems like every discussion in every board that mentions her at all ends up evolving into a huge debate on this topic and completely losing track of the original thread topic. I'll never understand why this one series gets so many people so worked up.

Anyway, the article is interesting and Hamilton certainly come off badly. Meyer's books, while not terribly well written, obviously struck a chord with a huge audience of all ages, including me, and some respect should be shown for her achievement. I'm hoping it's just inflamatory editing.


message 10: by The Flooze (new)

The Flooze (the_flooze) | 1593 comments I totally agree she came off as catty. She may have brought a lot of people into the genre, but so have many other writers depending on the hype at the time. Charlaine Harris is now pulling a lot of people in as fans of True Blood seek out her books. The Twilight phenomenon, even though I have ZERO interest in it, is responsible for many folks branching into the genre, too.

The question she was asked was "What are your thoughts on the Twilight phenomenon?" and her first sentence was "Stephenie Meyer has come and she's taken the genre that I sort of pioneered." The rest of her response is okay after that. It's her opinion. But to say "taken the genre" means to me she feels Meyer has taken over. And to say LKH pioneered the genre is, as others have said, incorrect when you have writers such as Ann Rice writing about seductive, horrific creatures in 1976 and most of the OTHER writers claimed Lestat as an influence. Now THAT's a pioneer.

Frankly, I try not to read LKH's blog or her interviews because she always comes off as snarky and bitchy to me. I read her books and enjoy many of her characters, but as a person I think she comes off as rude and seems like she has a chip on her shoulder. So people ask you about Twilight? Big deal. Say Meyers has different goals than you and leave it be. I bet the interviewer asked her on purpose in an attempt to get a rise outta her.

I wonder how pissed LKH was when she saw the article and her input is third. Meyer's snippet comes first.

Btw, I love that Ann Rice cited True Blood's Bill Compton as her favorite vampire who's not her own! Go, Charlaine!


message 11: by The Flooze (new)

The Flooze (the_flooze) | 1593 comments From LKH's Blog. She clarifies her statement. Perhaps it was bad editing:

http://blog.laurellkhamilton.org/inde...



message 12: by Jessa (new)

Jessa Slade (jessaslade) | 114 comments One of my favorite quotes from an author is Stephen King saying, paraphrased: "I am the Big Mac and fries of literature." I thought that just so nicely slid (like a well-oiled fry, lol) criticism off his back.


back to top