Laurell V Agatha and Arthur
Nov. 22nd, 2007 08:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomi_jay(Most gracious thanks to dwgfor bringing this to my attention, you fox, you.)
So LKH reckons hating your characters is TEH EBIL. And therefore Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle are also TEH EBIL for hating Poirot and Sherlock. And neither of them could possibly match LKH herself for compassion, empathy and downright, flat-does-it-for-me sparkly artistic heart for being so in love with Anita Blake that she wrote her twice and invented Merry Gentry. Two characters so transparently based on LKH herself, it's no wonder she's madly in love with them, as she assumes the world is and by proxy therefore in love with her. And also OMG how dare Conan Doyle write a book for money?! Couldn't the guy live off the adoration of his squeeling fangurls like Laurell does? God forbid he should make a living!
Here's the thing: I don't really care if Conan Doyle and Christie hated their characters. It clearly didn't affect their ability to write brilliant, successful books that have gone onto spawn numerous TV and film tie-ins, legions of devoted fans and copy-cats. LKH on the other hand, has let her love forherself Anita and Merry affect her ability to write brilliant books. The once sharp, ballsy Anita is now nothing more than a blow-up doll even Quagmire might hesitate to use, and Merry never really was anything more. Engaging supernatural mysteries have given way to turgid, mechanical sex scenes and endless wangsting about tru wuv, vampire politics and who said what about Anita and why they are evil and wrong for saying it. LKH reckons Agatha Christie was "hateful" for killing off Poirot? I think LKH killed off Anita round about book six and all we've had ever since is author wish-fullfillment in which Laurell uses Anita as her mouthpiece to shoot down anyone who disapproves of Anita and therefore Laurell herself.
I'm not saying it's wrong to love your characters. As readers and writers, we get invested in characters; that's why we read. I adore some of my characters, but even at my most medicated and fog-brained, I'm lucid enough to know they're not real. Laurell acts as if Anita lives around the corner and pops in for tea with her coterie of anime-esquefanbois lovers. She talks as if Merry goes clothes shopping with her on a regular basis. Guys. This is not healthy behaviour for a woman in her 40s. And personally, I'd take Conan Doyle and Christie's approach over Laurell's any day. Nobody ever accused them of being bat-shit crazy.
dwgfor bringing this to my attention, you fox, you.) So LKH reckons hating your characters is TEH EBIL. And therefore Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle are also TEH EBIL for hating Poirot and Sherlock. And neither of them could possibly match LKH herself for compassion, empathy and downright, flat-does-it-for-me sparkly artistic heart for being so in love with Anita Blake that she wrote her twice and invented Merry Gentry. Two characters so transparently based on LKH herself, it's no wonder she's madly in love with them, as she assumes the world is and by proxy therefore in love with her. And also OMG how dare Conan Doyle write a book for money?! Couldn't the guy live off the adoration of his squeeling fangurls like Laurell does? God forbid he should make a living!
Here's the thing: I don't really care if Conan Doyle and Christie hated their characters. It clearly didn't affect their ability to write brilliant, successful books that have gone onto spawn numerous TV and film tie-ins, legions of devoted fans and copy-cats. LKH on the other hand, has let her love for
I'm not saying it's wrong to love your characters. As readers and writers, we get invested in characters; that's why we read. I adore some of my characters, but even at my most medicated and fog-brained, I'm lucid enough to know they're not real. Laurell acts as if Anita lives around the corner and pops in for tea with her coterie of anime-esque
