Laurell V Agatha and Arthur

[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 for herself 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-esque fanbois 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.

Comments

[stacia-kane.livejournal.com]

*applause*

I enjoyed those first few books. I was even eager for the sexing to begin and really glad when it did. But...somewhere along the line...the characters got dumber. The sex, never particularly well-written as it was, got worse and worse and worse. The plots went bye-bye (for me it was Narcissus in Chains--um, if she can complete the obstacle course it means she's a were now, so the poor wereguy "killed" her, and if she can't complete it they'll kill him anyway, but nobody even stops to think that if she can't complete it she's not a were and he therefore didn't actually "kill" her to begin with? Sheesh. I've read bad porn with less plot holes. Oh, sorry. AB is bad porn.)
And yeah...I'll be honest, I tend to fall a little in love with my heroes, and I usually like my heroines, but I don't see something in a store and think, "Oh, I should buy that for so-and-so" and then realize on my way to the register that that person isn't real and is in fact a character from one of my books. I seriously worry about the woman's mental health.

[naomi-jay.livejournal.com]

I'm in complete agreement. NiC was a disaster and the series became unreadable (for me) about three chapters into Incubus Dreams. Such a disappointment after the early books.