Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm Inclined to disagree on one point.
Vampires live forever, thus, it would be very hard to write what terminally Happened to lestat and Co.
Unless, of course, she kills him.

But that just wouldn't be kicking, would it?

I read Demon in my View.
I read it one day while there was a childrens program going on in our liberary that I had no desire to see, but I had to be there because my brothers wanted to see the program. It was a nice book that I could finish within the forty five minuites I was there.

I'll disagree with the previous post. Atwater-Rhodes and Rice differ in many, many aspects. In fact, I'm inclined to claim that their only similarity is that they've written books about vampires. Atwater-Rhodes reads like the teenager she was when she wrote her books. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. In fact, I admire her very much for publishing at such a young age. However, her books do not have the sophistication and the subtle erotica that Rice's books have. Sure, Rice has some pretty blatant erotic moments in her text that Atwater-Rhodes doesn't have, but it's all done very tastefully, I think. Rhodes doesn't have that, although she has a lot of other things that I also appreciate. I don't know. I guess it's a matter of taste, in which case, mine seems to fit Rice's vampires more.

I think the thing I have about Rhodes is that her vampires, although weaker in the sun, do not die in it. It's a peeve of mine, but I believe that you can take anything away from the vampire myth, but if you leave the fact that they drink blood and that the sun kills them, then you're staying true to it. Yes, a lot of Rice's vampires end up not dying in the sun (that's a bit of a spoiler, I guess), but they experience such great physical pain from it, that it's not worth walking around in it. Whereas, Rhodes's vampires can walk around in the sun and lead basically normal lives, just so long as they drink their quota of blood.

What I like about Rhodes is her premise that the more a prospective vampire fights not to become a vampire, the stronger they are when they do become a vampire. That's a very strong premise that I really appreciate. I also just like her plots. They're vibrant and action-filled and just plain well-written, considering the age she was when she wrote them. And yes, age is important! Even if you're writing fantasy, you still have to know what you write, and it's very hard to write anything good when you're that young. I know this from painful experience. I have yet to write passable fiction, although my poetic prose is quite good.

Ah great, I got really verbose this time. Well, that's my take on the two authors, brilliant as they are. ^^

I believe her name was Lydia... she was placed in a room/well with access to the sun and turned to ash.

Indeed. However, (geekiness ahead!) Khayman says in Queen of the Damned that he can endure the sun (being a zillion years old) with no pain and few visible effects, but he still falls into a stupor come daylight. So, they can't walk in the sun, as far as I know.

i found the few books by anne rice i could get through (though i own most of them) dont move quickly enough. i have also read amelia atwater-rhodes and feel her are great and would make great movies but they are very brief. but they are fun to read over and over again. the Laurell K. Hamilton vampire novels are fun, detailed, and yet still fast paced enough so you just cant put them down. i have every book writen by her and i recommend them to all my friends. even some of my friends that dont have an intrest in reading have read these books.

Ehhh... though I've never read anything from Atwater-Rhodes, I am not a big fan of Rice's - the only work of hers I enjoyed was The Vampire Lestat.

I much prefer Sheridan Le Fanu and Bram Stoker, but I might try Amelia Atwater-Rhodes or Laurell K. Hamilton sometime.