|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:34 am
 |
|
|
|
I enjoyed Rice's first three books and Blood and Gold (without the ridiculous ending it had, that was totally phoned in on her part. Such a lame, rushed ending). I'm also a slight book snob.
I've read Stephanie Meyer and Atwater-Rhodes. I couldn't read Rhodes past the fourth book. I ignored her horrible Mary-Sue-ing. I ignored her blatant disregard for continuity until some twentieth book in the future (I'm not going to read about shapeshifters, I'm sorry, it doesn't interest me the way she writes about them). Her story-telling skills are still fairly young. Yes, she was published at a young age. I attribute that to a possibly awesome supportive family, and having an agent or publisher with an open ear at the right place at the right time. I've met and know several people who've written novels at young ages that wrote with the same quality or better who managed to get ignored by the publishing industry, so it's just one of those things.
Meyer's story is candy-novel for me. The world is fairly well shaped, but it's still for a young audience. Hamilton's work never enticed me.
While I don't like Rice much now, I do know that I enjoyed her ability to tell a story when I did read her books. The characters were more fleshed out than Meyer's Isabella or Atwater-Rhode's ... tons of unmemorable characters. In those lights, I think Rice succeeded where the two younger women failed. Rice's background story was also very enjoyable. If she had a magnum opus, she'd argue Lestat. I'd have to disagree, and point to Queen of the Damned, where I think she writes at her best.
In the meantime, I'm still looking for my vampire epic, something that has vampires as a central part of the story without it being a sex novel, comedy (Charlaine Harris anyone?), or for 14-year-old girls.
Why do I keep on typing a ton of long posts :[
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:44 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:35 am
|
|
|
|
Athiel 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?
Books with no closure bother me,though. I don't like cliff-hangers.
I actually would of of gotten the chance to meet her on Friday at the Central Library. she was giving a presentation and doing signings for her Christ the Lord series,but, her other books were also going to be sold. I found out about it after I already made plans,though, I wasn't going to give up getting blazed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:37 pm
|
|
|
 |
At least Anne Rice's vampires don't turn into walking prisms... *wants to kill Stephanie Meyer a bit*
Sparkely vampires... the h**l?
Anne Rice is the only vampire writter that I actually like besides Bram Stoker. She's the only one who comes close to describing the elegance and complication of a being that is more than human and yet more like death, who used to be and remebers being human, but is forced to end human life.
Every other vampire novel I've read makes them too human. There's no elegance to these teen novel vampires. Sure, they're gracefull and strong, and beautifull, but they think like humans, they act like humans, and they're written like human characters. Anne Rice's vampires are complex, they're changing, they're completely inhuman, and they aren't innocent and childish like pre-teen heartthrob Edward and his family.
....
I'd like to see a showdown between Lestat and Edward Cullen. Edward wouldn't last a second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
