reviews

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
reviews

Anyone being following the Anne Rice / Amazon scandal? Her latest book got loads of one-star reviews and she posted up the following long review/retort. (Please note that all paragraph breaks are mine - hers was just one long burst).

Personally, I read Lestat years ago and thought it was awful, but the response is fascinating - every word is perfect and in place, won't dream of letting an editor touch or cut a single word. Oh, and by the way, everyone who is sending their unwanted books to her, asking for the promised refund is having them come back "RETURN TO SENDER, UNWANTED MAIL"

Deep breath, here we go....

Anne Rice's "Review" of her latest book

Seldom do I really answer those who criticize my work. In fact, the entire development of my career has been fueled by my ability to ignore denigrating and trivializing criticism as I realize my dreams and my goals.

However there is something compelling about Amazon's willingness to publish just about anything, and the sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul. Also I use and enjoy Amazon and I do read the reviews of other people's books in many fields. In sum, I believe in what happens here. And so, I speak.

First off, let me say that this is addressed only to some of you, who have posted outrageously negative comments here, and not to all. You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it. And you are giving a whole new meaning to the words "wide readership." And you have strained my Dickensean principles to the max. I'm justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks,in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you?

Now to the book. Allow me to point out: nowhere in this text are you told that this is the last of the chronicles, nowhere are you promised curtain calls or a finale, nowhere are you told there will be a wrap-up of all the earlier material. The text tells you exactly what to expect. And it warns you specifically that if you did not enjoy Memnoch the Devil, you may not enjoy this book. This book is by and about a hero whom many of you have already rejected. And he tells you that you are likely to reject him again. And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it.

And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status.

For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art. Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat. I was with him more closely than I have ever been in this novel; his voice was as powerful for me as I've ever heard it. I experienced break through after break through as I walked with him, moved with him, saw through his eyes. What I ask of Lestat, Lestat unfailingly gives. For me, three hunting scenes, two which take place in hotels -- the lone woman waiting for the hit man, the slaughter at the pimp's party -- and the late night foray into the slums --stand with any similar scenes in all of the chronicles. They can be read aloud without a single hitch. Every word is in perfect place. (THIS BIT IS ANDREW - OH, MY G....OD!!!)

The short chapter in which Lestat describes his love for Rowan Mayfair was for me a totally realized poem. There are other such scenes in this book. You don't get all this? Fine. But I experienced an intimacy with the character in those scenes that shattered all prior restraints, and when one is writing one does have to continuously and courageously fight a destructive tendency to inhibition and restraint. Getting really close to the subject matter is the achievement of only great art. Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine. You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else. But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses.

Now, to return to the narrative in question: Lestat's wanting to be a saint is a vision larded through and through with his characteristic vanity. It connects perfectly with his earlier ambitions to be an actor in Paris, a rock star in the modern age. If you can't see that, you aren't reading my work. In his conversation with the Pope he makes observations on the times which are in continuity with his observations on the late twentieth century in The Vampire Lestat, and in continuity with Marius' observations in that book and later in Queen of the Damned. The state of the world has always been an important theme in the chronicles. Lestat's comments matter. Every word he speaks is part of the achievement of this book. That Lestat renounced this saintly ambition within a matter of pages is plain enough for you to see. That he reverts to his old self is obvious, and that he intends to complete the tale of Blackwood Farm is also quite clear. There are many other themes and patterns in this work that I might mention -- the interplay between St.Juan Diago and Lestat, the invisible creature who doesn't "exist" in the eyes of the world is a case in point. There is also the theme of the snare of Blackwood Farm, the place where a human existence becomes so beguiling that Lestat relinquishes his power as if to a spell. The entire relationship between Lestat and Uncle Julien is carefully worked out.

But I leave it to readers to discover how this complex and intricate novel establishes itself within a unique, if not unrivalled series of book. There are things to be said. And there is pleasure to be had. And readers will say wonderful things about Blood Canticle and they already are. There are readers out there and plenty of them who cherish the individuality of each of the chronicles which you so flippantly condemn. They can and do talk circles around you. And I am warmed by their response. Their letters, the papers they write in school, our face to face exchanges on the road -- these things sustain me when I read the utter trash that you post.

But I feel I have said enough. If this reaches one reader who is curious about my work and shocked by the ugly reviews here, I've served my goals. And Yo, you dude, the slang police! Lestat talks like I do. He always has and he always will. You really wouldn't much like being around either one of us. And you don't have to be. If any of you want to say anything about all this by all means Email me at Anneobrienrice@mac.com. And if you want your money back for the book, send it to 1239 First Street, New Orleans, La, 70130. I'm not a coward about my real name or where I live. And yes, the Chronicles are no more! Thank God!

Rokkitnite
Anonymous's picture
What a snide, uppity bitch. 'But I leave it to readers to discover how this complex and intricate novel establishes itself within a unique, if not unrivalled series of book.' Well, duh, she's a credible advocate. And I believe she meant *books*.
Rokkitnite
Anonymous's picture
'The fact that she hasn't allowed an editor to change one word of her writing is a strong clue that she takes her dross for gold, but this tripe seems like the thinnest gruel of fan fiction. If there were such a thing as a Anne Rice drinking game where you did a shot for every time you read someone refer to another character as "darling", "dearest", "beloved" or "my love", her readers would all be in alcoholic comas.' Superb.
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
See you've been checking out the reviews of her review... A lot of readers saying that the point where she got so big that she could tell editors to only change typos was the point when her books became unreadable. In the discussions I've been having on this elsewhere, it has led on to whether there's ever been anything that couldn't be improved by some more editing. I offered Hemingway's micro-story "For sale, baby's shoes, never used" I don't have a problem with her raging against negative reviews, though I think it makes her look stupid, it's her idea that her book is perfect and not a word could be changed. Better to simply say, sorry you didn't like it, but the book is the way it is, some will love it, others will hate it, I happen to prefer that to writing something bland that affects nobody. Her friends have made her take the review down now, boo!
Rokkitnite
Anonymous's picture
'Better to simply say, sorry you didn't like it, but the book is the way it is, some will love it, others will hate it, I happen to prefer that to writing something bland that affects nobody.' See, now *that* I would admire. So I'll be buying your book at least, Andrew.
Hen
Anonymous's picture
"I happen to prefer that to writing something bland that affects nobody." No one who takes pride in their work is going to say that. I don't care for Anne Rice myself, but I can understand how it feels to take pride in something to the point where you're willing to defend it, and it's nice to see someone admitting that, rather than indulging in shrewd self-depracation. Sometimes it's the idea you passionately believe in, not your own abilities or ego. I don't think she's a snide, uppity woman, but I do think she's worded this very badly. No doubt what she really means by all that talk of its being 'perfect' is that she worked on it very carefully, felt she'd achieved something that couldn't be improved any further, and she doesn't think it's fair that people for whom the book doesn't work feel they have the authority to publicly piss all over it. I mean, luvaduck, no work escapes being strongly disliked by *someone* and what would we think if *all* reviews were written by that someone? I know on the 'couldn't be improved' note you can come back at me and say that nothing fits into that category. But I would say there's always a point you which where further meddling will begin to make things worse, not better, and I wouldn't be surprised if successful writers like Rice are those who have a good sense of when that point is. How many of us never get anywhere with certain projects because we chip away at the initial, rough shape until there's nothing left? Anyway, it's a strop that will do her more harm than good.... but have some sympathy for the woman. I'd sure like to feel that strongly about my work.
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
Agree in part - there comes a point at which the effort of improving something is not worth the return, and even at which you make something worse just for sake of changing. But that's not the point. Rice has got to the stage of commercial success where she insists that her editors only alter typos - she will brook no creative suggestions at all. Now, for me, there's a world of difference between "Editor, you've suggested I do X, I don't think I should because Y" and "Editor, shut the fuck up, it's my book and I'm not listening to anything you have to say" It happens a lot. I could trim about twenty minutes out of every Tarantino film since Reservoir Dogs and make them all substantially better, but when you're successful, you don't have to listen when people tell you helpful stuff like that. Likewise, I suspect Oasis thought Be Here Now was genuinely good stuff. (I'm sure, on the other hand, that Radiohead knew exactly what they were doing, but still misguided in the belief that they could just come back to guitar music any time they liked and still be as good as The Bends) I like Fitzgerald's line - to make good literature, you have to be prepared to kill your darlings. (And Hen, it was about a hundred and fifty dreadful reviews. Which, sure is going to make the author mad as a wet hen, but it ought also to give one pause for thought and review the book objectively. Whatever she was trying to achieve with it, it didn't come off. And these were die-hard Rice fans, not snooty critics or literary snobs)
Rokkitnite
Anonymous's picture
Well, Patricia advised us lot on the prose course to never respond to bad reviews. It makes you look petty and it lends more importance to the person's opinion. I mean, random posters on Amazon aren't normally considered brilliant literary authorities. Her response suggests their comments are worth taking seriously.
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
I think that's right - if someone really hates your work, then their feedback is going to be of limited use; whereas if someone says that this bit was good, this character or sequence worked less well, this paragraph jerked them out of the story, then you can use that to at least consider making improvements. Martin Gardener once wrote a pseudonymous (?) review of one of his books, absolutely slaughtering it, and he got loads of fans writing to the magazine in which the review appeared, having a go at the writer of the review for attacking Martin. I could imagine our Hen doing something similar in a good style.
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
Ooh, I liked this snippet from Neil Gaiman today, and it seems sort of apposite here... (Remember: when people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what's wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.)
Rokkitnite
Anonymous's picture
'Martin Gardener once wrote a pseudonymous (?) review of one of his books, absolutely slaughtering it, and he got loads of fans writing to the magazine in which the review appeared, having a go at the writer of the review for attacking Martin.' That sounds like a High-Risk Manuever, akin to a body splash off the top turnbuckle. What if loads of people just take the review at face value? Why not just send loads of letters pretending to be fans who love it, and cut out the middle man?
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
I suppose for the sheer peverse thrill of slagging off your own work and running all the counter-arguments that you can think of to the opinions you have, whilst doing it with a straight face, rather than just paraphrasing the counter-arguments so that you can shoot them down. If you're doing it for a book of essays, it still works. Risky for a novel, but potential purchasers of a book of essays might buy them even if they disagree with what is being put forward, as long as they are thoughtprovoking. And that was the substance of the negative review, that all of Gardener's opinions were wrong and would only be held by a maniac. I wouldn't do it myself, but it was an interesting thing to do. You have to bear in mind that Gardener and Hofstadter posited the idea of a book consisting only of reviews of itself and worked out a logical way of getting such a book written (and Hofstadter also published a recipe for Recipe Cake, in which pages torn out of cookery books were a fairly key ingredient)
Hen
Anonymous's picture
Sounds like a cool idea to me. I don't think I could do it, because I genuinely can't find it in me to slaughter things. I can say that they do absolutely nothing for me, and that they make me fed up to the teeth, but going through something and picking it apart, when I can usually see every counter-argument welling up, is against my nature. I don't think I could do it without sounding bitchy, and I don't like bitchy, so I wouldn't wanna write it. Also, philosophical principle of generosity and all that. Interpeting things as strongly as you can does you more credit, and makesthe world seem more agreeable, than if you go round interpreting everything as rank worthlessness.
fergal
Anonymous's picture
I think a review on amazon (god bless 'er and all 'oo sail in 'er) is different to a review in the paper or on the The Late Review or whatever. People jump on bandwagons there and nothing is edited itself so I could put up I thnk An Rice is shite and rites like an eaglet and it would still be put up there. Responding to bad reviews is a bad idea, I agreed with Patricia when she said that, but, it is worth, as a reader of reviews (especially in the paper) that a lot of them are political. Hence you can get two books reviewd by the same person in the same paper who has a beef with one of the writers' sensibilities and likes to do lunch with the other.... you then get your Saturday Guardian reader thinking shall I buy A or B and not realising that A is giving said reviewer a blow job in the Groucho Club bogs whilst B is sitting in the canteen of her local Tescos in Sheffield. If you see what I mean. Editing is really useful if you TRUST your editor. The workshops have shown me that. I have one friend who is a writer and I really like and enjoy her company, think she is beautiful and funny and clever but everytime she reads my work and tells me what she thinks I get so despondent. It's because she questions the ideas within my work, says things like, 'I doubt a family of this class would have a room full of big books' or just doesn't like the concept or whatever. This is not useful for me because I have already decided on those things. It's structural things, clumsy sentences, repetition, strengths and weaknesses that I like to be told about. I like the words taken at their face value and I like to be, at least to some extent, trusted as writer. I hate it when people question the motives of my characters... 'why does she do that?'...'It doesn't make sense that he suddenly does that'. That is my business and if I want a character to take off her dress and parade around naked in front of the 19 year old removal man then that is what will happen. It may seem a bit strange, a bit eccentric, a bit soon, but it will all make sense later... sorry got carried away. My point being, better to have editor than not - essential some would argue - but just make sure you choose your editor carefully or you will end up with a book that you didn't even write yourself.
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
Absolutely agree - I don't really want an editor to tell me what my characters would or wouldn't do, but they can be fantastic to tell you what worked well and what made them stumble as a reader (repetitions are particularly hard to spot as writer and easy to see as reader) and also for continuity - hang on, so-and-so said in chapter 3 he was anti-smoking, but now he's chain-smoking. It's fantastically useful to have someone read your work who makes constructive comments, even if there are negatives. My work is definitely better as a result of help I've had from Liana, Emma, Fish, Colin, Drew and Hayley. In fact, the most helpful feedback I've ever had was from Gerry, who hated the fragment I'd said but was able to say why, so I knew what areas needed work.
Hen
Anonymous's picture
I woudn't put a blanket ban on any 'type' of editor... from friends and family members, to pros, to people who don't like that sort of stuff. Obviously, the best ones are going to be those that catch on very quickly to what you're trying to do with a piece, (their suggestions are likely to ring true with you) and the worst are those who plainly have a specific idea of what they want to read, and would prefer it if you wrote that instead (their suggestions are likely to sound freaky and way off the mark). I managed, between shifts, to attend an hour of my beloved UEA CWS earlier this week, and got some of the novel critted. Some people were very impressed, others confused, some strongly opposed to certain elements and some strongly for the same elements - all as per usual - but out of the discussion sounded at least two very strong and helpful comments that just made me think, "That's bang to rights. That's true." One was not using 'we' to refer to both K & H, *and* K & M (the chapter is two scenes, interlinked and told by one person,) and the other was to cut down on the references to breasts (I was going for frank, but overdid it). I don't think you can go on any kind of rules for what advice to follow - in knowing which bits to take, the only thing you can trust is your own intuition. No one else can make those decisions for you. *You* are the only real editor, albeit with a suggestions box to contemplate.
andrew pack
Anonymous's picture
Agree, to an extent - it is certainly helpful to have anyone interested in reading or writing to look over the manuscript. But the majority of people consume very passively, in a washing-over sense - the worst feedback of all is not "I hated it" but "yeah, I liked it" without any more to be eluded. I think Neil's maxim, that I cited earlier, has a lot of power to it.
Hen
Anonymous's picture
"the worst feedback of all is not "I hated it" but "yeah, I liked it" without any more to be eluded." But aren't they essentially the same, if nothing more is said? In which case, I prefer the latter, just because it could mean you had an effect, but one that is hard to put into words. I know I can be very clumsy about putting across what I liked in something if I don't have time to ponder, and I'm supposed to be articulate (ha de ha). But year, generally negative comments are worth more per pound because you can make specific improvements, whereas positive ones just let you know which aspects of your style are the most reliable.
Topic locked