-- Posted by Anonymous at 2:21 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Spoilers out the wazoo   I'm just ranting and need to get it off my chest so if you're tired of more topics like this, please just leave, and also this is just mostly directing at people who think Anne Rice is incredibly superior to Meyer. Preferring one over the other is great but hypocrisy, not so much. And what i really hate is the people who claim they love Anne Rice and how she's so much better but have never read the books, or just watched the movies. Seriously, almost everything SM did that people bitch about, Anne Rice did. Now I'm not defending SM, there were elements of Anne Rice's books that were far more interesting (though I think, for the most part that could have been remedied if SM's books weren't for psychotic adolescents and for adults and if the author had been a little less conservative concerning teh secks/violence/etc). Anne Rice isn't really that good of a writer, I don't like her characters or what's going on much but for some reason I like how she sets the mood (the ambience, I know). Also, SM's vampires really have very little to bitch about, they can even go into the sun. But anyway: 1.) Breaking Canon, and no I'm not making fun of Breaking Dawn's title though that's rather amusing. Anne Rice goes all over the place, one book can portray events past completely differently than another with rice using the 'it's from another perspective thing'. Fair enough (not really) but there's some things that are just blatant, such as the many deaths of Claudia (in Interview, we know Armand kills her by putting her into direct sunlight though in Armand, we're told she's subject to a horrific experiment and he fries her to cover up what happened. See, things like this really mess up a story, maybe she's trying to make it multiple choice or something but if you ask me it really takes away the value of the events of a story, which really are the sum of their parts. And I used that example because though I generally don't like her writing I find the Louis/Claudia story heartwrenching and seeing her fuck with it pissed me off. Yeah, SM had the whole demon spawn thing but she sort of gave a (stupid) explanation for it and it's not like everyone knew everything about vampires. Besides, didn't Angel and his whore sire have a kid? I'm pretty sure they did, and though I never was into Angel or BtVS I know vampires are infertile there, too. Speaking of demon spawn... 2.) Elements of pedophilia. Need we talk more about Claudia? (Btw, just like with the homoerotic overtones, this was much more obvious in the books than the movie). Alright, she was only physically a child and vampires don't have the same social norms as us mere humans, but in the Twilight 'saga' it's clear the objects of imprinting get to 'decide' when/if any sexual activity will take place. If anyone's the victim, it's the imprint-er as their world revolves around said object and they may be molded repeatedly from friend to lover to whatever else the imprintee needs at the time. Not to mention the whole free will deal..But anyway, as if that's not enough pedophilia for you, Armand is sixteen and has many relationships with humans and vampires, and some of each gender once Anne Rice is more confident adding in women, of various ages. Also when he's a human, Marius 'obtains' Armand, currently a child prostitue when he's around eleven years old. Now I know vampires supposedly don't have sex (but can) in Riceland but there's a lot of speculation by fans suggesting they do so if you can assume Jacob will one day screw *shudder* Renesmee, then you can probably assume Marius buttsecksed Armand (and Pandora, even if she's a girl). 3.) Oh teh emoness. Edward's a whiny bastard, okay, we got that. He always has been. Anne Rice not only starts with Louis, who might as well speak in Linkin Park lyrics, but actually gets attatched to certain characters (namely Lestat) and destroy their characters to turn them into various things, depending on how she's feeling at the moment. So Lestat, who some call an anti-hero of sorts, gets to turn into a 'oh, woe-is-me, I must feed on humans even if I'm choosing the most horrible ones...' and 'WHY DON'T YOU LOVE ME MOMMY?' type, back to 'RAWR I'M SO EVIL' to 'WAAA LOUIS IS LYING ABOUT ME'. 4.) Mary Sueness. You think Bella's bad with her super-cool-bestest-power-ever? Lestat gets to DRINK THE BLOOD OF CHRIST and in other ways increase his power level to OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAND. And he can also give it to whoever else Anne Rice he pleases. Mostly Louis. She's also about as bad in the cliche department. Oh, and the whole everything working out too well? Happens there too, like how one books starts with an old dude who Lestat thinks is pretty cool won't let Lestat vamp him because he's so old, is, by the end of said book, an emo-but-still-hot young vampire. Waa. 5.) Unhealthy relationships. I really don't need to explain this one, though again I don't think it'd be such a big deal on SM's part if the series had been marketed to older, less 'impressionable' readers. 6.) It's like a bad fanfic! Anne Rice does crossovers with her series, including the Vampire Chronicles. I bet if she hadn't found God again she'd be asking J.K. Rowling to collaborate. Also, what do you call all her little AU's? Why are people who think Anne Rice is tew pwns bitching about Midnight Sun when a lot fo the chronicles is the same story from different viewpoints? Okay, done for now. -- Posted by EmileeM14 at 2:22 am on Oct. 30, 2008 steph meyer is rly good, probably better than that anne rice person -- Posted by Anonymous at 2:24 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from EmileeM14 at 2:22 am on Oct. 30, 2008 steph meyer is rly good, probably better than that anne rice person Not really...but hey, opinions... -- Posted by Thanantos at 2:25 am on Oct. 30, 2008 ann rice has been writing longer she is more better than steph meyer way better -- Posted by Anonymous at 2:27 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from masterzion at 2:25 am on Oct. 30, 2008 ann rice has been writing longer she is more better than steph meyer way better I don't think she writes vampire books anymore due to her beliefs, but if you've been writing longer but are still doing the same things less experienced writers get criticized for, does that make you better?   That doesn't necessarily make her 'more better'. -- Posted by BLUEAUTOMATIC at 3:00 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from masterzion at 9:25 am on Oct. 30, 2008 ann rice has been writing longer she is more better than steph meyer way better Your inability to write coherent sentences makes me think you are probably also unable to give a proper critique of literature. -- Posted by JamesBrauman at 3:12 am on Oct. 30, 2008 I think that Stephanie Meyer is a good writer but sometimes she tries a little bit too hard. For example,I started reading the host today, and the first couple of chapters I was basically like "Wtf?" It almost made me just drop the book, but I pushed through that. -- Posted by Yellowcard8807 at 8:24 am on Feb. 5, 2009 "one book can portray events past completely differently than another with rice using the 'it's from another perspective thing'. Fair enough (not really)" It's true, she does portray events from different viewpoints, and it IS because it's from another perspective. She's showing how one thing can look very different depending on who's doing the looking. It's a message of sorts. And yes, Louis is very emo. Anne Rice admitted it herself, and said that while writing "Interview," she actually got a little sick of his bitching and started to prefer Lestat. And for the record, I HAVE read all the books. Numerous times. I agree, people who have only seen the movies can't properly judge. Mostly because the movies SUCK in comparison... -- Posted by LoveLikeBlaqkWinter at 3:47 pm on June 18, 2009 Quote: from EmileeM14 at 2:22 am on Oct. 30, 2008 steph meyer is rly good, probably better than that anne rice person Now i am sorry for this. Right, yes Twilight (and etc) is a good book there is no disputing this but Anne Rice writes NOVELS for the love of God, she can't aim it at a teenage audience when teh majority (in england especially) have trouble spelling the word novel, whereas twilight is easy for a teenaqger to read and thats why they go for it. As for the claudia thing, lets face it I really dont think that thats the main problem with Lestat now is it, and Louis looked on her like daughter. -- Posted by shotliver at 10:59 pm on Dec. 8, 2009 Your rant was completely incorrect in my opinion. Its like you skimmed through the vampire chronicles and didnt actually understand or think about what you had read. 1) Its called perspective. And perhaps with Queen of the Damned, Rice was trying something different, instead of boxing herself inside of one writing style. Was it too hard for you to read? Got confused? Did understand? Changes you didnt like? Cry me a river and go back to simple ol Twilight. And the change in what happened to Claudia does not change how heart wrenching it was because Louis does not know, he only has his own perspective. Plus it gives you a whole new level of the Heart-wrenchingness of it for Armand. 2) Your unwillingness to be open to the ideas presented by the different cultures and different times in history is for my inability to find a better word, appalling. When Marius did shit with Armand, that was a long time ago when that went on all the time and was not as frowned upon as it is now. 3) If you were in Louis' shoes, you would be just as "emo." Louis had a respect for life now that he was dead, but could no longer be part of that world, and to be in the world he is in now, he has to take the life that he so dearly respects. Plus having a shitty life whilst being alive, I can assume being "dead and alive" cant be much better. As for the part you mentioned about Lestat, its like you only read pages from the book that had those lines on them. Those changes in mind set did not happen that quickly at all. You must be a page skimmer. 4) Everything worked out "perfect" Once, which was Tale of the Body Thief. And you clearly have a thing against "emos". Yet again, if you were in the shoes of the characters you so quickly frown upon, you would be "emo" too. 5) Twilight was not meant for older readers. More or less simple plot with simple, very undeveloped characters. Stick with the young adults Steph. 6) None of the stories were the same ones from different view points. Just because there are events, which are small fractions of each vampires personally history, does not make it the same story. Armand, Lestat and Interview with the Vampire? Completely different stories if you ask me. Based around a vampires life, their unlife and events afterwards, yes, but the events are completely different besides a couple shared ones that do not take up very much of the book at all. And what is the point of making a series that flows with different characters, who MUST have different points of views for they are individuals, if they dont have some shared events? And Anne Rice not being a good writer? Her characters are FAR more developed, as well as her stories. And vampires that can go out in daylight, let alone "glow", now thats just retarded. Vampires that can live basically normal lives as people?   Rice reinvented vampire literature. Meyer is on the vampire bandwagon. Twilight is a trend, where as the Vampire Chronicles are timeless. If Twilight had not been made into crappy adaptations of the books that made a shot load of money at the box office, this book would be totally be forgotten. Where do you think the boom of vampires in popular culture and literature came from? Anne Rice. And I am by no means saying that Twilight is a terrible series. But to be compared to The Vampire Chronicles? Honestly. And in honesty, Rice and Meyers should note even be compared as writers, for they have completely different styles. Rice's is deeper, moodier and more conceptual, where as Meyers is simpler, as it is geared towards its younger audience. -- Posted by shotliver at 11:08 pm on Dec. 8, 2009 I am very sorry my counter argument is not in paragraph form, i did it as a guest so i could not "go advanced" all apologies