Anne Rice To Stephenie Meyer: Your Vampires Suck

It’s the famous, “Just kidding!” defense.  After her quick conversion to, then rejection of, Christianity and Christian fiction, I would guess this is a bid for relevance.  She will clearly go where she has to go to chase the headlines and grab some cash.  I would not be at all surprised to find out she has an upcoming project to promote.

Oh yeah?  Well my vampires are better than your vampires!

And Spike and Angel beat them both hands down so kneerr kner kne kner kneerr

But did she seriously just wait until all the books were out, and three of the films were released before she got her digs in? She’s a little late to the party, even for a publicity stunt.

A little late, but I’m always happy when somebody trashes that series. God Meyer’s writing sucks.

http://tinyurl.com/4skyaqr

Don’t have a lot of familiarity with Anne Rice, but, as much as I am not a fan of the Twilight series, I wish everybody would just leave the books alone – let’s talk about well-written, interesting novels instead of dwelling on those that aren’t.

“In Meyer’s defense, the Twilight series are young adult books, they just happened to have had huge crossover success.”
A nice sentiment, but I disagree. Just because something is a YA novel/series does not mean it is allowed to be silly or “not make sense.” YA novels can be just as well-written as mainstream literature (and sometimes that isn’t written very well, either), and saying that just because it is targeted at teens implies pure laziness on the part of the author.

Just how lazy/awful is Meyer as an author? http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/ sums it up well enough.

Yeah, it’s a good thing people are still talking, I think there might be some teen girls out there who still don’t feel terrible about their fandom and reading choices.  Go get ‘em!

Why do authors feel the need to weigh in on Twilight, and why do they feel the need to do it with such an absence of class?

bram stoker to anne rice:  your vampires suck…

Things are totally allowed to be silly, young adult or no. Terry Pratchett anyone?

Not making sense? Ehhh, that’s probably allowed too. (Tree of Life, anyone?) Both together? Sure, if you can make it work.

Meyer can’t make it work, and that’s the problem. They’re simply terrible, ridiculous books. I totally support illogical, self-gratifying Mary Sue flights of fancy. I don’t support them being afforded that much attention, and I seriously don’t support something with such creepy undertones being promoted so heavily to young girls.

“…immortals who choose to spend eternity going to high school over and over again in a small town…”

Okay, I can overlook sparkling if it’s done well. Probably. But this is exactly how ludicrous Twilight is. Why the fuck would ANYONE want to relive high school, let alone, ummm, be over a hundred years old, living with your parents, dating a teenage girl? I mean, really??

Note: I have not read Twilight. I’m happy to keep it that way.

I meant just BECAUSE things are said to be YA doesn’t excuse poor writing. I’m all for silly novels. I am not for excusing Meyers writing just because of the idea we’re supposed to take YA lit less seriously than normal lit.

… Because it’s a YA novel.   It’s like asking why magical girls don’t give up on school – they sure as hell don’t have time for homework.

I was referring to her “12-year-old” comment, not the “silly” one.

*chortle* I must agree with Ms. Rice.

Lestat and Louis may have gravitas, but Rice lacks class. Yes, Twilight is drivel, and yes, anyone looking for an Edward is looking for a very creepy stalker, but it’s not very mature to start a stupid snarky catfight on Facebook about it.

I enjoyed reading both series. After all, sometimes junk food is enjoyable.

No no no. Terry Pratchett’s whole shtick is being silly. It’s a post modern absurdist parody of high fantasy, that manages inestimable wit and surprising depth, despite its unpretentious premise.

And Tree of Life is an abstract tone poem, which captures stunning nuance and complexity in its flickering shards of memory and image. It doesn’t depend on a clear, causal narrative for effect.

Different kinds of stories have different kinds of requirements. Twilight presents itself as a dramatic, serious, emotionally powerful epic romance. To fulfill that premise, it can’t have a broken narrative, inconsistent characters, and nonsensical world-building.

Successful Twit Criticizes More Successful, Bigger Twit.

Story at 11.

Flip side – Bram Stoker to Stephanie Mayer: Your vampires aren’t too bad.

Seriously, I’m reading Dracula at the mo and while it’s clever it’s also at times as ham-fisted with plot points and as tied to simplistic/selfish concepts of romance as Twilight.

I’d still rather read Vampire Chronicles over Twilight. It’s just better quality with much less grammatical errors.

Screw Meyers and her groupies her vampires are god awful I mean nowhere in lore or the mythos are there sparkling vampires and that irks me stick with what vampire fans like me know

We can talk about how terrible the Twilight series is without shaming girls. But the more people call girls’ attention to how terrible those slut-shaming, pro-lifeing, stalker-fetishizing books are the better. Meyer’s writing sucks but her messages for girls are worse.

Seriously.  Twilight is the worst book I’ve ever read the first six paragraphs of.  And after listening to the Read it and Weep reviews of the series, it’s clear that Bella is no one’s role model.  She’s a weak little Mary Sue (so to speak) with barely a thought in her head.

Exactly. I don’t mind it when people badmouth the series because everyone has their right to their own opinion and to be completely honest it wasn’t technically the greatest of writing.

But to be fair, MOST vampire stories have tons of moral issues in them. Read Ms Rice’s books for example. Some of the later books in the Chronicles could almost pass for entries in the Anita Blake series, they’ve got so much kinky sex in them.

MANY vampire series have their own funky twist on vampires. See the TV Tropes page of “Our Vampires Are Different.”

I just wish people still had the ability to criticize the series itself without throwing slurs and mindless insults at the people who actually enjoy it. So they like it and you don’t. Big whoop. Doesn’t make them better or worse than you, it simply makes them people with a different opinion.

A. Living with “adopted” family, almost like a community
B. Going to High School to fit in as the ages they are portraying themselves as.

You don’t have to read it if you would prefer not to, I always encourage people to focus on hobbies they like instead of getting an ulcer over things they do not. But I also try to encourage people to talk to both sides of an argument to get the full picture.

You did not seriously just put Pratchett on the same (writing) level as Rice and Meyers?

Come on. It was written in 18freaking97. You’re not really going to judge literary style and romantic ideals in Victorian literature by the same standards as in modern literature, are you? I mean, the acting in Twilight is more nuanced than in Nosferatu, also. That doesn’t mean they’re of comparable quality as films.

“But the more people call girls’ attention to how terrible those
slut-shaming, pro-lifeing, stalker-fetishizing books are the better.”

Your comparison of the complex anti-abortion argument to slut-shaming and stalker-fetishizing is somewhat insulting.

You cannot be serious.  You cannot seriously be saying that Stoker’s Dracula, flawed as it was, is remotely comparable to Twilight.

To which group of people who want to take women’s sexual and reproductive choices out of their own hands is it insulting, exactly?

But you guys, REAL vampires–oh wait, that’s right. Vampires aren’t real.

There are only three films so far? Damnit, I thought this was the last. Is it the last?

The thing is, MOST vampire stories use vampires as the metaphor for dangerous pleasures and the darker side of the human psyche (some have done other interesting things with it, like vampires as The Persecuted Other). Some explore the issues in fascinating depth while others just go “you know what; pr0n!”

Meyers work (and I can only go off the first chapter of the unpublished book from Edward’s point of view and the reviews I’ve read) has a whole other idea behind it. The messages held within sit very uncomfortably with a lot of people who are used to vampires being a danger to flirt with if you’re exceptionally bored with life and mostly to avoid… not something you marry.

Sure, it’s a way to explore the trials and challenges that your audience might go through in an obvious way, so the metaphor isn’t completely lost on them. Writers have to make it fit though (normally the kids can’t get out of the system or want to lead a normal life), and ancient vampires choosing to go to school, instead of say being the rebellious punks (Lost Boys), going to their own school (Vampire Knight) or just… not (Rice’s Armand), sort of grates. Yeah, it’s an easy way for her to write vampires for a younger audience in a conservative friendly fashion (not like Little Dracula… not to be confused with The Little Vampire or Young Dracula) but it just doesn’t hang together right.

Besides, there are plenty of YA works where the kids don’t go to school, or at least not a school for normal people… I had a big list but figured that was just asking for tl;dr XD

Shouldn’t that be “fewer grammatical errors”?

DON’T HIT ME!

(and perfectly willing to stand corrected as my grasp of the more pedantic side of English is not fantastic… as you may have noticed)

The vampires’ finest ruse was to persuade us that they do not exist.

”Lestat and Louie feel sorry for vampires that sparkle in the sun.”I’ve been seeing this crop up everywhere and all I can think is; is that REALLY a Rice quote, because she spelled Louis wrong…Am I the only one?

Don’t be silly. Talking about things we all agree on is not what the internet is for! 

Unfortunately, they split the last one into two movies.

Amusingly, folklore vampires are gross creatures that come back from the dead to feed on the living…kinda like zombies, actually. They only got romantic after Hollywood.

Noooooo, not at ALL. I was making a point in response to an above commenter: there can be “good” silly (Pratchett) and silly that is not intentional, which makes it absolutely awful (Meyer.)

Because silly on its own is no grounds whatsoever for dismissing a work.

As an adult fan of YA literature (but not of Meyer) I salute you.

You know, I have been reading the Anita Blake series – I think to the third or fourth one, and where is all the kinky?!? I have not encountered any kinky sluttiness so far. I don’t think she’s even slept with anyone. Is there a turning point in the series where she just starts to bone everything living or undead, or what? I will totally admit, I started reading them partly because one of my more conservative friends said they were too smutty for her, and then I was like.. “Wha? Where’s the smut?!” Though I have been enjoying them, anyway. 

And yeah, I try to reserve my criticism for the work itself and not its fans, goodness knows I am interested in all kind of media of questionable quality. 

Strictly my opinion, but the Anita Blake novels are pretty good but almost all the later novels in her series turned into soft porn of little interest.  I am sure that there are opinions in total contrast to mine regarding her works.   Like the Meyer novels, some people love them, others find them a total waste.  I happen to be a great fan of all the Anne Rice vampire novels and also of the Joss Whedon vampires – particularly Spike. 

You are right – the Anne Rice vampire is named Louis -

The Slavic vampir, the one we look back on as being the first vampire in Western Europe IS a possessed (or repossessed) corpse that needs blood to sustain it (and is all about treating a decomposing body with care and respect, a warning about hygiene essentially). However, plenty of other vampires from around the world have influenced our modern perceptions of the blood drinking undead.

Varney the Vampire, Carmilla and Dracula were all written long before anyone even dreamt of moving pictures and all treat vampires as dangerous yet beautiful (mostly… Nosferatu was based on Varney’s initial appearance), powerful and tragic figures.

Folkloric vampires range from the undead hideous monsters such as the Chinese Jian Shi, through the non-human and wholly demonic beasts like the Japanese Nukekubi to the beautiful seductresses and seducers like the pre-Classical Greek demigoddess Empusa, Assyrian Lilitu and the South African Lightening Bird. Many early vampires are similar to mermaids, sirens and succubi or the forest and water spirits of Northern Europe; beauty is their predation tool (and essentially act as a warning about wild places and strangers, amongst other more complex ideas and fears about chastity and what not).

Maybe not romantic, but not all the folkloric vampires are hideous, mindless corpses (at least, not when they’re hunting).

***********

Yeah, once I get started, sometimes I get a bit carried away… totally understand any tl;dr comments :PEugh, I should be writing my NaNoWriMo, not discussing vampires with other fans.

@google-db4e35a46e2b0d41c6cd0d06c0dce666:disqus 

Don’t they turn to total smut by about book seven? I have a friend who’s a big fan but I only ever managed the first book… I only liked one character and he got killed :(

Shard – since I can’t reply to your reply to me above for some reason.. I’m not sure, I’ve only read the first 3 or four… that’s why I ask.. Her Merry Gentry series is smutty all the way through though.. and I’ll admit.. I kinda enjoy that.

I was more asking nmcil, just figured I’d throw your name into the post. Pretty sure it’s about book 7 though.

Here’s my deal. I think it’s great if people love the series, (I did for a while!) but I don’t think it’s great for fans to take it so seriously. Especially when those fans are impressionable young girls. I think we should focus on reminding young women that this are fantasy tales meant to be enjoyed, not metaphors for real life and DEFINITELY not chalk full of roll models.

I really, REALLY tried to read the first Twilight book. I made it a third of the way through before I just couldn’t take the writing any more. Sounded like so much fan fiction to me. I am however, an avid Anne Rice fan (and Buffy fan, but we talk lit not TV) and the fact is, she is known for writing erotica (Exit to Eden, anyone? No one? Yeah, thought it was just me). So, of course there is going to be heaps of kinky sex. Also, Ms. Rice has stated that her characters are supposed to be
metaphors. In fact, Claudia was supposed to represent her deceased daughter, a way to immortalize her. Rice was also drunk through writing most of it Interview. Oh, and it is NOT A YOUNG ADULT NOVEL! Twilight is. And it promotes violent sexual intercourse with the undead, keeping secrets about said violent necrophilia, suicidal teenage love angst, and as far as I have heard, in the new book, what may or may not be pedophilia. If I had a child, this is the opposite of what I would want them to be reading in their young adult years. Just saying…

I remember being in high school and being upset because I HATED Ann Rice’s Vampire mythology. I am not fond of Stephanie Meyer’s either, but please . . .that’s the pot calling the kettle black.