Anne Rice Rocks

There was actually a thread here about Anne Rice going crazy at amazon...

I read Interview with the vampire and liked it pretty much. Although I don't think I'll read a second book of hers. Not it sucks, but it's just something that gets old after the second book. Like almost every single author I've read...

I don't trust authors that have written tons of books. Like Joseph Conrad for example. That man has written more than I will read in my entire life. And that's why I just don't believe him. He can't have that much to say, and that means like 90% of what he's written is just blablabla. That's why Chucks book per year tendency is annoying. Like he's got to write a book each year. I'd rather he wrote a book like Fight Club every five years than books like Diary coming out each 12 months. That's what I sorta like about Salinger. The man just kept it simple. He could publish his 22 unpublished short stories and the rest of the 26 novels that I bet he has written, but he is just selective enough as to not flood his readers with bullshit. Same with poetry. I see those anthologies of authors. 1000+ pages of poetry can't all be good. And to come back to Chuck, I found it pretty funny how at first the publishers all hated IM, but then after FC, after got famous and all, they published IM. Sorta sad.

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't trust authors that have written tons of books. Like Joseph Conrad for example. That man has written more than I will read in my entire life. And that's why I just don't believe him. He can't have that much to say, and that means like 90% of what he's written is just blablabla. That's why Chucks book per year tendency is annoying. Like he's got to write a book each year. I'd rather he wrote a book like Fight Club every five years than books like Diary coming out each 12 months. That's what I sorta like about Salinger. The man just kept it simple. He could publish his 22 unpublished short stories and the rest of the 26 novels that I bet he has written, but he is just selective enough as to not flood his readers with bullshit. Same with poetry. I see those anthologies of authors. 1000+ pages of poetry can't all be good. And to come back to Chuck, I found it pretty funny how at first the publishers all hated IM, but then after FC, after got famous and all, they published IM. Sorta sad.[/QUOTE]
You know what that makes me think of? Jeffrey Eugenides. The man wrote two books about ten years apart.

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't trust authors that have written tons of books. Like Joseph Conrad for example. That man has written more than I will read in my entire life. And that's why I just don't believe him. He can't have that much to say, and that means like 90% of what he's written is just blablabla. That's why Chucks book per year tendency is annoying. Like he's got to write a book each year. I'd rather he wrote a book like Fight Club every five years than books like Diary coming out each 12 months. That's what I sorta like about Salinger. The man just kept it simple. He could publish his 22 unpublished short stories and the rest of the 26 novels that I bet he has written, but he is just selective enough as to not flood his readers with bullshit. Same with poetry. I see those anthologies of authors. 1000+ pages of poetry can't all be good. And to come back to Chuck, I found it pretty funny how at first the publishers all hated IM, but then after FC, after got famous and all, they published IM. Sorta sad.[/QUOTE]

you gotta take into consideration the possibility that maybe some of these writers write for years(sometimes decades) of thier lives before having anything published. Im sure alot of new releases from authors are just re-works and revamps of work that was written before thier sucess

a good example of this is invisible monsters

You're so very right. Alan Sillitoe, he wrote ten (10!) novels befor he published his eleventh. And after the success he of course published the preceding 10.

Can you imagine having the patience and faith to write manuscripts for ten novels, not publishing them, and then writing an eleventh? Man, if my first novel doesn't get published I won't even write a short story...

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't trust authors that have written tons of books. Like Joseph Conrad for example. That man has written more than I will read in my entire life. And that's why I just don't believe him. He can't have that much to say, and that means like 90% of what he's written is just blablabla. That's why Chucks book per year tendency is annoying. Like he's got to write a book each year. I'd rather he wrote a book like Fight Club every five years than books like Diary coming out each 12 months. That's what I sorta like about Salinger. The man just kept it simple. He could publish his 22 unpublished short stories and the rest of the 26 novels that I bet he has written, but he is just selective enough as to not flood his readers with bullshit. Same with poetry. I see those anthologies of authors. 1000+ pages of poetry can't all be good. And to come back to Chuck, I found it pretty funny how at first the publishers all hated IM, but then after FC, after got famous and all, they published IM. Sorta sad.[/QUOTE]

But they are writing, so why say BOO on them?
YEah, writers who put out alot of books often arent that great (Goosebumps series etc.) because they arent really trying. But why doubt writers who simply have alot of novels? Whats the difference? Myabe that stuff is good.
Dont close off your mind to them just because of prejudices.

I agree on the point of Invisible Monsters though. I dont know why everyone thinks its soo great. Maybe because of the material and them getting kicks out of "felching" but the story just didnt seem as strong as his other novels. Diary and Lullaby were both more enjoyable for me than IM ever was. SO mayeb you are right.

One other thing to look at. Writers, at first, do not have alot of time to write, so of course they will right less. Once they become established and make money, than they have more time to write. So obviously they are going toi have more books getting published, and more time to work. This can be both good and bad. But dont lump all authors into the catergory of "OMG YYOU WROTE 10 BOOKS IN TEN YEARS.... YOU SUCK!!!" Maybe they are just mor adepet at it. I know if i had the time, there are hundreds of stories Id love to write. And hey, these people have the time to do it, so let them be.

But I see your side as well. Are they just going to start popping out a book a year to please fans? Are they stuck in some contract that demands books out of them that they may not be able to produce? It can go both ways.

And Draco, for some reason I figured youd be the one making this thread, along with your Magic Cards and so on. Yes, the first few Anne Rice books are interesting, and I like them, but she goes down hill later on. Just dont be tooo disappointed.

I say the movies are better. The books do get a bit tedious after one or two. vampire stuff is almost always a better movie.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I say the movies are better. The books do get a bit tedious after one or two. vampire stuff is almost always a better movie.[/QUOTE]

god blah i cant even imagine how terrible queen of the damned is as a book then

that was a horrid movie riddled with korn kids and shitty dialouge

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]god blah i cant even imagine how terrible queen of the damned is as a book then

that was a horrid movie riddled with korn kids and shitty dialouge[/QUOTE]

actually I was thinking of Interview.... so maybe it's a toss up.

Interview is a great movie with great actors and soundtrack and all. Queen of the Damned is a real shit.

^true true^

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't trust authors that have written tons of books. Like Joseph Conrad for example. That man has written more than I will read in my entire life. And that's why I just don't believe him. He can't have that much to say, and that means like 90% of what he's written is just blablabla. That's why Chucks book per year tendency is annoying. Like he's got to write a book each year. I'd rather he wrote a book like Fight Club every five years than books like Diary coming out each 12 months. That's what I sorta like about Salinger. The man just kept it simple. He could publish his 22 unpublished short stories and the rest of the 26 novels that I bet he has written, but he is just selective enough as to not flood his readers with bullshit. Same with poetry. I see those anthologies of authors. 1000+ pages of poetry can't all be good. And to come back to Chuck, I found it pretty funny how at first the publishers all hated IM, but then after FC, after got famous and all, they published IM. Sorta sad.[/QUOTE]

Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby, Sliver, The Stepford Wives) Has only written a maybe 6 novels that I can recall over a period of about 40 years. The thing about these novels, with the exception of subject matter (you're either going to like it or not) is that they are perhaps some of the "best" examples of how to do it. I use that term loosely, because most of his stories are thrillers, and are heavy on dialogue. So, if that what you want to write, STUDY his novels.

There are a lot of writers that have figured out a formula, have gotten great success with it, and basically use that template to "re"write the same story over and over again. These people generally write stuff for the masses, and make massive amounts of money for doing so. You're not going to find anything original there, but for those looking for familiar territory, well, you know what they say about there's no place like home...

I generally despise returning character stories, but there are some exceptions, ie. Peter Straub's Timothy Underhill.

That's what I am sorta afraid might happen with Chuck. He found out about all those cool techniques of his, and now, using his cleer narration style and different shocking controversial content he just writes novel after novel, without putting as much thought into it as it appears he has in Fight Club. I mean, compare the multi-layer interpretations of fight club (keywords: buddhism, masculinity, consumerism, generation x, dissillusionment, identity search etc etc) and the themes and ideas in Diary. The past haunting us? Repeating our mistakes? Communicating over generations? Yeah, well, whatever. See what I mean. It's just easy to write a book once you've found a selling logorythm. And it's tempting too. But does it really mean something? Well, not really you know...

And about dialogue - that's Salinger for me. He writes a short conversaion and you're already in the room next to the caracters, listening to them talk.

anne rice was a socially acceptable, less embarrassing way to read dirty sex books without having to actually take out a romance novel when i was in junior high. all that red and black lace, cheesy dialogue and overwraught sexuality is cor-ny. i'm thinking the vampire lestat - that's the one with the looong description of the vampire taking his first human shit? - and lasher, etc. it's camp, at best, if the woman didn't take herself so damned seriously. goths make me laugh.

[QUOTE=stoyan]And about dialogue - that's Salinger for me. He writes a short conversation and you're already in the room next to the caracters, listening to them talk.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely dude, absolutely.

[QUOTE=stoyan]I don't trust authors that have written tons of books. Like Joseph Conrad for example. That man has written more than I will read in my entire life. And that's why I just don't believe him. He can't have that much to say, and that means like 90% of what he's written is just blablabla. That's why Chucks book per year tendency is annoying. Like he's got to write a book each year. I'd rather he wrote a book like Fight Club every five years than books like Diary coming out each 12 months. That's what I sorta like about Salinger. The man just kept it simple. He could publish his 22 unpublished short stories and the rest of the 26 novels that I bet he has written, but he is just selective enough as to not flood his readers with bullshit. Same with poetry. I see those anthologies of authors. 1000+ pages of poetry can't all be good. And to come back to Chuck, I found it pretty funny how at first the publishers all hated IM, but then after FC, after got famous and all, they published IM. Sorta sad.[/QUOTE]

It's kinda dumb to dislike authors just because they write a lot and become famous. I mean. If they're good and their books are good, then keep reading the books. But I do agree that if it gets repetetive or boring stop reading. But don't hold it against the writer. They've probably realized that it doesn't matter what they publish, they'll still get money. But you should hate them for that. I don't know. I'll shutt up now.

[QUOTE=stoyan]Interview is a great movie with great actors and soundtrack and all. Queen of the Damned is a real shit.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I see why people didn't like the movie (it wasn't that good) but the soundtrack rocks. If somehow I lost the CD and the music files got deleted from my computer, I'd go even more insane then I already am. That is, untill I just copy it again from a friend.

[QUOTE=Draco Delacroix]It's kinda dumb to dislike authors just because they write a lot and become famous. I mean. If they're good and their books are good, then keep reading the books. But I do agree that if it gets repetetive or boring stop reading. But don't hold it against the writer. They've probably realized that it doesn't matter what they publish, they'll still get money. But you should hate them for that. I don't know. I'll shutt up now.[/QUOTE]
I can't really get your point here but I just want to clarfy that I didn't say I didn't like writers that write too much. I just said I don't trust them.

Draco? D'ya read this? [url]http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=16297&highlight=Anne+Rice[/url]

you know what i like best about anne rice ?

the fact that i haven't read a single one of her books

I second that, karb

[QUOTE=Fiberoptic Jesus]Draco? D'ya read this? [url]http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=16297&highlight=Anne+Rice[/url][/QUOTE]

Ummm...I'm sorry. I didn't realize she was insane. No, id didn't read that befroe. The Vampire LeStat and Interview with a Vampire is still good though. I like the books now more than the person.

I used to like her a lot - then I found better writers. I only really liked the vampire books - I barely remember the other few I read that weren't in that series. Then I moved on to authors I like much better, and have so many books to read that hers are at the very bottom of the list. They're okay, just an entertaining - escape type of read for me.

Rice is an apocolyptic crone in the collapsed vein of Stephen King et all, why don't these horrorshow bags pack it in while they're ahead of the game which in her case woulda been after the publication of her gay/vampire beach-read; 'Interview...'

[QUOTE=Draco Delacroix]Ummm...I'm sorry. I didn't realize she was insane. No, id didn't read that befroe. The Vampire LeStat and Interview with a Vampire is still good though. I like the books now more than the person.[/QUOTE]
It's just Lestat, not LeStat, like 'The Stat!'

I read almost all of her books when I was younger and have good memories of eating crackers, drinking tea and only thinking about flowers and architecture.

[QUOTE=vidailia]goths make me laugh.[/QUOTE]

Goths make me roll my eyes so enthusiastically that I do a back flip. There's this one we call Claire the Scare, ha ha, she has no forehead or personality.

I liked the first two books when i was 13. I don't think i would like them now. Her other books get bigger in plot but at the same time shittier in characterization. However i don't think people care, i know a lot of people who just collect her books, and read nothing else.

[QUOTE=stoyan]That's what I am sorta afraid might happen with Chuck. He found out about all those cool techniques of his, and now, using his cleer narration style and different shocking controversial content he just writes novel after novel, without putting as much thought into it as it appears he has in Fight Club. I mean, compare the multi-layer interpretations of fight club (keywords: buddhism, masculinity, consumerism, generation x, dissillusionment, identity search etc etc) and the themes and ideas in Diary. The past haunting us? Repeating our mistakes? Communicating over generations? Yeah, well, whatever. See what I mean. It's just easy to write a book once you've found a selling logorythm. And it's tempting too. But does it really mean something? Well, not really you know...

And about dialogue - that's Salinger for me. He writes a short conversaion and you're already in the room next to the caracters, listening to them talk.[/QUOTE]

That seems a bit harsh, just assuming he is writting just for that. It is more than a logorythm. Inside Lullaby for example, there are a lot of hidden themes within the actions of each character. I still see each book very different from the other, altought there are clear if not exact techniques in them. I guess each read gets something different out of it.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]I liked the first to books when i was 13. I don't think i would like them now. Her other books get bigger in plot but at the same time shittier in characterization. However i don't think people care, i know a lot of people who just collect her books, and read nothing else.[/QUOTE]
welll... those people are lehoohoosers.

i'm sick of the "at least they're reading" cop-out.

there's the fucking da vinci code and there's harry potter and congratulations, have a big pat on the back because YOU sir read a BOOK!

Hey I like Harry Potter.

But yeah, Dr. Seus or something wrote the Cat in the Hat becaues of the rising level of illteracy in childeren and disintrest in reading. I still remember reading the now vomit inducing Goose Bumps: All by Myself! (something I was proud of).

People progress in reading, moving up to different levels. Just because now all they read is Dan Brown or Stephen King doesn't mean they won't read something else later.

(King did have some good stories)

[QUOTE=Layp]

People progress in reading, moving up to different levels. Just because now all they read is Dan Brown or Stephen King doesn't mean they won't read something else later. [/QUOTE]

let's hope, for all of our sake.