Talk:Laurell K. Hamilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Regarding Criticism and the Author's response 2 Don't fight -- merge! 3 Life vs. writing 4 Micah, standalone? 5 Sex and Change in the Anita Blake Series 6 Misquote/misleading summary

[edit] Regarding Criticism and the Author's response

It actually duplicates the content of Anita_Blake:_Vampire_Hunter_(series). One discussion or the other should probably be removed. 82.33.75.53 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't fight -- merge!

I see there is a revert war going on between User:68.224.177.5 and RickK. Rather than reverting each other, I would suggest that you combine the material contained in both texts, format it for Wiki use for better readability, and also ensure that it's not violating any copyrights. More material is good, but it should be accurate, originally composed (or released by the author under GFDL), and presented in decent paragraphs with proper Wiki formatting. I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to the source materials that are being fought over. — Jeff Q 06:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After the anonymous user dumped their text in yet again (which appears to be vaguely related to the official bio), I have attempted to re-write it and incorporate it into the flow of the article. Maybe this will stop whoever it is who so desperately needs to spread the word as to Laurell K. Hamilton's favourite films :-) --Phil | Talk 18:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yaaargh! More crap from the same user and I got hit with an edit conflict and my firewall timed me out 8-( Try again tomorrow. --Phil | Talk 18:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Life vs. writing

I was just looking at this quote "There has been conjecture about how Hamilton's divorce affected her writing and the amount of sex therein, but Hamilton has indicated that this is not necessarily true, instead citing her increased antagonism towards how people feel a woman "should" write and what topics are "right." Since sex is often seen as something women are not allowed to enjoy much less write about, the sex rate has increased." from the article.

I wonder if it's considered 'opinion' if i added in something to the effect that she based the character of Anita blake on herself (which she's mentioned multiple times on her personal blog) and the character of Richard on her ex-husband, Gary, which she's also mentioned in an early early interview?

There's also a theory called . F.R.E.D that's been floating around her forum about this divorce vs. books issue. Are we allowed to mention it but not validate it?

thx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unicornssong (talk • contribs) 21:05, March 14, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Micah, standalone?

I don't feel that Micah is as much stand-alone as it is a breather from the main plot. It certainly fits the timeline. It as as much part of the "series" as Obsidian Butterfly is.... (I haven't quite finished it, but from what I have read, it fits right after Incubus Dreams). Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex and Change in the Anita Blake Series

I'm thinking this section belongs more in the Anita Blake Series article. It gives a bit of an overview of how the series has developed (more involvement with monster society and politics, more sex, more magic, et cetera). Shall I move it over? JenKilmer 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misquote/misleading summary

Ideally, only direct quotes appear in quotation marks - not interpretation. The summary of the 'Dear Negative Reader' article was not NPOV.

Similarly, whoever added the Anne Rice contribution: the statement about major retail stores considering etc. would be very interesting, if there was a source attached. Ditto critics' responses, with citation. However, is 'many fans think she sold out' really a wikipedia-worthy assertion? If there's a neutral manner of stating these facts they are quite interesting (many great papers could be written about online fans/critics, so I can see why it is tempting to discuss it here), but as it is this approaches original research... 82.33.75.53 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, the fact that a very vocal portion of her readership feels that way is noteworthy since they have documented their feelings in forums, reviews and so on. Further, her remarkable reproach to them in her "Dear negative reader" letter makes their comments and assertions even more noteworthy. Even her fans who like the explicit direction her fiction has taken do not dispute that she has alienated a large portion of her readership. Had Hamilton not written that astonishing letter, I'd say maybe the section shouldn't be there. However, she validated the discontent of her readership by choosing to address it so publicly. If Stephen king had written a letter like that to his fans, it would have been on the front page of the New York Times. What had been a trend in her fan reviews and forums became major news through her letter.Lisapollison 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated, it's interesting, if sourced, factual and relevant. Her letter is therefore interesting enough to merit a mention. I'm not sure it should be seen as validating, or NYT-worthy (unless it was in fact mentioned in the NYT?). Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy with the 'vocal portion' (especially given the page counts of a couple of her most recent books... bah) - but Wikipedia just isn't the right venue for anything but sourced factual information. Vague, accusatory colloquialism ('sold out'), original interpretation or assertion is uninteresting, because it quickly falls out of NPOV, and the section becomes a soapbox for opinion and therefore reads badly. That fan comments are worth discussion does not mean that they should be repeated verbatim... At the time of editing, the page - understandably, but inappropriately - read as though it were written by someone either hurt or indignant or both. 82.33.75.53 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

82.33.75.53, I understand how you feel, however, it is the actions of the author in this case that make her fans' comments noteworthy. She chose to address them directly and in an extraordinary manner. I'll keep an eye on that section to make sure nothing inflammatory gets added, but honestly, if anything, the article understates the matter significantly. Her letter was quite something. I believe its best to leave it as it is unless one side or the other chooses to further the debate in print. The only exception is that unsourced statement about some stores wanting to put her books under a different section based on the new sexual content. If it's just rumor, it should go. If we can find a bookseller who said that in print, it should stay. I welcome you to register with Wikipedia and join the horror project or the romance project so that you can help other editors monitor potential POV issues. ISP addys can change based on what server you use (such as AOL) and having a Username with a history of solid edits can be helpful in gathering a consensus on article changes.LiPollis 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (I changed my Signature recently from LisaPollison)