Talk:Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter

Series quality decline

Perhaps someone could include commentary on the significant decline of quality of these books over the course of the series?

Unlikely, as that is a subjective statement. If there are sourced editorial reviews that suggest this, it might be mentioned. — Jeff Q (talk) 29 June 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I would hugely disagree. I would say that if anything, the books have gotten better. Xinoph 17:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yea Gods.

• This is hilarious. It's all personal opinion. I'm so over hearing everyone bashing Laurell K Hamilton and the way the series has developed. D'you think maybe there's a reason for it? Such as, this is exactly how she wanted it? Honestly.. if you don't like it, don't read it!

Please, please do not say "if you don't like it, don't read it". It's not the attitude that any of us.. "critics" lets say, agree with. Most of us absolutely love the first few books. However, we think there is definitely a decline in the plot/characterisation as the series moves on. We KNOW that LKH can write better, and we simply don't understand why she doesn't (there's also miscellaneous stuff about her blog, but I digress). If not a section on the "quality decline" perhaps a section on the development of fan views.

Please, please stop discussing personal opinions about this series. This is a discussion page for the content of the article, not a blog. Please also consider that nobody on this page can accurately state who "us" is or claim (without sources) how many of "us" think one way or another about any subject. And please remember to sign and timestamp your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your text (which Wikipedia converts into a dated signature) as a common courtesy and an aid to understanding who is saying what when. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Literary criticism

It occurred to me that a wiki page about a very popular series of novels should probably have more than a bare description of characters and the books in it. For instance, a description of conflicts or themes in the books might be in order. However, that seems like something that should come from reference to literary criticism. E.g. One might reference a critique of the novels' attempt to explore the issue of what makes someone human (the later repeated notion that Anita is no longer sure what is human or not). Or also, some description as to why (presumably from critics) the series is popular.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any easily (any google searches seem to only turn up review pages on commercial sites). Is someone else perhaps better at this kind of search? If I was near a university, I would do a lit search, although the odds seem slim that the books have been reviewed in anything but things like the nytimes or such. Most everything I can find (such as the "editorial reviews" on amazon) are pretty much very shallow or just fawning ("best blake yet!" type comments)

R343L 14:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If you use Copernic Agent Professional, like I have on my home computer, it actually shows a lot of results that aren't found using only one search engine. As for the indepth summaries of the books, why not start working on it with me? I was thinking that the entry was about the bare minimum as far as Anita's series goes. I myself am quite happy with the series, and recommend it to all who I believe will enjoy it. While the online reviews are shallow, I believe that one who has read the series more than once will be able to write a better revies that some one who has only read it once, and is not such a fan. R343L, you do have a point on the "fawning" issue. They do seem to fawn over it a bit too much, ja? I only wish that we could have the same fan-base attempts at the Meredith Gentry series...--Aeris of Iniquity 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes about 10 minutes on Google to find several different review sites that all tell more or less the same story: The series starts strong, but bogs down in its latter third due to a decrease in characterization in favor of sex, gore, sex, wish fulfillment, sex, sex, angsty whining, and sex. It is not difficult at all to find a review of say, Narcissus in Chains, in which the critic pleads for a return to the charm and wit of the earlier books and wonders why it all went so very, very wrong. Of course opinions do differ, and these views shouldn't be presented as fact, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination an insignificant part of the way the series has come to be viewed by much of the fanbase of particular niche of fiction. I think it is a perfectly appropriate addition to this page to state that many fans (and I include myself in this group) were disappointed by direction the books took around book 8 and 9, and state the perceived faults of the later installments. That wouldn't be the article itself making a value judgment, it would just be noting that many people did. Ross Taben 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing literary criticism is appropriate — if it comes from a reliable, published source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Any website that allows ordinary users to post opinions, however well-written and even accurate, is not considered suitable source material for Wikipedia. (That's why Wikipedia cannot use its own articles as direct sources for other articles; we editors are only supposed to be composing material based on reputable sources.) Far too often, people seem to think — incorrectly — that if a there's a lot of Google buzz, something is citable. Find solid published sources and cite them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What is considered a reliable, authoritative source on the literary merits of pulp genre fiction? I’m not saying present the decline in quality as a fact, but as a widespread, and not insignificant perception among many in the series’ fanbase. I have seen many, many articles on Wikipedia that have segments on notable fanbase reactions to certain developments within works of fiction or entertainment, without making any judgments about the merits of the opinions being discussed. Similar approaches are taken with weightier, more controversial topics such as abortion or gun control: opinions that are significant because of their prevalence are addressed and discussed without judgment being passed upon their content. The existence of these opinions is an easily verifiable fact, nor are they a trivial minority. Something along the lines of “Around book 8, some fans began to decry what they claimed to be a significant drop in the quality of the Anita Blake series, leading to a split within the fan community that continues to this day” is perfectly appropriate, and I would argue that this article is not really complete without something to that effect. Ross Taben 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because one group of the fan-base believes that the series has begun to decline around books 8 and 9 doesn't mean the fan-base as a whole believes that. I speak for a group that consists of me and about four other people that believe that the series is still going well, and that the next book in the series, Danse Macabre, will bring the series to a new height. Laurell K. Hamilton surely knows how to write, if her books have done this well for this long. Surely, she must be doing something right. Though, as you mention, the existence of opinions is widespread, these opinions cannot be taken as fact, for they are merely that, opinions. If I told you that I and a group of individuals that I know believed that spell casters and magick casters were alive and kicking, could you accept that as fact? No, you can't, because it is merely an opinion, and as such cannot be proven wrong or right. Give me substantial evidence that critics believe that the quality of the series is declining, and then I might listen to you, but I believe the topic that we were discussing was expanding the page to include more information about the characters and the books themselves.--Aeris of Iniquity 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I said again. Nowhere did I make the claim that the fanbase as a whole has abandoned the books, or that opinions about their quality are anywhere near universal. I did not even make a claim about which opinion is more common. And I would also point out that many very bad books are written and bought so Hamilton's continued financial success is by no means an indication of quality, though I suppose sales numbers would be appropriate to include in this article if for no other reason than to provide as much information about the books as possible. You also seem to misunderstand the nature of opinion; they most certainly can be proven wrong. However, proving an opinion wrong or right is not what I'm aiming to do, because that would require a fairly lengthy debate on the philosophy of aesthetics and how the principle of aesthetic absolutism applies to fiction, which is just not something I want to do, and isn't appropriate for this page anyhow. But the existence of these opinions, and their popularity, is an incontrovertible fact. Ross Taben 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

While I concede the fact that bad books are written, and financial revenue is earned, I still believe that you can't prove an opinion wrong or right, if simply put that opinions are a basis of non-fact, but of a fact that the person gains by their own knowledge. That, at least, is my own opinion on opnions. About the fanbase abandoning the books, I did not say that wither. I merely stated that you are claiming that the opinion about the series decline quote "as a widespread, and not insignificant perception among many in the series’ fanbase,"unquote. Sales numbers, and possibly a mention of a best'seller listing number would be good to include. To that, I must agree. But, please, I am a high school student, and as such, the principle of aesthetic absolutism is kind of over my head at the moment. But, if you wouldn't mind explaining it, I wouldn't mind listening. Aeris of Iniquity 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(these : : : spaces are getting a little absurd, so I'm just going to reset the clock, so to speak)

In a nutshell, aesthetic absolutism is the belief that works of art, such as literature, can be judged objectively. While opinion will always have an important place in the appreciation of the arts, there are certain objective measures by which these things can be judged to be better or worse in several ways. One of the classic examples to illustrate this is a person’s preference for olives. Let’s say you like black olives the best. Well, that’s fine, and there is no disputing that such a thing may be true, and it can’t really be said that the taste of a black olive is better or worse than a green olive, because that is a subjective judgment. However, the nutritional qualities of black olives and green olives are different from each other, and those can be measured objectively, so it is quite possible to say that this kind or that kind is better for you, and you would be better off if you learned to enjoy it over the other kind because of those health benefits.

The same is true of literature. Nobody can deny the enjoyment you get out of reading an Anita Blake book from the later half of the series (this would be the "taste"), but there are objective measures by which is just doesn’t stack up to well against other books, even other ones from earlier in the same series (and this is the "nutrition").

This concept is important in the arts, because without it, nobody can make any claim of quality whatsoever. If everything is just opinion, then nothing can be good, and nothing can be bad, and suddenly the world is a very boring and intellectually desolate place. Any book, written by anybody, is just as good as the next one. And any song is just as good as any other. Essentially, since everybody’s opinion not only can’t be wrong, they can’t be right either because they have no connection to reality and are in fact meaningless babble. Clearly this is a horrifying idea for literature majors like myself.

However, that’s all sort of beside the point because nobody that I can find has ever really done a serious intellectual study of the Anita Blake series, and I’d be surprised if anyone ever did, so we won’t be able to cite some Stanford paper about which part of the series is better to back up a judgment that we might put in this page. Because of that, I don’t suggest we actually say “the last 4 books are crap”, but rather “there is a significant number of people who used to like this series that think the last 4 books are crap, though this is by no means a universal opinion” or something to that effect.Ross Taben 09:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my tuppence, I have read the entire series up to Jason, including Strange Candy and the three smaller pieces (Beauty, Dancing, Shutdown); and the worst of all IS Danse Macabre. As long as enough Crime Noir is involved, I'm just fine with the changes Ms. Hamilton has made so far. --92.226.149.31 (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Television Series

I'd like to point out that as a member of her forum, the rights have been optioned by Mr. Alexander's company, but there has been no plans to put it into production. The series is NOT in production and Ms. Hamilton has not been asked to write a script: the script writing is merely wishful thinking on her part at the moment.

— unsigned post from 142.157.198.240 at 22:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the latest version of the text on the supposed TV series:

Jason Alexander's Angel Ark Productions and Digital Domain have optioned the right to produce a television series or made for TV movie titled Guilty Pleasures.

This information has no source, and the above post suggests it's nothing more than rumor from discussion forums. (Not to mention the fact that this latest version doesn't even say whether Alexander's Guilty Pleasures has anything to do with Hamilton's story. After all, there's already at least one unrelated TV movie with that title, from 1997.) Until we can get a reliable source, let's hold off on the speculation, please. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Near-complete Lack of Plot Analysis

Er, vampires and supernatural beings exist. Ok. Now, let's get an overall view of what happens in the series. Unless these books are less developed than Goosebumps, a single paragraph should not be the only main-page content on the plot. 69.175.87.236 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to move the "Sex and Change in the Anita Blake Series" section from the Laurell K. Hamilton entry to this page, perhaps as part of a discussion of plots? JenKilmer 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the books set in order?

Is this a series of books? As in, a continuous story where I need to read the books in order to understand things or is each book a seperate story in the Anita Blake universe? 132.203.54.180 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a series. Should we clarify this on the page? JenKilmer 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would prove worthwhile. -- 132.203.54.43 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the books are a chronological series. I know that because I made the mistake of reading Blue Moon first. Didn't know what the hell was going on before the first few chapters were over...65.223.58.226 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Published Criticism

If you want published criticism, it's easy enough to find if you have a college that allows access to Galileo. For example, here's a quote from Magil Book Reviews on Cerulean Sins, reviewer named Kelly Rothenberg:

"The majority of Cerulean Sins is about Blake dealing with this lust, which makes Hamilton's novel come across more as erotica than anything else (in earlier books, Blake's jobs as a zombie animator and police assistant were the primary focus). The serial killings, supposedly the most graphic crime scenes Blake has ever encountered, are detailed as a secondary subplot that is quickly resolved at the end [...] Hamilton's Anita Blake stories are frequently suspenseful and fun to read. Cerulean Sins, though, is not one of her better novels."

Fair use rationale for Image:AnitaGP 01 cvrB.jpg

Image:AnitaGP 01 cvrB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Affliction

Noticed there wasn't yet an article for Affliction, so I went ahead and wrote one. Inviting anybody who watches this page to help expand it; it needs a cover image and possibly a few more references. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The only problem is that we need to find more coverage in reliable sources. I did make the article (you can see it in the history) but I kept it as a redirect due to the lack of coverage. I'll check again, but I think that I'll probably make it a redirect again since there's been very little coverage overall for the book other than two trade reviews and a brief article. The NYT bestseller status doesn't currently count towards notability, although there has been arguments that being #1 on the main list (fiction or non-fiction hardback) should count towards it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

While my initial findings were of the two trade reviews and single article, I had hoped that other editors would help expand the article as well. I've since found more sources and added them, along with more information about the different versions of the book. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I did remove the goodreads link. Goodreads isn't considered to be a reliable source for showing notability because anyone can sign up and make a review on there. It'd be fairly easy for someone to create multiple accounts and sway ratings in either direction, which is why we don't count social media type reviews towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I was able to find more reviews from non-social media outlets. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Seems good to go! Good searching- I really hate to have to redirect books and I get so frustrated when ones hit the NYT list and don't get reviews or coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The searching was a bit frustrating, since there's an ample number of blog reviews, but those don't count for notability. Thankfully there were better sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Table for the books

For The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, there is a table of the books where it says when each book was published as hardcover and when as paperback and gives the respective ISBN-13. I would like to suggest such a table for the Anita Blake series as well.--92.226.149.31 (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222215335/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/books/science_fiction_fantasy/reviews/article_1171739.php/Book_Review_Danse_Macabre_by_Laurell_K._Hamilton to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/books/science_fiction_fantasy/reviews/article_1171739.php/Book_Review_Danse_Macabre_by_Laurell_K._Hamilton

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)