Talk:Laurell K. Hamilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Horror (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Women writers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.
Nuvola apps important.svg Please note that this talk page is for the discussion of improvements to the Laurell K Hamilton article. It is not a forum to discuss the merits of her work, nor to air disagreements between her fans, nor to report the goings on at her forum. Please restrict your comments to the article and how it may be improved.

charity work[edit]

I added a bit to the Life section about charity work, because i think it is interesting that she is involved particularly in dog/wolf charities. There is more info in the sources, and maybe it wants to be tweaked ie. she is involved with some human charities, and the involvment with wolves seems a lot deeper than giving money and turning up to galas (actual voluneering). I'll leave it others to decide if any more writing on this is needed, or sounds too praising with more etc.Yobmod (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Biography[edit]

Please add former husband, dates, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado (talkcontribs) 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. However, until there is a better biographical source... no. Sources anyone? I'd be happy to write it.User talk:Unfriend12 05:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately most of the information that we have would come from Hamilton's blog, which is a primary source. I'll see if I can find anything, as I'd love to add more to the article as well but there's not a lot of RS out there about her overall.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
For a number of things missing primary sources would be fine... city of birth... date of marriages... similar facts.User talk:Unfriend12 13:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So we can use one of the primary sources to mention her previous husband and family members? I just sort of want to tread lightly here, as Hamilton has made no bones about the fact that her last marriage was not a happy one and while I know that we're not censored and we're not about salvaging feelings, I don't want to post anything that would be hurtful because it's on a wiki. So would we include a mention of the ex-husband and maybe her mother's death? I want to mention the mother's death, as that seems to have influenced a part of Anita's character because both Anita and Hamilton's mothers died at an early age. I just want to keep it from spinning into that OR part, so we should probably work out what to add in the talk forum before adding it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
We can safely use a primary source, say, to get the dates of marriage, birth, divorce, family deaths, in the very general case. The author's opinions about the quality of the marriage from a primary source would generally be a Bad Thing.User talk:Unfriend12 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I don't think that the lead should contain bullet points - it looks strange, and i thin does not commply with WP:LEDE.Yobmod (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good fix :-)Yobmod (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception[edit]

This area needs improvement, I think. It focuses only on critical reception as it pertains to the books' erotic content and has what appears to be a bias (rather than straight-up reporting). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badstoat (talkcontribs) 01:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the reviews as i found them, giving good and bad points that were in them, so it is certainly straight up reporting. Not having read the books, i don't think i was biased. If it gives an unfair picture, then other reviews can be added, but almost all reliable sources had similar comments, from what i found.Yobmod (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

“Critical reception and fan reactions” section is highly biased and contains many big misinformations.[edit]

• This section cites that the Anita Blake books contain incest, which is highly false. I have personally read the books and neither Anita nor any of the other characters ever perform any sort of incestual sex with any of their family members. I am astonished as to why such a potentially hateful act would be mentioned. Please delete that information from the main article.

• It is also cited that the ardeur magically solves all the problems through sex and lust. Again, false information. Anita solves all of her police case through police work with the occasional involvement of SWAT in apprehending the suspects.

• In the fourth line of the first paragraph of this section, some readers were mentioned and how they contend that they don’t like the increasing amount of sex scenes. Why are there no mention that many other readers actually prefer the increasing amount of sex scenes, and their personal opinion to stay close to the “sex sells” motto? This seems very biased.

• The last paragraph of this section is extremely biased. Whereas in previous paragraphs, care had been taken to mention how other people comments negatively of Hamilton, in the last paragraph, we see Hamilton defending herself, and coming off quite obnoxious in the process. Sentences like: (1) In a December 2006 post in her blog, apparently aimed at an ever-increasing number of participants on the Laurell K. Hamilton forums… etc., have been worded in a negative manner. No mention is made as to how other people came to her defend. Ajabaja-waja (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are simply wrong and do not remember the books. However, the brief incest material occurs mainly as background for Gregory and his brother Stephen with their father Anthony Dietrich and also for a couple child vampires. Incest does not occur as an active element of the ongoing timeline of the main characters or story.
You are also simply wrong about the dominant role of the ardeur in creating and solving problems: personal, magical and later even parts of the police work in later stories. Once introduced surrender to the ardeur does solve or create almost every personal problem, defeats the council vampires, unlocks almost every new level of power that Anita gets. Often those later increases in power lead directly to solving the mysteries and police cases. Heck sometimes the ardeur comes in the middle of police action although usually with Jean Claude as a remote buffer and controller (example in Incubus Dreams at Malcolms church the arduer has given the 4th mark and new vampire interrogation power and plus it powers the recruiting of Wicked Truth).
I have to agree with the reviewers that LKH had a severe mid-series break in the nature of here stories: Cerulean Sins, Incubus Dreams, Micah and Danse Macabre 2003-2006. I loved the moderate flavoring use of erotica and personal life with the police work in most her novels before cerulean Sins and after Danse Macabre. But the four middle stream novels are radically different. Any story that spends 50 pages or 4 to 5 chapters hovering around one of 4-5 major sex scenes in a single novel has problems being anything other than a bodice ripper. One can only suspect the typical long series writer's block, publisher strongarm suggestions, or personal issues. Really there is nothing wrong with the material but it would have been better for LKH to start a new character for that heavy an obsession with submissive erotica.

69.23.121.234 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a non-biased source that can show that some people prefer LKH's new writing style, feel free to enter it in. The previous writer is correct. There are characters in the series who have had incestuous encounters with family members against their will. There are also characters who show the inclination to do so (the siren/merlady character), not because she particularly wants to for sexual reasons but because she wants to spark off her sons' powers and because for her it is considered normal. (Ewww...) Also, if you look at the plot resolutions for many of her recent books, the ardeur is what solves the problem in many cases. (She rolls the person, uses it to harness a new power, etc.)
And again, as far as people defending her, you have to give a viable source like an article or a blog from a notable person. Mentioning that there are people in the forums defending her is not verifiable because we can't verify if all of those people are real, if they are trying to troll the users there by gaining their trust, or if they are sockpuppets people have created for the forums. (I know a few people have multiple accounts there since it is relatively easy to get banned on LKH's forums.) The only problem with many blogs and articles is that many of them aren't by people who are considered notable & are pretty much Joe & Jane Average fans. I'd love to put more information on this entry & flesh out everything, but there isn't a lot out there that can be put on this entry. She isn't in the news as much as someone like Stephen King or Charlaine Harris is. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Hamiltons blog and Twitter acclount helps new authors to write.[edit]

New writers have been known to frequent her blog and Twitter account where she dispenses many helpful suggestions as to how to write, get ones work published, etc. This should also be mentioned. Ajabaja-waja (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, but no. It's expected that new writers will seek the advice of established writers. Wikipedia is neither self-help for new writers, nor a promotional platform for established writers such as Hamilton. All information is presumably useful to someone, somehow. "Some people might be interested" is not sufficient to add anything to an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, but yes. Yet for some reason, her addressing of "Some people" on her message board was mentioned which was not sufficiently necessary to be added in an encyclopedia or Wikipidia. Also, isn't the whole point of Wikipedia is to present information to people, some or otherwise, which could be helpful to them? Ajabaja-waja (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless her use of twitter & her messageboard become noteworthy, there's nothing special about what she does. Dozens, if not hundreds of writers talk directly to their fans in this manner and many more do so at seminars and conventions. I see little reason to include such info in an encyclopedic entry. Now if she was making the national news due to her twitter use, that would be noteworthy.LiPollis (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Just place links to her blog and Twitter pages in the "External links" section and let readers find out for themselves should they wish to do so. They are relevant and allowed links per WP:EL so that should sort this little quandary. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:LINKSTOAVOID, in particular section [1], point 11 is completely specific. These are links to social sites and to be avoided in most circumstances. There's no reason for Hamilton to be an exception. It isn't a matter of "what readers might find interesting" -- just about anything is interesting to someone. It's whether the external links add encyclopedic information to the Wiki article. Allowing Hamilton to say anything she wants -- without peer review -- is an open invitation to self-promotion and misrepresentation. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Links to avoid are generic blogs and fan-driven sites etc. As these are specific to Hamilton herself then I think they meet the spirit of WP:EL. As for being peer reviewed, well that's irrelevant for a link that isn't being used as a reliable source for a reference. The content of those sites are not being used as information sources for the content of the article. The links are a pertinent information source in themselves, in that they point directly at the author herself thereby giving the reader additional useful information. After all, isn't that what external link sections are for? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No. It's conflict of interest. She can write any lie she chooses, erase what she's said, refuse any comment on what she writes. This has nothing to do with being a reliable source. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about Hamilton. The guidelines were written to stop individuals supplying unreliable information to Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What is or isn't on an external site is irrelevant. The contents of the external sites are not being used for Wikipedia purposes. All the external link is doing is sending a reader to Hamilton's blog/Twitter. External links are not required to point to neutral, peer-reviewed or reliable sources. Those are the requirements for references. How else to you explain the common external links pointing to "official" sites? I'm afraid you're mixing up your rule requirements. All an external link is required to be is relevant to the article on which it appears. An author's blog or twitter page is just as acceptable as a link to their official website. Please don't confuse refs and external links' requirements. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What is on an external site is all important. Probably XLinkBot will automatically delete an external blog reference. Does that answer your question? It's Wikipedia policy. This isn't the place to argue it. If that doesn't convince you, then randomly check the articles for five or six other authors, rock stars, public figures. (Or check the articles you've just been editing, which I just did.) Do any of them have blogs as external links? Why is that? It's not because they wouldn't like a high-profile Wiki link to their blog. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As you well know what other stuff does or doesn't exist on wikipedia is a non-argument. I say put the links on there and let XLinkbot decide. If it nukes the link then so be it, if it doesn't... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(Beating the dead horse..) Another user wrote There is absolutely nothing exceptional about Hamilton. The guidelines were written..

I there is nothing "exceptional" about her (and that term is a matter of individual opinion anyway), then why is the even an article about her on Wikipedia at all? 216.9.143.128 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Jim

I would say that a link under a header that mentions Writer assistance/help is relevant but should be mentioned as briefly as possible. Many writers will NOT spend time helping others. Such writing help is often genre and style specific (Help relevant to Wikipedia editors would be worthless to a hopeful Gothic fantasy author). LKD does have a sufficient volume of works and sales success to qualify as an expert in writing and getting published -- even if thousands of other experts exist in the most generic sense of author-writers.
The fact that LKD does provide help is at least as relevant as her hobbies, spouse, etc. Are you going to omit birth dates because everyone is born? I can't see that there is anything newsworthy about when an author was born. But it is sometimes relevant to understanding author viewpoints or guessing how long their career might continue. Wikipedia is not an abstract. Wikipedia is NOT simply a library catalog of author's works, although that is the purest and most non-controversial distillation of author material -- nor is Wikipedia simply a compilation of what is newsworthy (especially since newsworthy is a very fleeting thing). I cannot see how identifying external links to relevant human interest topic areas undermines Wikipedia's authoritative stance when the link is officially created or authorized by that person. If LKH changes or lies in her blog then that was her official action OUTSIDE the webpages of Wikipedia. Keep in mind that a Wikipedia topic header or even a sentence associated with an external link is not a reference citation but only identifying the topic of the external link and not the content of dynamic electronic media. Or do you wish to bar links to university, corporate, and news websites because they are inherently changeable? I have seen the paper references only discussion by semi-Luddites in Wikipedia before, but take a reasonable risk. And remember rare references get burned and are usually accessible to only a few select scholars. Every info source has its problems.
If such links give the purists heartburn, maybe they need to create a standard Wikipedia footnote disclaimer saying that the following source is not the end-all authoritative source for topic X but merely one of several experts. The issue of writers advice is very similar to religion and politics. Yes there are competing alternatives. But the existence of alternatives does not and should not bar the discussion or reference any one particular alternatives. Hopefully most Wikipedia readers would be smart enough to figure out that any of LKH's advice is probably most relevant to folk who wish to write similar fictional works in the same genre...but you can put that phrasing in the standard disclaimer if you are sufficiently OCD that you feel some one might misunderstand and blame you.69.23.121.234 (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, most authors DO give out writers advice & no matter who gives it out, it's all pretty much the same. LKH has given out nothing that could distinguish herself from other authors. The only author advice I can think of off the top of my head that would even warrant a note on the author's respective page is when Stephen King published 'On Writing'- a book that was part writers guide & part biography. If LKH were to every publish anything along these lines, it would most certainly merit being listed. As it is, LKH isn't saying anything that dozens of other authors aren't already saying. If all people want to do is bulk out her article, I heartily recommend doing so. Just don't fill it up with "Laurell sez" or "Laurell's tips for good writing". That type of stuff is for a fan page or a fan run wiki & Wikipedia is neither of those things. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
Yeah. The point is, if Hamilton published a book called "How to Write", that was well-received by critics or made a best-seller list, it would be noteworthy. If she's just giving her professional advice, that's nothing noteworthy — professionals often do that.
There are good coaches who aren't good players, and vice versa. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated photo[edit]

I got permission by LKH's husband Jonathon to post one of LKH's headshots here on the wiki page. I liked the old one, but this one is much more defined & is one of the most recent pictures of LKH to date. (That we have access to, anyway.) I think I got the usage tags on the picture correct, so if anyone knows more about tagging pics & wants to ensure that I did it correctly, please feel free to do so! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

And a great shot it is too, though just be aware that some pedantic 'jobsworth' may come along and request that you send a copy of the official permission to OTRS just so the foundation's ass is covered legally. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Should I go ahead & just do it now? I'm not sure what I should forward- I actually asked Green through the official LKH site's forum pages. I can do a screen grab. I would rather not bug Green himself for an e-mail to send to that site or for him to send something to OTRS himself unless I absolutely had to. I'm not familiar with the whole OTRS system, but I'm willing to muck with it if I have to.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Personally I'd wait until someone asks for it or tags the image for deletion. No point in mucking people around if you don't have to. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, I tried. Someone got it removed on the basis that posting a picture just to show what someone looks like doesn't qualify as notable or some garbage like that. I honestly DO think that knowing what an author looks like is important, especially since there's a lot of people who believe that Anita is based off of Hamilton's body image. (A look at earlier pictures of Hamilton does seem to favor that theory.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
The argument to remove the photo is common. It goes something like: "It's more important to give Wiki maximum protection against a hypothetical lawsuit than it is to have quality material (that might be) less defensible in court." I was just dealing with a similar situation.[2] Part of the problem appears to be that there's simply not enough Wiki legal advice available to deal with all the things folks would like opinions on. In such a situation, the prudent thing, of course, is to be conservative. That's unfortunate here, since the LKH/Jonathon/Tokyogirl79 photo decidedly improved the article appearance. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
At least someone put the old picture back up. (sighs) It's better than nothing, I guess. Maybe someone can take a picture at her next public appearance and post it here? Or maybe one of her friends or family members can post? I know that they look at her wiki entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Given that Toykyogirl78 got what I would hope would be considered "adequate ass covering" (AAC ;), the only reason to "err on the side of caution" is because there is no standard (read relatively simple, easy, standard, and relatively cheap) way to archive permissions that WikiMedia has received, and thus no easy way for WM to prove that they have permission for any particular picture/sound/etc. Shouldn't this be a rather big concern for the foundation? Of course, there is the issue of money, which makes sure lots of things that really should be done won't be (I'd argue just like some "further clinical trials" that "should be done" according to so-and-so researcher [Bennett MH et al. [and by extension the AHRQ, for which the report is written] "Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the adjunctive treatment of traumatic brain injury." 2004. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.])

Bulking out the article[edit]

We seriously need more info in this article. I think that it would be good to think up a list of good questions to ask LKH & see if she or her husband can post this on one of her blogs. The questions would have to be for things that could be in her wikipedia article, so it can't be anything like "what would you say to new writers" or anything like that. It would have to pertain to her working past or to pertinent things in her present. I think that one good thing would be to ask her for more detail about her charity work. Like I said, the biggest problem is that it would have to be able to be posted on wikipedia & there's a pretty stringent list of qualifications about what is wiki-worthy and what isn't. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79

"Amount of sex in later books"[edit]

At least the first 5 five Anita Blake books are fundamently based on the idea that Blake won't have any sex before marriage. This idea is elaborated over and over again. This is highly unusual in the pre-Twilight vampire genre. To claim that there is "too much sex" in the later books is nearly funny if you consider this anti-sexual attitude. Are there any decent sources on this aspect of the saga? 84.152.7.96 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Not really. Most of the sources that comment on the sex in the book are of the review type and most don't go into that sort of detail. The only sources that do comment on that sort of thing were in the essay collection that Hamilton edited and oversaw, which made it a primary source. It's a shame, since that could have been a valuable source for this article otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Off topic:

Hamilton states in her reddit AMA that she and her husband are polyamorous and into BDSM.
She considers her character Anita Blake to be polyamorous.

84.152.21.14 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: Your "question" is an odd one since the reviews of The Blake series are plentiful and easy to find via google. I'm not talking about "fan reviews" ; I refer to actual profesional reviews for Industry publications relied upon by booksellers who read them to decide how many of any given book to order. If you want Academic analaysis, Paranormal Romance and Paranormal Erotica aren't prime targets for Dissertations but there are specialized search engines that can help you hunt down scholarly works mentioning either "Anita Blake" or Hamilton herself. Anne Rice's Errotica, however, has been the source of a great deal of scholarly analysis but mostly due to it being LGBTQ Erotica. For discussions of Paranormal Erotica, you might need to widen your search to writers such as Poppy Z Brite. Also, Make sure you read the very LENGTHY summaries and introductions in Ellen Datlow's Years best Fantasy and Horror anthologies, since she frequently gets into such issues there. I hope that info may be of some help.
As for Hamilton, I just re-read the section of this article that deals with this issue ( under Anita Blake) and it is as well-sourced as it can be, given that this is NOT an article about the Blake series but about the author herself. That section is an accurate representation of the facts. Outside of of wikipedia, the issue was somewhat more controversial but as an encylopedia, we can only cite Reliable Sources such as reviews of the books from well-regarded publications, Industry publications, news articles and published sources. In some cases, we can quote the author themselves if they have an official outlet. It is hard to document how much sex one book has versus another in a continuing series where the main character has a supernatural affliction which can only be comforted by having immediate sex with anyone, anything, anywhere! However, professionals all seem to focus on the book MICAH as being the tipping point where the series jumped off the cliff into obvious Erotica, which in and of itself is simply a minor change of genre. Hamilton has made no secret of her current Sex-positive personal views nor her intent to explore them in her fiction. If you have not read the latter books, you might begin with MICAH and compare it to the earlier ones, since that is the book that seemed to start the tempest in a teapot. Best wishes. LiPollis (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)