Critics
A wise man once wrote something about avoiding the practice of critiquing those who critique you. For, as this wise man surmised, the only function of such an action would be to provide further fodder for the fire. Anne Rice apparently missed that memo, and, from the results, seems to be doing nothing more than adding not only fuel but extra wood for the flames.

For those who haven't been following the story, Rice apparently felt that the now infamous reader reviews posted on Amazon.com for her book Blood Canticle were, to put it mildly, a tad harsh. In response, Rice composed a 1,200 word defense of her work that appeared right along with the other reviews. I say "appeared" because the review has either been removed by Amazon or Anne Rice herself requested its removal; it's nowhere to be found on the site. Luckily for us some other websites decided to save her words of wisdom for others to read before their removal.

An article about the controversy appeared in Monday's New York Times. This article, though, does little justice to Rice's entire tirade. Fraught with many contradictions in logic and written in a tone that strives mightily to mask rage with prose, Rice does little actual defending of her work, and, in my opinion, addresses few, if any, of the real issues of the critiques that plague writers of her same ilk. By "ilk" I mean to refer to writers such as Stephen King who publish massive amounts of text and traffic in books that, for all intents and purposes, are the same.

Rice, who strangely resembles our current president in her inability to accept criticism, starts off her response by stating that her career has thrived because of her ability to "ignore denigrating and trivializing criticism." This type of blanket assessment of criticism, which in her mind refers to a specific type, betrays a lack of acceptance for any type of criticism, regardless of intent. I'm skipping ahead, but, from the sounds of it, Rice doesn't feel that there's much if any room for criticism of her canon of works period. In what can only be described as a glowing self-assessment, Rice describes her work as being beyond the necessity of having input from, horror of horrors, an editor because, simply put, it's so great. As she puts it, "I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself." Later, she states that "every word is in perfect place." Rice is one of the better writers in her genre. There's a little more depth to her writing, and her prose can, and often is, neatly flowing. However, Nabokov, she is not. Anyone who has ever read one of her books must realize the absurdity of the claim that Rice needs to work so hard to craft simple sentences. Her works aren't bad stories, but they're about as deep as a puddle.

As for Rice's contradictions, and perhaps contradictions isn't the correct term to use but rather her desire to have it both ways, they are numerous, and it's truly surprising that she was able to cram so many in such a short piece of writing. First, regarding Amazon, she states that "there is something compelling about Amazon's willingness to publish just about anything." Rice freely admits to reading the comments and, in fact, states that, "I believe in what happens here." Stating that, wouldn't one assume that you're capable of accepting criticism then? Surely all the reviews for all the works she has perused haven't been glowing. Rice, in an attempt to address specific writers, decries the "sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul." The whole gist of her letter is supposedly aimed at only those with the temerity to make, in Rice's opinion, "outrageously negative comments." It remains a mystery to me if Rice's version of Democracy allows for freedom of speech and a right to criticize, regardless of the tact taken by the critic even if it is loathsome and "denigrating."

Second, Rice seems to feel as if she's one amongst the people by stating that she is "justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks, in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you?" Again, it seems as if she can't quite grasp the basic tenants of democracy in action, or the realities of society at large. If in fact you enjoy being read by a wide spectrum of personality types and, obviously, educational ranges, for why else mention the intellectual giants juxtaposed with the undereducated "waitress," then how is it that you're incapable of understanding that along with the wide acceptance you're also going to be judged in a variety of ways. It goes without saying that an "intellectual giant" and a "waitress" might have different means of expressing their criticisms. In other words, anyone receiving criticism from such a wide spectrum can assume that the discourse will vary somewhat from group to group. Critics outside of academia might be a lot harsher in their criticism and rudimentary in their word choice. You pretty much have to accept it all regardless. Having said that, it's important to at least mention that part of Rice's complaint stems from some criticism that was purported to be personal in nature. These comments supposedly referred to her mental state after the death of her husband in 2002. Again, I say "supposedly" for two reasons. One there are no quotes from specific posts in the vein. Two there are nearly three hundred comments related to this book on Amazon's page. If the posts making allusions to her husband's death were in poor taste, then there might be a real issue there worth addressing. However, if the theory was thrown out there just as that, a theory, then Rice's skin is a lot thinner than any public figure should have. In her most venomous paragraph, Rice states:

But your stupid, arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses.

Finally, as the last sentence indicates, this book is supposedly the last one in her long line of books. However, earlier she states that this is nowhere mentioned in the book or in any other way is there any indication that she's ending the Vampire Chronicles. So, which is it? Are you ending the series out of spite because a few reviewers on Amazon made you mad, or are you forging ahead and ignoring their comments?

Ultimately, the idea of ending the series is what, I think, critics are addressing. Rice has run out of ideas regarding these stories and, in particular, her main character, Lestat. Rice, in one of the creepier passages, describes Lestat as if he were real and a companion of hers, cementing her image in my mind as a writer without a clue as to how she's portraying herself in what can only be described as an vain artist with too much pride self-serving praise of her own creation. I've only read the first two books in the series, Interview with the Vampire and The Vampire Lestat, and it's abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain where this story is going. If the repetitive feel of the first two books is any indication, then the other eight are pretty much rehashes of the first, albeit best, book. When describing the current book, Rice talks about specific scenes and concludes that they "stand with any similar scenes in all of the chronicles." How true. I feel like screaming, "Anne, don't you see? The point is that they are similar, all of them. I haven't even read this book, and the scenes are familiar, almost like I've read them before."

One can sympathize with Rice if the comments addressed to her were truly personal and hurtful in nature, but it strains one's ability to offer sympathy to someone who seems to feel as if her entire body of work is beyond reproach. Rice has forged an interesting career with her books devoted primarily to one area of horror, vampires and witches as well, but they are as open to criticism as any other writer's work, be it those enjoyed solely by waitresses or solely by intellectuals. Nothing is out of bounds. And with Amazon's increasing popularity with their reader comments, it's going to be even harder to make sure that critics play by the rules.