The Fall of Anne

In my opinion, Anne Rice has been slipping toward insignificance following the release of Memnoch the Devil, which honestly is one of my favorites of her Chronicles. But after that she gave us the pure crap of Blood and Gold and the only slightly better books like Merrick and Blackwood Farm and the very disappointing ending to The Vampire Chronicles, Blood Canticle. There were other clunkers, like Violin, but now … now she’s gone too far.

She’s claiming to be Christ’s voice.

“For over 10 years I’ve wanted to do this book — Jesus in his own words,” Rice writes.

Yeah. Sure. First of all, the sheer hubris
of thinking she can write a book in the words of Christ is a huge
turnoff. Secondly, you can be sure the book will be filled with her
political and social liberal views and she’ll claim Christ is okay with
things an accurate reading of Scripture shows that he would not condone.

But the real hubris hear
hearkens back to her Amazon.com rant in which she said she has reached
a point in her career where she will not allow an editor to touch her
work. That, I think, is the key to Anne’s fall. You’re not prefect,
Anne. When left unedited you ramble. You drive the reader insane with
page after page of description of details about clothing, food and
drapery. You do stupid things like bring Mozart into your stories.

I used to refer to this as The Stephen King Syndrome. King became so
popular, I think, that no editor would touch his work. Was it because
he wouldn’t let them, like Anne said? I dunno. But when he put out the
expanded version of The Stand
it was pretty obvious he was running the show; editors had gone from
being the gatekeepers to being the butlers who opened the door every
time King sent a manuscript. I also have to believe that if any other
author had turned in the manuscript of The Tommyknockers it would have earned a form rejection letter. Same for Rice and Violin.

And there’s my opinion on that.

5 responses to “The Fall of Anne”

jlassen

May 8, 2005 at 4:43 pm

Pop quiz — did Christ ever condemn homosexuality? No. Obviously not. He condemned the ridicules obsession that the religious leaders had with the “letter of the Old Testament law” — Oddly enough, Old Testament laws such as those from Leviticus that most anti-homosexual “Christians” cite as an example of “Gods law” against fags.
So I’m sure if Anne makes a fag loving Christ, there will be nothing in the scripture that contravenes such a portrayal. You are, however correct in your assesment that her writing blows, and has done so for a LONG time.
If you want to see a great fictionalized portrayal of Christ check out:
<img src="http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/04083114011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8200000/8202873.jpg"

Reply
1. sewedel
  
  May 8, 2005 at 6:41 pm
  
  Well, let’s look at this. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” So he’s not overriding the old laws.
  Would Jesus condone homosexuality? He’s not confronted with it in the Gospels we have, so it’s hard to say definitively. But he is confronted with a woman breaking another of the old sex laws, adultery. Did he tell her, “Hey, that’s okay”? Nope. In John 8:1-12 Christ invites the innocent to stone the woman and, of course, none are innocent and so they don’t. Then Christ tells the adulteress to “…go and sin no more.” He doesn’t condemn her, but his statement shows that the act she was accused of is a sin (a breaking of the old law) and therefore he is not condoning her actions.
  So, no, Christ never condemned homosexuality. But I think we can draw the conclusion that he never condoned it, either, and never said the law condemning it was wrong.
  And, I suspect Christ does love gay people and would expect his followers to treat them as he did the adulteress. Pat Robertson may disagree, but then, like many on the left, he relies on the politics of division to keep himself newsworthy.
  
  Reply
  1. jlassen
    
    May 8, 2005 at 9:26 pm
    
    Old laws that Jesus didn’t specifically address? Like slaves obeying their masters? Like how women who are on their periods should be shut away for 7 days? Lets face it… Modern Christianity of ALL sects is very selective about which “old laws” they choose to honor. You are working really hard to equate the condemnation of “adultery” (a violation of ones marriage vows) with Homosexuality. It’s a bit of a stretch, IMO, and in the opinion of many biblical scholars.
    Unless you choose to follow EVERY law from Leviticus that Jesus did not directly address (see above), then you are selectively choosing which “old laws” you want to follow, in furtherance of your own prejudices. That doesn’t seem very Christ-like to me.
    And my point has nothing to do with trying to be politically divisive. You are the one who brought up the term “liberal” and suggested that because of Rice’s liberal social and political views, her interpretation of Christ wouldn’t be very “accurate” vis-a-vi the scripture. Dismissing someone out of hand on the basis of a political label… now THAT seems rather divisive.
    My point about Christ loving gays, and not much caring about the old laws was to suggest that your attitude — that YOUR way is the one true interpretation of scripture — might be a bit egotistical, and is unchristlike, to say the least.
    Your out of hand condemnation of Rice’s POSSIBLE interpretations of Christ’s life reminds me more then a little bit of Jesus’s interactions with the Pharisees, who dismissed him and his teachings out of hand. And it also triggered my Irony alert. Christ didn’t hate liberals. He himself was a liberal, as were his teachings.
    
    Reply
    1. sewedel
      
      May 9, 2005 at 1:21 am
      
      My own prejudices? Name one major religion that condones homosexuality. Name one culture that has recognized gay marriage. Even the Greeks, who scholars say preferred man-on-man (or boy) action recognized that marriage was a man and a woman.
      Who have I condemned? No one. Despite what some LJ bloggers claim, I’ve never wished hellfire down on all the gays, or any other group of people. Nor have I said that my interpretation of Scripture is the one true interpretation. I offered a viewpoint, thinking we might have a civil discussion, but instead you revert back to assuming I’m saying things I’m not. Are you going to go back to saying my kids should have been killed on coat hangers pre-birth again?
      Most people can have different opinions without this kind of shit. You don’t seem to be one of them. I’m open to discussing anything from gay rights to eliminating the First Amendment, but only if it’s done reasonably.
      Not that it matters or that I should need to defend myself this way, but two of my best friends are gay. One is a man recently diagnosed with AIDS and the other is a lesbian who knows my viewpoints and found it ridiculous that someone would call me a bigot. I don’t have the time or inclination to write and post an entire manifesto of all my religious/political/social beliefs on the Internet, so what you see in my blog is only a piece of the iceberg, so to speak.
      I don’t care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. I don’t think allowing gay marriage would lessen my marriage, but I do think it would open a legal floodgate that would force our society to grant legal recognition of other alternative lifestyles, including polygamy and incest. Say that to most gay people and they argue, but I know lawyers who are already preparing for the polygamy challenge if gay marriage is allowed. What’s really funny is how some gay people I know act like incest is the most disgusting thing they’ve ever heard of, but insist their alternative lifestyle is perfectly normal. Why is that okay but it’s not okay for people to say gay sex is disgusting? Because the incest lobby isn’t as strong yet?
      And I don’t condemn Rice because of either her political views or her possible interpretation of Christ’s life. If she wants to write a book and make Jesus gay, that’s between her and him. I swore off buying hardcovers of her books after disliking the last two. This particular book isn’t something I’d typically read, anyway, because fictionalized accounts of major historical figures doesn’t appeal to me. My main complaint with this new book is that Rice seems to believe, based on that short article, that she has the authority to tell the story in “Christ’s own words.” Sure. And I’ll channel Daniel Boone so I can tell his story in his own words.
      I’m no socialist, but John Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors. I don’t choose not to read an author based on that author’s politics.
      I didn’t say you were trying to be divisive, and I agreed with you about Christ likely loving gay people. I said Pat Robertson, like many on the left, rely on the politics of division to remain relevant. If you choose to put yourself among the segment of the left who does that, you are doing it, not me.
      Do you just troll the Internet looking to argue? I don’t understand why you read this blog. I quit reading yours after you said all Republican babies should be killed on coat hangers (how Christ-like is THAT?) and I should have known better than try to have a rational discussion with you here.
      
      Reply
steve_vernon

May 8, 2005 at 4:59 pm

Check out Christopher Moore’s LAMB: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BIFF, CHRIST’S CHILDHOOD PAL.
I agree with you on THE TOMMYKNOCKERS, think King was in his booze and pills stage of his writing career. I preferred the long THE STAND to the short though.
I haven’t been able to get through WOLVES OF THE CALLA, though. He’s gotten into weird travelling through worlds upon worlds and I’m reaching for the dramamine. Partly my fault, I’m reading it between a lot of assigned review writing. I might be missing some points. May have to start again.

Reply

Steven E. Wedel

The Fall of Anne

Like this:

5 responses to “The Fall of Anne”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Fall of Anne

Share this:

Like this:

5 responses to “The Fall of Anne”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply