|
|
| In regard to other vampire books, how would you rate the Anita Blake series? |
| Better |
|
79% |
[ 27 ] |
| About the same |
|
20% |
[ 7 ] |
| Worse |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:51 pm
As you all (should) know, there are many different books and series related to (or solely about) vampires. What I want to know is, what is so different about the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series that captivates our attention so much more than any of the others? Of course, I'm assuming that this is the case, because it is for me, but that does not mean that it's true.
So, why is the Anita Blake series the best, or is it?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:37 pm
I think it's the whole mosters being a part of mainstream society theme. It's an every origonal and intersing consept^^ Ann Rice sort of touched on it when she had Lastat become a rock star and everything...but LKH takes it to the next level and askes... "what if all the monsters came out into society instead of staying hidden"
every other book about vampiers and such are telling the story of the sectret hidden and mytsrious world of darkness and shaow... but LKH brings them into the lime light as it were. ^^
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:47 pm
Exactly. I mean, many vampire stories get very creative, but they always have the whole secret-society thing going on. After a while, it gets boring. LKH makes them a normal part of life, so instead of them being aloof and out of the loop, they have to interact with humans, and other supernaturals. I mean, look at the whole lycanthrope discrimination bit, and HAV, and Human's First. Not only are vampires a part of society, but it's done realistically. Not everyone is going to be happy about that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:11 pm
The Anita Blake books used to rate about the same, even better depending on the book, in comparison to other vampire novels I've read. Now the books are declining somewhat from where they used to be on my rateing list (( stressed ))
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:57 pm
Going with Valtanwar on the declining bit.
Anita Blake used to be awesome because the vampire's WEREN'T the main focus. Anita was, is, whatever. Most vampire novels are done from a vampires' point of view, or purely about vampires. They're in there quite a lot, yes, but the story isn't focused completely on the vampires.
Having everything be known and legal. Taking in all these 'monsters' from every single mythology (Ie: Laima from old Greek mythology, and the Naga from Hindu mythology), and making them known and REAL.
Also, many vampire books put the vampires in a very......emo state. Not Anita Blake. If I ever see Jean-Claude cry as much as Lestat, I'll laugh, put down the book, and go find LKH.
Vampire novels are also famous for their.....sexualilty. Anita Blake didn't have that. AT FIRST. It was nice to see a vampire novel where they weren't all madly in love with each other, or doing anything to shag them.
Of course that's changed, which is why Anita Blake is slowly falling off the list of 'Must-reads' (Still haven't finished ID. I hate Nat. Hatehimhatehimhatehim.). ^_^
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:09 pm
Bobsthename Going with Valtanwar on the declining bit. Anita Blake used to be awesome because the vampire's WEREN'T the main focus. Anita was, is, whatever. Most vampire novels are done from a vampires' point of view, or purely about vampires. They're in there quite a lot, yes, but the story isn't focused completely on the vampires. Having everything be known and legal. Taking in all these 'monsters' from every single mythology (Ie: Laima from old Greek mythology, and the Naga from Hindu mythology), and making them known and REAL. Also, many vampire books put the vampires in a very......emo state. Not Anita Blake. If I ever see Jean-Claude cry as much as Lestat, I'll laugh, put down the book, and go find LKH. Vampire novels are also famous for their.....sexualilty. Anita Blake didn't have that. AT FIRST. It was nice to see a vampire novel where they weren't all madly in love with each other, or doing anything to shag them. Of course that's changed, which is why Anita Blake is slowly falling off the list of 'Must-reads' (Still haven't finished ID. I hate Nat. Hatehimhatehimhatehim.). ^_^ eek You hate Nat?! You have to think happy thoughts though!! I agree with ya'll though about why Anita was and may be still good. (except for the part that you hate him!!)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:14 pm
I think the only other vampire series I read is Anne Rice's Chronicles. I was in love with the Chronicles before I even knew who LKH was. Frankly I don't try to compare the two because they are too different. I will say I like both [almost] equally.. and for very different reasons.
What keeps Anita up there for me is the fact that it's fresh and modern and there are more than just vampires in the stories. I haven't read many other books at all that involve lycanthropes and when I start I usually can't stay interested. The Anitaverse in general is just great. I like the idea of supernatural creatures being a part of everyday society. Sometimes the interaction between the humans and undead is interesting. As is the fact that lots of our everyday conflicts are littering the pages of the books. It's amusing to read about not getting along with father-in-law because you're a vampire and he's a lumberjack xp
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:27 am
Double_Sins Bobsthename Going with Valtanwar on the declining bit. Anita Blake used to be awesome because the vampire's WEREN'T the main focus. Anita was, is, whatever. Most vampire novels are done from a vampires' point of view, or purely about vampires. They're in there quite a lot, yes, but the story isn't focused completely on the vampires. Having everything be known and legal. Taking in all these 'monsters' from every single mythology (Ie: Laima from old Greek mythology, and the Naga from Hindu mythology), and making them known and REAL. Also, many vampire books put the vampires in a very......emo state. Not Anita Blake. If I ever see Jean-Claude cry as much as Lestat, I'll laugh, put down the book, and go find LKH. Vampire novels are also famous for their.....sexualilty. Anita Blake didn't have that. AT FIRST. It was nice to see a vampire novel where they weren't all madly in love with each other, or doing anything to shag them. Of course that's changed, which is why Anita Blake is slowly falling off the list of 'Must-reads' (Still haven't finished ID. I hate Nat. Hatehimhatehimhatehim.). ^_^ eek You hate Nat?! You have to think happy thoughts though!! I agree with ya'll though about why Anita was and may be still good. (except for the part that you hate him!!) ninja I do hate Nat. Can't stand him. Which is one reason why it's taking me so long to read ID. ninja I am THE weirdest Anita Blake fan, considering I only like a handful of character's. And currently, not even the main character. I think the only reason I keep reading is because I'd die without Jean-Claude .______.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:02 pm
Anita is the reason I like these books better than any of the other vamp books I have read. I just think she is absolutely amazing. I worship her and her powers! I just think she is amazing!!!... and I agree with everyone who has said how cool it is that all the things from mythology are real in the Anitaverse. Real and an accepted part of life.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:57 pm
I can just relate to it in more ways, and I feel more connected to the characters and plot. Meh. I just love the way Laurell ties it all together. smile
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:05 pm
I agree with the mainstreem monsters idea also she doesn't keep it to the minimalistic "were wolf" she has the rats, leopards, bears, even swans, every type of were you could come up with. I like that whole idea.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:10 am
yeah, Lycanthropy as a disease is cool, but i think "were bear" is cheesy..lol it sounds like care bear..
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:19 am
It never becomes boring.. Her life style, her job, and her enemies are what keep the books interesting.. 3nodding
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:46 am
I wholeheartedly agree. I just wish she would write quicker. I know I know, it is alot to ask, but we neeeeeeed our fixes of Anita.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:23 am
Definatley better than most! I love how LKH made everything so belivable! You can almost belive fully that they might exist.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|