Talk:Laurell K. Hamilton/Archive 1

Personal Life

Does anyone know when Hamilton married Gary, divorced him, married Jon, & had Trinity? That could make for wonderful biographical information about her life & flesh out the article some. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Neutrality Issues on 'Negative Reader' & adding info

I do have to say that while there is hardcore proof on the whole NR issue, it does need to be a bit more neutral. Can anyone do this without making it slanted one way or another? Also, with the removal of Hamilton-esqe (for reasons listed below) we need something that's a wee bit more neutral. Anyone have any more information on the author that could be listed? (Info that's provable, that is.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

could/should we add trivial info like about her dogs? or where she gets some of her information, a reference to her cop friends (like the one who recently passed) or some other info from her blog? -I found it was highly interesting to read that recently, when she felt like she and a friend were being watched, she had to remind herself she was NOT Anita... "I’ve said for years, I hope I never get mugged while I’m writing one of these {Anita} books, because I am not Anita. I do not have her training, and I worry, every once in awhile, that I’ll forget that when it’s important." http://blog.laurellkhamilton.org/2008/07/girl-bonding.html OR there was an entry a month or so back where she commented on why she has Charles for a body guard, some fans REALLY have taken offense to what she writes. Bekkie (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The section as it reads now is far more neutral than it has been in some time. I see no need to try and add anymore "she said, they said" stuff. As for her continual assertions that she is the victim of stalkers and "negative fans", that stuff belongs on her blog and not here until and unless a reliable source other than her own claims can be cited. For example, if she filed a compliant with local law enforcement and that somehow made the news or was reported somewhere other than her own webpage. Being involved in publishing myself and having known other horror writers who indeed had problems with obsessed fans, I can tell you that it's not something law enforcement encourages a victim to to blab about on the net. If indeed there is stalking going on, such blabbing can be misperceived by a diseased mind as direct invitation for more interaction. If we were to include too much on the subject here in the article, such edits might, in fact, only serve to encourage more alleged harassment. I feel the section should stay as brief as possible to avoid inflaming any one side of the dispute.

As for the allegations of threats against the author and the above comments about her surrounding herself with bodyguards and "cop friends", I offer the following: Since Ms. Hamilton appears to be involved on this page via surrogates, her pals should recommend to her that she read a wonderful and informative book called The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. It's all about Stalkers, what makes them tick, the different kinds of stalking and how the alleged stalkee can do a whole heck of a lot to make themselves less of a target by the way the choose to respond to real or imagined threats. it contains vital information her "cop friends" likely wouldn't know. Gavin de Becker's detective agency is the "go-to" place in Los Angeles/Hollywood for entertainment figures under threat. He's the dude who designed the MOSAIC Threat Assessment Systems that helps figure out just how much of a threat any one person is based on various factors and the system is even used now by law Enforcement. I strongly recommend his book to her or to anyone who believes they might be under threat. I realize this comment is slightly beyond the scope of this discussion but I mention de Becker and his book because it can give anyone who believes they are being threatened a great deal of piece of mind and empowerment. I see there is a wikipedia entry for him and I wikilinked but it's just a stub which is unfortunate. I'll try and beef up his article when I can. For now, let's try and keep this article just about facts that can be proven. I'd like to see more non-controversial biographical info in the article.LiPollis (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

REMOVING "HAMILTON-ESQUE"

Since more than one person has said that this is VERY much of a puff piece & the section is made up of completely unfounded claims, I'm removing it. The reasons are that the section is not non-partial, the claims are not real, & the only proof that's shown is from a personal user blog who is someone that is not a big person in the field. Also, contrary to what the section claims, urban fantasy has been around for a long time. LKH did not start off the genre, nor is she the first female to put out female oriented UF. If there is any REAL proof beyond the blog & LKH's own words that she sparked off the entire genre & has that much pull in the UF world, then show it. This article has been up for too long & more than one person has voted to remove the section. I like LKH well enough, but I recognize a puff piece when I see it. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising venue. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

User response?

Should anything be put down about LKH & her crew banning anyone from her message board that posts any negative comments about her writing? It's an automatic ban if you say anything negative in the slightest, & the very few that remain find their accounts "mysteriously slower". Many of her older fans have dropped their support of this & I believe that her fan controversey section needs to be widened to include fan response. I'm trying to find a credible site to use as a reference, since it's likely that it could be removed otherwise by die hard fans. (The right to critique is really becoming a battlefield when it comes to LKH's books!)Tokyogirl79 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

lkh has only visted her own forum once(unless otherwise announce)

I wasn't referring to LKH herself doing the deleting. I was saying that there are MODS that were deleting the posts. While I can certainly understand that they would want to delete the out & out malicious posts, I knew one or two people who were merely debating some parts that they didn't like... and were deleted for it b/c LKH didn't like the criticism. I see, though, that someone has already done something of this nature to the article, so I'm satisfied. Personally I LIKE her books. They do push the button a lot & have more sex than plot, but they're still enjoyable. What I don't like is her response to her fans & how anyone who has a criticism is "evil".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Very nearly a B. I'd like to see dispute(s) cleared up and maybe a photo.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Criticism and the Author's response

It actually duplicates the content of Anita_Blake:_Vampire_Hunter_(series). One discussion or the other should probably be removed. 82.33.75.53 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't fight -- merge!

I see there is a revert war going on between User:68.224.177.5 and RickK. Rather than reverting each other, I would suggest that you combine the material contained in both texts, format it for Wiki use for better readability, and also ensure that it's not violating any copyrights. More material is good, but it should be accurate, originally composed (or released by the author under GFDL), and presented in decent paragraphs with proper Wiki formatting. I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to the source materials that are being fought over. — Jeff Q 06:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After the anonymous user dumped their text in yet again (which appears to be vaguely related to the official bio), I have attempted to re-write it and incorporate it into the flow of the article. Maybe this will stop whoever it is who so desperately needs to spread the word as to Laurell K. Hamilton's favourite films :-) --Phil | Talk 18:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yaaargh! More crap from the same user and I got hit with an edit conflict and my firewall timed me out 8-( Try again tomorrow. --Phil | Talk 18:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Life vs. writing

I was just looking at this quote "There has been conjecture about how Hamilton's divorce affected her writing and the amount of sex therein, but Hamilton has indicated that this is not necessarily true, instead citing her increased antagonism towards how people feel a woman "should" write and what topics are "right." Since sex is often seen as something women are not allowed to enjoy much less write about, the sex rate has increased." from the article.

I wonder if it's considered 'opinion' if i added in something to the effect that she based the character of Anita blake on herself (which she's mentioned multiple times on her personal blog) and the character of Richard on her ex-husband, Gary, which she's also mentioned in an early early interview?

There's also a theory called . F.R.E.D that's been floating around her forum about this divorce vs. books issue. Are we allowed to mention it but not validate it?

thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicornssong (talk • contribs) 21:05, March 14, 2006 (UTC)

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Just wondering where fandom leaves off and encyclopedic content begins. JenKilmer 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

She never said Richard was her ex-husband. That is conjecture taken from an interview where she was asked if her characters were based on real people. The answer was no. The closest as far as characteristics she cited was Richard had some similar traits to her husband Gary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.133.229 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Micah, standalone?

I don't feel that Micah is as much stand-alone as it is a breather from the main plot. It certainly fits the timeline. It as as much part of the "series" as Obsidian Butterfly is.... (I haven't quite finished it, but from what I have read, it fits right after Incubus Dreams). Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sex and Change in the Anita Blake Series

I'm thinking this section belongs more in the Anita Blake Series article. It gives a bit of an overview of how the series has developed (more involvement with monster society and politics, more sex, more magic, et cetera). Shall I move it over? JenKilmer 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Misquote/misleading summary

Ideally, only direct quotes appear in quotation marks - not interpretation. The summary of the 'Dear Negative Reader' article was not NPOV.

Similarly, whoever added the Anne Rice contribution: the statement about major retail stores considering etc. would be very interesting, if there was a source attached. Ditto critics' responses, with citation. However, is 'many fans think she sold out' really a wikipedia-worthy assertion? If there's a neutral manner of stating these facts they are quite interesting (many great papers could be written about online fans/critics, so I can see why it is tempting to discuss it here), but as it is this approaches original research... 82.33.75.53 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, the fact that a very vocal portion of her readership feels that way is noteworthy since they have documented their feelings in forums, reviews and so on. Further, her remarkable reproach to them in her "Dear negative reader" letter makes their comments and assertions even more noteworthy. Even her fans who like the explicit direction her fiction has taken do not dispute that she has alienated a large portion of her readership. Had Hamilton not written that astonishing letter, I'd say maybe the section shouldn't be there. However, she validated the discontent of her readership by choosing to address it so publicly. If Stephen king had written a letter like that to his fans, it would have been on the front page of the New York Times. What had been a trend in her fan reviews and forums became major news through her letter.Lisapollison 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated, it's interesting, if sourced, factual and relevant. Her letter is therefore interesting enough to merit a mention. I'm not sure it should be seen as validating, or NYT-worthy (unless it was in fact mentioned in the NYT?). Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy with the 'vocal portion' (especially given the page counts of a couple of her most recent books... bah) - but Wikipedia just isn't the right venue for anything but sourced factual information. Vague, accusatory colloquialism ('sold out'), original interpretation or assertion is uninteresting, because it quickly falls out of NPOV, and the section becomes a soapbox for opinion and therefore reads badly. That fan comments are worth discussion does not mean that they should be repeated verbatim... At the time of editing, the page - understandably, but inappropriately - read as though it were written by someone either hurt or indignant or both. 82.33.75.53 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

82.33.75.53, I understand how you feel, however, it is the actions of the author in this case that make her fans' comments noteworthy. She chose to address them directly and in an extraordinary manner. I'll keep an eye on that section to make sure nothing inflammatory gets added, but honestly, if anything, the article understates the matter significantly. Her letter was quite something. I believe its best to leave it as it is unless one side or the other chooses to further the debate in print. The only exception is that unsourced statement about some stores wanting to put her books under a different section based on the new sexual content. If it's just rumor, it should go. If we can find a bookseller who said that in print, it should stay. I welcome you to register with Wikipedia and join the horror project or the romance project so that you can help other editors monitor potential POV issues. ISP addys can change based on what server you use (such as AOL) and having a Username with a history of solid edits can be helpful in gathering a consensus on article changes.LiPollis 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (I changed my Signature recently from LisaPollison)

This paragraph did not read as being very neutral to me. It sounded very skewed in the author's favour, and seemed to override the idea that 'fans' especially fans of the orginal/early books might have justified criticisms of later books. I haven't heard myself that her books are being put into the adult/porn section in bookshops but it would be very hard to argue that this is not now their place, whatever you think of them generally. The adult content has reached exceptional levels.86.150.210.13 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the entirety of the post to understand it. It was aimed at a small segment of people, who claimed they didn't read the books. But felt they had not only the right to say how they should be written, but to issue threats that were taken to law enforcement to enforce their opinions. Writing is not a group activity for most authors. And while people may have critisisms of a book, they have the right to express them. But to threaten an individual and their family is so far out of line it is unbelievable and required a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.133.229 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The above accusations by 70.242.133.229 (talk) have very little to do with this article and its contents. It also looks almost word for word like a few of the statements issued by Ms. Hamilton herself right on down to the bizarre comments that her so-called "negative fans" threatened her and her family. If indeed they did, that's only knowledge Ms. Hamilton and the authorities could know the truth of and has no bearing on the article unless referenced comments could be provided that would not violate the policies on biographies of living persons. If the above user is Ms Hamilton (this user only edits this article) and wishes to comment on the article itself and not her war with her fans, I invite her to do so. While she's at it, she might consider uploading a more flattering photo as well and licensing its use here. In the meantime, All editors would do well to remember that talk pages are intended to be aboout the article itself and that Wikipedia is not a chatroom. If you don't understand the difference, click on the link in the previous sentence which will take you to the policy page discussing such.LiPollis (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guilty Pleasures.png

Image:Guilty Pleasures.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Subjective Mode?

What is meant by "eschews the use of the subjective mode" in the "Hamilton-esque" section? Is this a reference to Subjective case vs Nominative case? What's the source for this? JenKilmer 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to read "subjunctive". She never (ever) writes the equivalent of: I wish I were. She always says: I wish I was. If you are postulating something you are supposed to use the subjunctive mood. I am not sure where the word "subjective" came from. I thought I put it in right the first time but there has been someone messing about with the page as always. Parsnip13 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an example, then? She does use the subjunctive for other types of sentences, so it's not entirely correct to say she never uses it. I have lots of quibbles with her grammar, and "was vs were" is a common error, but it would be helpful to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.167.21 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I usually think the author over does the vanity on her website by using an old picture, but I think perhaps wiki is going too far in the other direction by using the worlds most unflattering picture of LKH. Could we get a picture that's a little more neutral where the lights aren't casting vast shadows that make her head look like some kind of frankenstein monster?-- 64.50.201.98 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an alternate image from the same event at Image:Hamilton, Laurell K (2007) 2.jpg, but I wouldn't say that it's any better, really. If you can find another freely-licensed photograph to replace the ones we have, please do so :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the photo is quite that awful but I'm sure a fan somewhere has a better one. The current photo isn't as bad as described above but I do feel that an imperfection in the photo on what would be the left side of her face (her left, not ours) makes it seem as if she has an enormous wart or zit on her upper cheek. I do hope someone uploads a better one. it would have to be one they took themseleves though since the author considers this article to be unflattering and is therefore highly unlikely to permit use of any official photos.LiPollis (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? She considers this to be unflattering? I have to say that this is one of the most non-partial web entries I've seen based around her. Most of them are either "ZOMG, LKH is teh evil!!1!" or they're "ZOMG, LKH is teh greatest!!1!". While I understand that everyone wants to look good, LKH needs to understand that her past remarks aren't going to be ignored. Still, all of this controversey is why I really like reading her books. The controversey is more entertaining than the books themselves are. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

The picture on her website was taken in 2007. Hardly old. Perhaps if someone asked for a more recent photo and permission to post it on Wiki, it would be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.133.229 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The picture on the main page is horrible. The color balance is way off and it is poorly lighted. It also appears to have been taken with a camera phone as the quality is quite low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.133.229 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, until Ms Hamilton gives us a licenced photo to use, this is the best that we can do. All in all, the picture quality isn't NEARLY as bad as you claim it is. Besides, it gives us a real-life image of LKH to look at rather than the photoshopped & airbrushed pictures that grace her website & books. I like looking at real people rather than publicity stills. Makes them more human IMHO. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Its kind of hard to get a licensed photo if no one asks. I have it on excellent authority that no-one has asked. Having seen the original, unretouched photo that is on the main page of her website,(witch is no more retouched than any other celebrity's official photo) there isn't a lot done to it. --Eridine (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody needs to ask - there is nothing preventing Ms. Hamilton herself (or her operatives here) from uploading a photo she likes or owns and licensing it to Wikipedia per the routine procedure. Any person anywhere is allowed to upload photos to which they control the copyright or which is considered free of copyright. Once they do that however, they no longer control it exclusively to a degree - see Wikipedia:Upload for more information on that. I highly recommend that users get involved in uploading images they control even if it's not for a specific article. You can add images to the Commons (Wikipedia Commons)so others can use them. It's especially a good idea for fans who snap a lot of pix of writers at conventions. Many articles go without an image because nobody has thought to upload their Con pix. Please don't hesitate! Images improve articles immensely. Go forth and upload - others will put those images to good use in the future!LiPollis (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hamilton-esque" Balance

I flagged the "Hamilton-esque" section unbalanced for the following reasons:

Subjectively, it reads like a love letter from a publicist. May I suggest the following for credibility?

Objectively: 1st graf: Publishers asking for "Hamilton-esque" pieces. Cite? (besides LKH herself) 2nd graf: Cite for comparison to Parker? First person detective fiction goes back to Dashiell Hammett's vaunted Sam Spade books. 2nd graf: Cite for comparison to Stephen King? 5th graf: Largely redundant to 2nd graf.

AJay1954 (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is...ridiculous. Two citations and it uses overly-praising terminology to make Hamilton appear godlike. I'm removing this entire section and suggesting we make the body of the page work in the useful bits. 70.170.69.199 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That stuff needs to come out in my opinion. LKH was hardly the first genre novelist to mix romance/sex and the paranormal and she certainly isn't any high water mark in the field. She's notable within her field and so some detail is warranted but this Hamilton-esque nonsense comes right from her own inner circle. The cited sources aren't up to snuff for that kind of lavish praise. If Publisher's Weekly said it or maybe even LOCUS, yeah, but that's not what we have here. Please, let's take it out and tone down the hero-worship. LiPollis (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove: Agree w/ Lisapollison. Laurell K may be somewhat of a name in the fantasy world, but I've never heard anyone use the world 'Hamilton-esque' to describe any other works of fiction & I'm pretty knowledgable of most of the urban fantasy authors & titles. To be completely honest, Laurell K is no longer considered even the brass ring standard that authors need to live up to. She's long since been considered a joke by other authors such as Mary Janice Davidson. I've never heard any magazine, publishing company, or author (other than Laurell K herself) use the term Hamilton-esque at all. I believe that this is just a term coined by the author & her inner circle to describe their views on similar books. It's purely subjective & I think that it should be removed entirely. Unless someone can show a real magazine or internet site mentioning it, I say it should be removed & kept off. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

I also just wanted to add one more point. The only article that mentions "Hamiltonesque" is a BLOG entry that mentions LKH herself saying that. The other articles focus around vampire books in general. Just b/c other people write vamp books doesn't mean that they are drawing on LKH's books as inspiration. The whole section seems to be in place to make LKH seem like she's the goddess of urban fantasy & that she created the entire genre. Other authors have done similarly themed works, so why is it only LKH that gets the credit for this? Neil Gaiman has written some of the earliest & most notable works in the UF genre (which some of LKH's work has been somewhat similar to), so why don't we write it as "Gaiman-esque"? As much as I like her, LKH is NOT a pioneer of this field, nor is she the first female writer to write UF. I insist that this section be removed. Wikipedia is not a place for vanity puff pieces. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Remove Icarus of old (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic of 'Hamilton-esque' has been removed per voting due to non-neutrality issue & lack of real proof of term. (Again, the author & a fan's blog isn't proof of her starting a trend.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Deformed article

Where is the rest of this article? Apart from an uninformative lead, the only section is about the AB downhill trend and response (which outside of context should be in the AB articles). This section starts without any previous mention of what she writes! There is not even a claim of notability, making it a deletion candidate! What have the critics said? Is she not a forerunner in a huge new subgenre (supernatural romance vampire porn) with many imitators? And there is virtually no biographic information. I've read only one of her books, and i already knew more than this article tells me. Only reason i didn't re-rate it to stub is the bibliography.Yobmod (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's a notable author, but I wouldn't say that she's a forerunner of the UF subgenre & I definately wouldn't say that there are many imitators. Laurell K Hamilton entered in when UF was in it's teens, not when it was just beginning. As far as the claims of other authors "copying" her, those are claims made by her alone. As someone who has read all of her books as well as most of the other female UF authors, I have to say that there is no similarity between them except for having similar material. As far as the similar material goes, the UF genre is composed of people writing about vampires, fairies, & magick in an urban setting. For someone to say that other authors such as Kim Harrison copied her b/c KH also writes about vampires & werewolves is foolish. That's like saying that LKH has a trademark on any & all UF subjects. That's like saying that anyone that writes about elves is ripping off Tolkien or that anyone who writes about science is ripping off Michael Criton. I agree that there should be more about her, but to be honest... the critic's reviews are saying pretty much the same thing that the 'Negative Readers' thing is saying. The majority of reviews are not good. LKH's quality has taken a steep nosedive in the past few years. As far as biographical info goes, this is all that people are able to verify. LKH is somewhat closed lipped about her personal life & many have found conflicting stories in what she HAS told us. For instance, she's given a few different accounts of her college life & what she studied. Unfortunately the only stuff that tends to get posted are puff pieces such as the "Hamilton-esque" claims, claims that were only made by the author herself & a personal blog where someone blogged about what LKH said. Unless an author themselves say that they were trying to emulate her, then there's no basis in the author's claims. I deleted that since I took exception to those claims for reasons listed above. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

But if what you say is true, why isn't THAT in the article? I was thinking more that she was an early, and the most popular, writer of paranormal romance, not UF. Having only one section criticising her later books, without even a section telling us which are her most important books, what genre they are in, what their initial reception was, etc, makes this article look dominated by a minor topic. And the fact that she is the sort of writer that coins neologisms making herself sound more important is also interesting - why delete that?Yobmod (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Because that begins to tread the VERY fine line between it being neutral & not being neutral. Also, the negative reader section sort of covers the fans' disillusion with the series. I'd be more interested in getting more neutral subject matter such as her personal life, hobbies, & any charities she supports before putting in more stuff that has a negative slant. I know that wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides, but at this point it's more negative than informative at this point. There's also the point that her using the term 'Hamilton-esque' really isn't relevant to the genre of UF or to her personal life. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

I commented once before that I thought we should have some trivial matters listed in here, like her dogs or musical tastes (or I mentioned how she researches/her friends that help, but that was shot down). I'm looking at Mercedes Lackey's wiki entry and it reads very neutrally, yet I'm surprised it doesn't mention her love for birds... at any rate, SHE has been targeted with negative fans (see any reference to "Last Straw") as well -not b/c her writing style has a *ahem* "changed" though- and it's barely brushed on in the entry. I'm not sure whether I think it should be lessened in this entry or if it should have a section since it IS such a dramatic change/topic. Bekkie (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I appreciate that you are being diplomatic and constructive in the best Wikipedia traditions. Certainly it would be useful to mention less controversial aspects of Hamilton such as her research. However, that avoids the central problem: editors who are hostile to her writing have essentially "taken over" this article -- there's nothing neutral about it. Consider, slurring editors, my POV: I don't remember reading any of her books, and I was STILL offended by your biased language.

The books sell. That must mean that very many people see virtue in her books. That much, slurring editors, wouldn't you agree, is an obvious fact, and the one the Wikipedia article should address FIRST, and in MOST DETAIL. In contrast to, I suppose millions, who bought her books, expressing their interest with their money and their time, one slurring editor used as support, for example, two threads on amazon.com. I.e., the opinions of a few people -- from a source that is not considered a reliable Wikipedia reference.

So the books are about "gratuitous sexual encounters"? Popular media isn't saturated with sex? You, slurring editor of one of the paragraphs, are in a position to decide what sex is gratuitous? These subjective statements -- without reliable references -- do not belong in an encyclopedia, let alone one that avoids open bias. Hence I have removed your paragraph that is almost exclusively original research, supported by unreliable references.67.169.127.176 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the change in writing section is worth keeping (although it would be better if it could be broadened - has it not affected any other of her books apart from AB?). It's not that it needs lessening, just the rest needs a lot of expanding. I think i counted 6 interviews and 2 websites from LKH linked in the article - there must be something in them about her! She has legions of fans, and is a consistant bestseller, fan criticism should at least be balanced by noting this. Not being a fan (I didn't wait around for the books to go downhill ;-), i can't provide much in the way of info myself.Yobmod (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling other writers "Hamilton-esque" is certainly an interesting part of her professional life. Where is the NPOV in "LKH has referred to some other writers of UF, such as xxx and yyy, as being 'Hamilton-esque'"? Even reviewers have mentioned her imitators, though i've not seen that specific word. Trying to reach a NPOV article by excluding cited info that you feel paints her in a bad light is not the way to goYobmod (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My vote was only for more trivial info to be added on here, I'm staying out of "Hamilton-esque" whatever and I don't see it mentioned on the article. HOWEVER, bringing up current article, some of those footnotes don't work anymore, so.... they probably shouldn't be cited/used. Broken links: 1 and 7. PLUS, while I got involved into the whole non-trivial issue (sigh), can I throw in my vote that I don't think in a FACTUAL article there should be forum comments? They're not really factual, they're OPINIONATED. I'd personally just keep LKH's blog about Negative Readers and scrap the rest, let the wikireader decide what the author meant by it. However, then the article will only be like 8 sentences long :/ Bekkie (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The forums are to show that some readers have these opinions. It is not stating that "the writing is bad", it says "some readers say that the writing is bad". Actual reviews would be better though.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I added 3 reviews stating much the same: that the later books are all about sex, and boring. Might need the section to be split into "Critical reception" and Author vs. xxx if it gets much longer.Yobmod (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Love, hate, fear, and betrayal

This article is upsetting. Historically, in the development of the article, there have been wild swings between dissenting opinions, many motivated by deep emotion. There are those who read the books and love them, those who hate them, those who used to love them, but don't appreciate changes in the author's style and feel "betrayed".

Wiki isn't the place to justify emotional positions -- indeed, that's really a contradiction in terms, isn't it? Emotion isn't logically based. It is fair to say that Hamilton arouses public controversy. But that can be said in a couple sentences -- with an appropriate, reliable third-party reference.

Editors, as an exercise, try writing a couple sentences that support an opinion you *do not* personally agree with. If you can find something that doesn't support your overall feelings, that you nonetheless find inarguable...that's exactly the kind of statement that belongs in Wikipedia.

67.169.127.176 (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All this has been discussed at length and dealt with. The article is more neutral today than it has been in a year. And, before you start doling out LKH-esque advice to the editors here, why not create an account and become more than just an anonymous ISP representing the article subject's POV? That would be refreshing. LiPollis (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is exactly that is has NOT been dealt with. To my mind, the outstanding neutrality tag suggests the same. Over the past weeks, editors seem to still be engaged in a "well I think her writing is lousy" ... "well I don't" argument. (And using poor sources. The support for "unconvincing" and "exploitation" verbiage was a 13 page thread in amazon.com!)

I gave editors the same advice that I would give any editor or writer: don't write non-fiction emotionally if you want to be credible to most of your readers.

As for anonymous IP...well...you might be able to guess. Wiki policy and the article facts should speak for themselves. They don't require a "personality" to make them true. 67.169.127.176 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For a better understanding of the history of the changes to this article, I would suggest that you go back to the history of changes and select one version of the article for every month over the past year or so and you'll see the evolution to which I was referring. the article has ping-ponged back and forth from hagiography to extremely negative. It is, at this point, perhaps the most neutral it has ever been. As for comments on comments about the article, I think we may be getting away from the purpose of the Talk Page entirely which is supposed to be about improving the article . Please remember, Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Thanks.LiPollis (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An impartial professional editor (I've worked professionally with a number) could change this article into one suitable for an encyclopedia in 30 minutes. There's no reason to go "back-and-forth" on anything. If Wiki is not a chatroom, neither is it a writer's workshop. The majority of people come to read an article. They don't know or care about the article history. In the "Negative Readers" section, LKH's position is basically "If you don't like my books, don't read them, I'll cry all the way to the bank." The rest of the paragraph is not "neutral", except in the sense of being so namby-pamby and haphazard it's difficult to disagree with.

The dozen-odd references are almost exclusively interviews with LKH. Two or three are enough. What is needed is citations from The New York Times, the Library Journal, Newsweek -- from professional critics. Not Wiki editors trying to twist her words from interviews and amazon.com fan threads. That's a chatroom process for you, if anything is.

I agree there's no point in belaboring this. You've made your point, and I've made mine. My opening comment in this article was simply to encourage editors to find a wider meaning for "neutrality". 67.169.127.176 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Current version sounds neutral to me. References aren't the best, but no-one contests that many fans have being saying this for a long time. removing the first paragraph masde it much more POV in LKH's favor. Should say what the criticisms have been, and her response, which it does. Now section has onfo on fan criticism, her response, and continuing sales: is any viewpoint not represented?. As i don't see any NPOV, i rmvd the tagYobmod (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put the POV tag there, I was agreeing with another editor. But I am putting it back. LKH has millions of readers. She's an established writer for solid reasons. Those reasons need to be presented in this article, and they are not. That is POV. The sources given for that deleted paragraph are INVALID. Wiki cannot cite unknown readers commenting in an unmoderated amazon.com thread. You guys are really pushing it. When people criticize Wikipedia for being unreliable, this is just what they are talking about. You're breaking Wiki rules and guidelines to further personal agendas.

I think her writing is mediocre at best. But I'm willing to step back and be impartial to let VALID critics who appreciate her work present their case. Apparently, you aren't. 67.169.127.176 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

At least 2 editors have worked on this - so there is no consensus to delete it, apart from your POV. I'm fine with having the forums replaced with fact tags, but not complete removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurell K. Hamilton article:
please do not post chat about her forum here

Please keep in mind that this page is reserved for the discussion of the Wikipedia article on Laurell K. Hamilton and it is not the place to post questions about the internal disputes going on over at her forum. There is not currently a wikipedia article about the LKH forum but if someone chooses to create one, then THAT might be a place for such discussions. Until such time as there is an article about her forum, please be helpful and confine your comments here to issues pertaining to the biographical article on Laurell K. Hamilton and how it can be improved. Thanks! LiPollis (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias tendency is not tolerated in Wikipedia. If the mention banning of the negative is not archived as well then necessary precautions will be taken against biased people. Thanks! Astronauttothemoon (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Positive readers are being banned now.

I think that there needs to be some mention about how POSITIVE fans of the books are being banned from her forum. The moderators of her forum are mostly the negative fans; but because they have the most Reps, they have hence become moderators and are actively banning and or editing comments by the positive fans of the books. There are hardly any positive fans coming in there any more. However, negative fans who don't hesitate to ask for spoilers any time a new book is about to come out, and after the book has come out, doesnt miss a beat to critisize it are most prevalant.Zorro444 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is enough in the article about her positive and negative fans and their forums. they are not notable enough to have any more coverage. It just osunds like typical internet squabbling, which could be added for every subject article in WP! :-).Yobmod (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to come across of any mention of the positive readers being banned in her forum in this article. Any one willing to point it out will help to improve this article even more.Zorro444 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless LKH is doing the banning, it is really not about her. It's not her fault that crazed internet moderators exist on every forum ever created. This is not an article about LKH forums, it is about the person.Yobmod (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The fourth section on this discussion page mentions the banning of negative readers. This comment was posted on the 15th of June, 2007; a whole year and two months before this very comment.Whether this article is about LKH's forum or not, it has been set a long time before this. About a year and two months before this to be precise.59.152.90.71 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing i can find about banning of anyone in this article. this is not an alternative LKH discusion forum for people who have been banned elsewhere, it is the talk page to imrove the article. Neither banning of postive NOR negative fans from this non-notable forum should be in this article.Yobmod (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough already - if LKH and/or her representatives who often come here want to start a wikipedia article about the LKH forum and it's insane internal politics, well fine - then do so. None of that belongs in this article. The Negative fan info that does belong in this article pertains ONLY to remarkable and notable statements issued publicly by LKH herself. If LKH releases some kind of Press statement whining about the takeover of her forum by her enemies, well that might warrant inclusion here for the sheer wack factor but even then - it's typical internet nitpicking and back-biting. I'd be disinclined to see it as worthy of inclusion.LiPollis (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Laurell k Hamilton’s personal assistant/representative Darla also contributes to the banning. If anyone complains to her that they are being attacked by other members she tells them simply to use the ignore button of the forum which can block the comments of the person harassing them, but only to them. This frustrates many of the members. Zorro444 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been an increasing amount of complaint in her message board that people who like the books are being banned. It has been hotly debated over there that any positive comment about her books are highly criticized by the few negative readers, so much so that many of the positive fans were being attacked for their liking of the books. If any of those fans retaliate then their comments are edited by the Moderators and as punishment some rep points are taken away and if they keep on retaliating enough then they are completely banned. The negative fans however are never banned these days, and some have incurred so many reps that they in turn have become Moderators and are actively doing the banning. A lot of the Moderators don’t even hesitate to state their dislike of the books in one comment and then state in the next that they are Moderators, and then state in the next one still that they would like some new information about a new book or they will die of waiting for it to come out.

Positive fans that still exist are stating that because of the negativity they hardly go there any more and just enjoy the books from afar.Astronauttothemoon (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with this article or this talk page which is supposed to be reserved for comments about the article? Answer = nothing. Please cease bringing LKH Forum issues over here where they do not belong. Off-topic comments such as these do not contribute to the improvement of the article and under wikipedia guidelines, editors are within their rights to delete such comments from this page or to archive them. I suggest archiving any and all comments that are in effect, chat spillover from her forums.LiPollis (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Would that also include the seventh post in this page which states the banning of negative members which was written more than one year ago and where no mention was being made about archiving it? Please answer, thank you. According to Wikipedia guidelines, editors are also within their rights to delete such comment that are pertained to be biased, contain personal attacks and false supposition about ones profession. For full viewing of these guidelines please click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Thank you everyone for your time. God bless. Astronauttothemoon (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Forums are not people, therefore cannot be the victim of personal attacks. Removing attacks can be done if they were against you, but as you were not here, that seems unlikely (ie impossible). No one here cares about your petty forum feuds. I've archived the old discusions on the page, so maybe newcomers will be more interested in improving the encylopedic coverage of the subject, which is LKH, not LKH forums.Yobmod (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Forum members are people. Forums are not people as they are a set of programmers that exist within a machine. No one is attacking a machine or any people. Banning of negative readers was mentioned a year ago and why were they not archived? If the negative comments are not archived as well then necessary precautions will be taken to those with a bias tendency. Thanks!Astronauttothemoon (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a talk page, it isn't covered by NPOV. It is archived when it gets too long. Archiving doesn't stop anyone from reading anything, so is meaningless. But i'm archiving this as it is unproductive, and contributes nothing to the encylopedia.Yobmod (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

charity work

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

Please add former husband, dates, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado (talk • contribs) 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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

• 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.

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

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

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"

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)

Moved short stories and novellas to their own section

I've moved the novellas out of the section with the main book titles. The reason for this is that these were books that were released in between the main book and as such don't have a conventional number like 4 or 5. This wouldn't be so bad except that they mess up the numbering scheme of the novels, so that Dead Ice won't show up as 24, but 28. This could be confusing - especially since the articles for the books will give the number that the publisher assigns it - so I've moved the novellas to a different section. I figure that any short stories that are Anita Blake specific should be mentioned here as well.

In other words, I moved these just to make sure that the numbering is the same as the numbers that the publishers give the books. Wikipedia doesn't have a way of giving half numbers, so this is pretty much the only way. We could go to just a *, but that'd mean that we'd have to put the numbers to the right, which would get cluttered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• On a side note I need to stress that "Beyond the Ardeur", which was part of the 2004 anthology Cravings, should not be placed in the short story section since it wasn't a short story but rather the first few chapters of Incubus Dreams, so it was more of a preview of the upcoming book. This section should be for stories that aren't part of one of the main books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Laurell K. Hamilton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Biography assessment rating comment == WikiProject Biography Assessment Very nearly a B. I'd like to see dispute(s) cleared up and maybe a photo. The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurell K. Hamilton. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurell K. Hamilton. 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/20060925125456/http://www.wotmania.com/fantasymessageboardshowmessage.asp?MessageID=163714 to http://www.wotmania.com/fantasymessageboardshowmessage.asp?MessageID=163714

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laurell K. Hamilton. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.laurellkhamilton.org/works/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016021507/http://www.laurellkhamilton.org/2006/12/dear-negative-reader/ to http://www.laurellkhamilton.org/2006/12/dear-negative-reader/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127122553/http://www.laurellkhamilton.org/2013/10/a-present-from-me-to-you-because-our-government-is-behaving-badly/ to http://www.laurellkhamilton.org/2013/10/a-present-from-me-to-you-because-our-government-is-behaving-badly/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)