Talk:Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter

message: Perhaps someone could include commentary on the significant decline of quality of these books over the course of the series?
:Unlikely, as that is a subjective statement. If there are sourced editorial reviews that suggest this, it might be mentioned. — Jeff Q (talk) 29 June 2005 11:06 (UTC)
Yes, in fact I would hugely disagree. I would say that if anything, the books have gotten better. Xinoph 17:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yea Gods.
*This is hilarious. It's all personal opinion. I'm so over hearing everyone bashing Laurell K Hamilton and the way the series has developed. D'you think maybe there's a reason for it? Such as, this is exactly how she wanted it? Honestly.. if you don't like it, don't read it!
Please, please do not say "if you don't like it, don't read it". It's not the attitude that any of us.. "critics" lets say, agree with. Most of us absolutely love the first few books. However, we think there is definitely a decline in the plot/characterisation as the series moves on. We KNOW that LKH can write better, and we simply don't understand why she doesn't (there's also miscellaneous stuff about her blog, but I digress). If not a section on the "quality decline" perhaps a section on the development of fan views.
: Please, please stop discussing personal opinions about this series. This is a discussion page for the content of the article, not a blog. Please also consider that nobody on this page can accurately state who "us" is or claim (without sources) how many of "us" think one way or another about any subject. And please remember to sign and timestamp your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your text  (which Wikipedia converts into a dated signature) as a common courtesy and an aid to understanding who is saying what when. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Series quality decline

message: It occurred to me that a wiki page about a very popular series of novels should probably have more than a bare description of characters and the books in it. For instance, a description of conflicts or themes in the books might be in order. However, that seems like something that should come from reference to literary criticism. E.g. One might reference a critique of the novels' attempt to explore the issue of what makes someone human (the later repeated notion that Anita is no longer sure what is human or not). Or also, some description as to why (presumably from critics) the series is popular.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any easily (any google searches seem to only turn up review pages on commercial sites). Is someone else perhaps better at this kind of search? If I was near a university, I would do a lit search, although the odds seem slim that the books have been reviewed in anything but things like the nytimes or such. Most everything I can find (such as the "editorial reviews" on amazon) are pretty much very shallow or just fawning ("best blake yet!" type comments)
R343L 14:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing literary criticism is appropriate — if it comes from a reliable, published source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Any website that allows ordinary users to post opinions, however well-written and even accurate, is not considered suitable source material for Wikipedia. (That's why Wikipedia cannot use its own articles as direct sources for other articles; we editors are only supposed to be composing material based on reputable sources.) Far too often, people seem to think — incorrectly — that if a there's a lot of Google buzz, something is citable. Find solid published sources and cite them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is considered a reliable, authoritative source on the literary merits of pulp genre fiction? I’m not saying present the decline in quality as a fact, but as a widespread, and not insignificant perception among many in the series’ fanbase. I have seen many, many articles on Wikipedia that have segments on notable fanbase reactions to certain developments within works of fiction or entertainment, without making any judgments about the merits of the opinions being discussed. Similar approaches are taken with weightier, more controversial topics such as abortion or gun control: opinions that are significant because of their prevalence are addressed and discussed without judgment being passed upon their content. The existence of these opinions is an easily verifiable fact, nor are they a trivial minority. Something along the lines of “Around book 8, some fans began to decry what they claimed to be a significant drop in the quality of the Anita Blake series, leading to a split within the fan community that continues to this day” is perfectly appropriate, and I would argue that this article is not really complete without something to that effect. Ross Taben 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because one group of the fan-base believes that the series has begun to decline around books 8 and 9 doesn't mean the fan-base as a whole believes that. I speak for a group that consists of me and about four other people that believe that the series is still going well, and that the next book in the series, Danse Macabre, will bring the series to a new height. Laurell K. Hamilton surely knows how to write, if her books have done this well for this long. Surely, she must be doing something right. Though, as you mention, the existence of opinions is widespread, these opinions cannot be taken as fact, for they are merely that, opinions. If I told you that I and a group of individuals that I know believed that spell casters and magick casters were alive and kicking, could you accept that as fact? No, you can't, because it is merely an opinion, and as such cannot be proven wrong or right. Give me substantial evidence that critics believe that the quality of the series is declining, and then I might listen to you, but I believe the topic that we were discussing was expanding the page to include more information about the characters and the books themselves.--Aeris of Iniquity 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I said again. Nowhere did I make the claim that the fanbase as a whole has abandoned the books, or that opinions about their quality are anywhere near universal. I did not even make a claim about which opinion is more common. And I would also point out that many very bad books are written and bought so Hamilton's continued financial success is by no means an indication of quality, though I suppose sales numbers would be appropriate to include in this article if for no other reason than to provide as much information about the books as possible. You also seem to misunderstand the nature of opinion; they most certainly can be proven wrong. However, proving an opinion wrong or right is not what I'm aiming to do, because that would require a fairly lengthy debate on the philosophy of aesthetics and how the principle of aesthetic absolutism applies to fiction, which is just not something I want to do, and isn't appropriate for this page anyhow. But the existence of these opinions, and their popularity, is an incontrovertible fact. Ross Taben 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I concede the fact that bad books are written, and financial revenue is earned, I still believe that you can't prove an opinion wrong or right, if simply put that opinions are a basis of non-fact, but of a fact that the person gains by their own knowledge. That, at least, is my own opinion on opnions. About the fanbase abandoning the books, I did not say that wither. I merely stated that you are claiming that the opinion about the series decline quote "as a widespread, and not insignificant perception among many in the series’ fanbase,"unquote. Sales numbers, and possibly a mention of a best'seller listing number would be good to include. To that, I must agree. But, please, I am a high school student, and as such, the principle of aesthetic absolutism is kind of over my head at the moment. But, if you wouldn't mind explaining it, I wouldn't mind listening. Aeris of Iniquity 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary criticism 

message: Er, vampires and supernatural beings exist. Ok. Now, let's get an overall view of what happens in the series. Unless these books are less developed than Goosebumps, a single paragraph should not be the only main-page content on the plot.
69.175.87.236 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Near-complete Lack of Plot Analysis

message: Is this a series of books? As in, a continuous story where I need to read the books in order to understand things or is each book a seperate story in the Anita Blake universe? 132.203.54.180 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a series.  Should we clarify this on the page? JenKilmer 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think it would prove worthwhile. -- 132.203.54.43 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the books are a chronological series. I know that because I made the mistake of reading Blue Moon first. Didn't know what the hell was going on before the first few chapters were over...65.223.58.226 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the books set in order? 

message: :Image:AnitaGP 01 cvrB.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AnitaGP 01 cvrB.jpg

message: Noticed there wasn't yet an article for Affliction, so I went ahead and wrote one. Inviting anybody who watches this page to help expand it; it needs a cover image and possibly a few more references. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While my initial findings were of the two trade reviews and single article, I had hoped that other editors would help expand the article as well. I've since found more sources and added them, along with more information about the different versions of the book. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Understood. I was able to find more reviews from non-social media outlets. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks! The searching was a bit frustrating, since there's an ample number of blog reviews, but those don't count for notability. Thankfully there were better sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affliction 

message: For The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, there is a table of the books where it says when each book was published as hardcover and when as paperback and gives the respective ISBN-13. I would like to suggest such a table for the Anita Blake series as well.--92.226.149.31 (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for the books 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain.  This series would qualify.  Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?