cloudsinvenice:

i-want-my-iwtv:

from Anne Rice’s FB page (8/7/14):

“Do you think that I, as an author, should have a press agent who controls and ultimately filters every public utterance I make? Should this page reflect only statements by me which have been approved and packaged by a press agent? Should all the public utterances of authors be controlled by press agents? —- Think what this would mean for this page. No more spontaneous conversational posts, no more immediate reactions to news stories brought to the page, offering them to others for comment; no more immediate and spontaneous reactions to current events; no more up to the moment participation in debates and discussions; and no more answering of questions every day and all during the day. Would this be a good thing? Is this what you want? —— I’m asking because some one seriously suggested this to me yesterday (in an Amazon Forum Discussion). I (and all authors) should be controlled by press agents. The person seemed to be perfectly sincere, and neither cynical nor disingenuous. The person said she was trying to “help” me. The person advised me that I was a “brand” and that I was damaging my brand. Of course this person obviously didn’t approve of the things I was saying in the Forum discussion, but the larger point seemed to be that authors should not make controversial statements publicly at all, that it is not appropriate for them to do so, that all communication from authors should be filtered properly by others and controlled. The person apparently believes authors are not competent to judge their public utterances on their own. And there was the implication that once authors become known, they forfeit the prerogative or privilege of open and spontaneous participation in public forums. ——- Well, I think you know what I think about this, and I think you know that this page is in no danger of becoming the packaged utterances of a brand. But I would sincerely like to know what you think, and what sort of communication you value with the authors whom you personally read.”

I actually enjoy reading her questions and opinions on things, even if I don’t agree with them. It’s intriguing, for better or worse. 

Same here. I have to wonder whether in this case someone was responding to some old Amazon rant-type thing. And regardless of the hair-tearing frustration of a lot of stuff she’s said, overall I do think she gains as many readers as she loses from her web presence – perhaps more, since the non-fannish readers (i.e. not those hit by her legal attacks/au fait with the Amazon rant etc.) will exist in higher numbers than the fannish ones. So the person may have been wrong and right at the same time…

^Agreed on all points. Maybe it was someone anticipating AR’s explosive rebuttals rational and careful responses to the upcoming terrible and offensive rational and careful reviews of Prince Lestat.