Talk:Anne Rice

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Don't gloss over her pornographic novels. Did she write them while she was an atheist or what? --Ed Poor Talk 15:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Answering that one would have been easier if you hadn't deleted the article with the various sources, but from what I recall (and without doing research from scratch), (1) her porno novels were early works and (2) her full return to Christianity was fairly recently (after most of her vampire stories which made her so famous, I would assume).
Going by very blurry memory, I think she stated that she gladly left the Vampire Chronicles behind her now and would only write Christianity-related things, but that she didn't explicitly distance herself from her earlier works (which would include the porn). I'd look it up, but without an article to put that info in, it's sort of a moot point, really. --AlanS 15:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps we should delete all articles about atheism and liberals, in addition to deleting the Anne Rice article content. Apparently the only thing Anne Rice did in her entire life was become an atheist.
Less sarcasm, please.--Ed Poor Talk 16:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
My apologies. But seriously, adding encyclopaedic content to an article does not constitute "puffing it up". The old version seemed to me to be relatively free of bias.--JZim 16:27, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Rice's conversion appears to be a marketing move, half-hearted at best, seeking to sell novels to a wider audience while garnering attention. The last thing we should be doing is advertising her through a needlessly lengthly article, in my humble opinion. RodWeathers 16:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Anne Rice announced she was burying (no pun intended) Lestat forever and had absolutely no desire to ever write another vampire book. Since when does one go from a lucrative movie and book franchise to taking a chance on Christian novels if their goal is to boost sales? Learn together 21:01, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for your support, Rod, but we can't make unfounded accusations. Do you have any information to back up your conjecture that she "only made the statement to boost sales"? --Ed Poor Talk


Working Together

I have put serious time into crafting this page and I return to find it gutted. This is ridicules because Ed Poor doesn't like her, the page has turned to bunk. She is relevent for two reasons, one former atheist. Second reason, her works after conversion are remarkable enough to be cited by the Catholic Church. ....I know this is a collaborative project that anyone can change. But to absolutely ruin this page because somebody doesn't like her is wrong and not in the best interest of Conservapedia.--jpatt 19:22, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Where was she cited by the Catholic Church? I didn't notice it when I looked at the article. Perhaps a more prominent placement of the citation was warranted? --Ed Poor Talk 20:56, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Ed you goofed in blanking this article. It was well written, and monitored, by one of our strongest contributors. We are sysops, therefore we should be the ones to protect and nurture our quality editors. They're the front lines who will propel this site. By being in positions of authority, we are servants. Whether or not you like her, she has had a fascinating life -- and rebirth. Her recent works are villified now precisely because the darkness she fed on for so many years isn't in her stories any longer. We should be the first ones writing about her. Isn't this exactly what Andy likes to see? Learn together 21:01, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for restoring the article. I believe that it's balanced and more structured than the stub that had replaced it, which (in my humble opinion) makes it a good basis for editing. --AlanS 21:18, 22 November 2008 (EST)
He's right. It's our responsibility to treat our valued editors with respect. That was not respectful. Learn together 21:01, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Am I allowed to re-insert my two posts Ed removed after he blocked me? I'd normally do it without asking, but I don't want to be blocked again. --AlanS 21:14, 22 November 2008 (EST)
If you believe your information is valid and tastefully done, then you are allowed to reinsert it. If Ed states areas where he has difficulty with what you put, then you will have to work with him at that time to find an acceptable solution. Learn together 21:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for addressing the issue I created. I feel like we shouldn't promote her past works which would include listing book titles, as I did originally (even though the author would disagree), eventually ISBN. Agreed removal? --jpatt 21:22, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Hm? Do you mean removing the Vampire Chronicles books from her (partial) bibliography? I removed the porn titles early on (for the sake of the students who use this site), but the Vampire Chronicles books define her career. She established her fanbase with those books, so they should be listed... --AlanS 21:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I meant my two talk page posts. My article edits were limited to partially reverting Ed's start-from-scratch approach. Could you check the history and see if restoring the talk posts would get me blocked? --AlanS 21:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

One of the reasons I like starting over is that it provokes remarks like the following:

  • Her recent works are villified now precisely because the darkness she fed on for so many years isn't in her stories any longer.

That sentence should be in the article! --Ed Poor Talk 21:28, 22 November 2008 (EST)

You could have provoked such remarks without (1) suddenly deleting and restoring the article (after my implied protest), (2) wiping the restored article and replacing it with a stub, (3) removing my discussion posts which protested your action and highlighted how you acted without discussion and then accused me of not discussing, and (4) blocking me for trying to restore hours of hard and solid work by me and Jpatt. Though thanks to Henry, Learn Together and you for kindly reconsidering most of those points.
Seriously, this is what the talk pages are there for. You can start a discussion. There was no need to grab our attention by completely wiping hard work.
As for the sentence itself, it sounds somewhat prosaic, and it would need sources for the "villified" part at least. I agree with the general sentiment (and think that her recent pro-Christian novels wouldn't sell as well if she hadn't established a large readership base through the Vampire Chronicles), but the sentence needs work. But that's what we're here for, right? --AlanS 21:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Ah, I see you just wiped my past contributions to the article... again... This time because they're "gossipy". Yeah, sure, whatever then. You guys have fun here. --AlanS 21:40, 22 November 2008 (EST)