What's up with Hamilton's continuous talk in interviews that she thinks of her characters as real people to the point almost buying them Christmas presents, mourning Philip's death as she would a real life friend's, ect.? I can see her saying something like, "I try to envision them reacting as an actual person would," when questioned on how she writes their personalities, but in some blogposts it seems as though she believes these Anita and Jean-Claude to be people in real life, and it's a little creepy.
A lot of writers (and actors, too) treat their character's like real people. It's a way to keep them real on the page (or screen), make them seem less like mobile props just there to serve the story. A lot of authors have had moments where they wanted a story to go in a particular direction, only to realize the character's won't bend that way, and a lot of actors have moments where they realize that their character would never say or do something the story requires of them. Hamilton make take it Up to Eleven, but it's hardly uncommon.
Wolves are monogamous how can a large group of people with a strong link to wolves accept that their queen is...well?
Humans are generally monogamous are we? Or is it just our society and culture that has made us this way? There have been numerous societies throughout history that have been happily polygamous or bigamous, including a few that still exist in the Middle East. And don't forget that it has only been about fifty years since free love was a thing in America; it failing to take hold is not definitive proof of how naturally monogamous humans are, as things like religion, STD's and the conservative values of the time all had a hand.
Also, it's been shown repeatedly that Anita and Richard do NOT get along anymore.
With the latest book (Bullet) and a brand new Character Derailment on Richard's part, they're chummy again. And by 'chummy,' I mean Richard has finally joined the Cult of Anita, and is now comfortable- after five books of vitriol- with worshiping her and throwing his own emotional (and sexual) needs aside for a grand ol' time of Mary Sue-ish one-way monogamy.
Also note the key phrase 'breeding pair'. Generally, animals will stick together for the length of time that it takes to rear a child. After that, they will move on. It is, in effect, serial monogamy.
Why has this woman never heard of more long-term birth control? She repeatedly blacks out, gets knocked out, gets kidnapped, or spends time recovering from injuries, yet ties herself to the one method that will become mostly useless if her schedule is disrupted - and claims she DOESN'T want a child?! Get a ring, a patch, a shot, or an implant - all regularly available wherever she gets her pill.
Better yet, why doesn't she get her tubes tied? No birth control is 100% effective and with all the sex she has, her risk of unplanned pregnancy is not inconsiderable.
A fair point until about Incubus Dreams or so (and probably explained by Anita's denial issues) but given the accelerated healing Anita now has, any kind of internal birth control might go badly, and the patch or shot might not work. Getting her tubes tied is possible, but while we know lycanthropes can get vasectomies, like with the internal birth control we don't know what the healing factor might do if she gets her tubes tied.
Blake's idea of sanitation after magically-induced sex with multiple strangers is a wet nap. How does that get anyone close to clean?
It doesn't, but given that after the incidents in question it was the best thing to hand in the short-term, it's better than nothing at all.
IJBM: Jean-Claude is Costume Porn guy. Every time he can, he's dressing as many people up like dolls as possible. It's clear that he likes high quality clothing and knows a lot about it. So why is the lace he picks out constantly referred to as "scratchy" or "not soft?" One of the marks of high quality lace is that it's soft to the touch and won't abrade skin. It's probably just poor research but it still bugs me.
Despite living in a world where the power of faith is literal, meaning that items of faith (crosses, crucifixes, Stars of David, etc.) in the hands of only the faithful repel vampires, Anita constantly bemoans that religion is on the decline due to the end of The Masquerade. Apparently people, when given demonstrable proof that God/gods exist, will decide to disbelieve even more, since vampires can tell them what happens after death, if you become a vampire. And why trolls (which are nothing more than another type of primate) are studied in a paranatural studies course.
Actually that's somewhat of a simplification of what's happening. It's not the power of a deity but rather the faith and belief of the person themselves that counts. There is mention in the books of a yuppie warding off a vampire... with his wallet (because he worships/has faith in/whatever the power of the almighty dollar). Moreover, as it's a matter of 'true' faith simply joining a religion would be a meaningless act as far as the power of it was concerned - it's not about lipservice it's about what's inside. It's somewhat of a parallel to magical ability. Moreover, there are many creatures that exist in the universe that predate the rise of any modern religion as well as, you know, coming from various religions. Lastly, it's something the books only lightly touch upon. It's possible that religion is on the decline... because it's pretty darn easy to know who is truly faithful and who is merely paying lip service. Similarly, the book talks about a vampire church - thus some religions may be dying only to be replaced or stand side by side with new ones.
Anyone sensitive enough to see one can tell you that the soul exists, and three days after death it becomes inaccessible. On top of that, demons exist and can be repelled only by prayer, including prayer by non-believers. Granted, those both might be hard to prove, but either one should be enough to keep the creation science people in business for years.
The demon thing seemed to be something Anita knew off the top of her head, which suggests it's common knowledge among at least one of her sub-cultures. (Presumably either animators, preternatural biologist or church-goers.) However, the "sensitive enough" part is implied to be by people with amazing innate ability and possibly only amazing innate necromantic ability. Unless people can be trained to sense souls, it's pretty unlikely you could get more than a handful of people to testify that they thought they could sense souls.
The fact that the soul disappears three days after death is proof that humans have an immortal soul? And you could pull a Harry Dresden on the latter and say that the demons are allergic to faith.
Vampires are repelled by faith regardless of form, demons are held off by Christian prayer, regardless of faith. As for the soul, if you confirmed the existence of a soul separate and apart from the meat activity of the brain, I would think that would help religious arguments, not reduce them.
How could Anita possibly know that what she senses are souls? Her certain identification may well be based on nothing more than traumatic early experiences with death, childhood faith and rationalisation.
Formal membership in organized religion, but not faith, may be in decline. For instance, I believe that in the world set up, an atheist who is a Secular Humanist and/or Universal Unitarian may be able to repel a vampire holding a Happy Human/Flame and Chalice because of faith in humanity. Probably an easier example of faith to call on might be a deist who is a Universal Unitarian. I could actually see how in the world of Anita Blake, a lot more people who were once staunchly aligned with an organized, formal religion would become Pagans, Deists, Unitarian Universalist, etc. All of a sudden, it starts to seem that no one organized religion has the answers and things aren't as clear cut as they seem.
I wonder if this means that the members of the Vampire Church, were they able to create their own symbol, could repel other vampires? Or would they be unable to touch/stand even a symbol of religious faith they created themselves?
It just bugs me that I can't keep all of the (human/vampire/animal) (master/servant) triumvirates straight.
If memory serves, as of book 15 there were four triumvirates (written here in vamp-necro-were order): (1) Jean-Claude - Anita - Richard; (2) Damien - Anita - Nathaniel; (3) Padma (the Beastmaster Council guy) - Carswell - Gideon; (4) (deceased) Sabin (the half-rotted vamp) - Dominic - Cassandra. Now master/servant relations... these are complicated indeed :)
In Bullet, Anita mentions that the werelions are going to be bringing a couple of young werelions for her...young enough that she thinks they're virgins. Her thought on this is "I was so not going to be his first." This Troper is male, and understands that women do think differently on the whole subject of virginity than men do (for good reasons, as well as cultural conditioning) but—-what would be her objection to being someone's first partner? Is she still that insecure about her charms, or her skills? Does she think that he'll be turned off to sex forever after one night in her arms? What goes on here? * puzzled*
This troper can only guess because Anita's Character Derailment is ridiculous, but it could be because she finds it morally wrong to take the virginity of someone she's not in love with, though it's not like her moral compass points North any more. I like to think she didn't want to because he won't give her the hair-tearingly awesome sex she's apparently used to from every man in her one-way harem. But that's just me.
This Troper thinks it's the ardeur. Think about it. Master vampires with centuries of sexual experience, like Requiem, can be addicted to it. Most of the werelions aren't that powerful; there's a very good chance that if Anita feeds the ardeur off them, they'd become addicted, which is something she generally tries to avoid.
This Troper has a theory that someone's said something to Hamilton about the fact that her Self Insert has had sex with a sixteen year old boy, and she may be halfheartedly attempting damage control. In a recent appearance on a panel in Chicago, she, somewhat out-of-nowhere, insisted that she would never write YA because she's "not a pedophile." Wot? What does that have to do with YA Fiction? Charmingly, she then followed this up with a dig at the Twilight series- I can't even stand Twilight, but even I think it was uncalled for and petty.
How serious did she sound? She's commented that she finds it nigh impossible to write without dark aspects and sex, so it may have been a little Self-Deprecating Humor there. To the latter...dunno what she was making a dig at.
"I couldn't help myself; I apologize for that one," after a 'jab' that was noting that, yeah, she's not the only one to get inspiration from a dream, and knows what a good number of the audience was thinking. Also, upon watching that...she said she's not a pedophile as a very clear message for her agent to give to people who wanted her to write tween books (10-11 by their definition), and then suggesting that the 10- and 11-year-olds would move on to Anita Blake, or Merry Gentry. She didn't want to expose little kids to sex.
It's not a woman thing. It's an Anita thing. She said way back in the series that men are like ducklings and they imprint on their first lover. That's why Richard likes it rough, because he impressed on Raina (? The first lupa of the werewolves). Hamilton's views on sex and sexuality are hardly indicative of women as a whole.
...Because having sex for the first time actually is important? Honestly, would you have any trouble understanding if Anita said she didn't want to be a guy's First Kisswithout any feeling?
Maybe it's their prowess she's worried about?
I think so, too. Not the prowess in the sack: sex with Anita invokes dangerous magic, and even powerful guys can end up hopeleslly in love with her. So, newbies... they probably could have their mind fuses blown or something.
Probably that, with as many lines as Anita has crossed where her personal morality is concerned, she wants to cling to some of them, such as not fucking some random guy who's never had sex before just because someone else wants it to happen. Also, because Laurell K. Hamilton is running out of thing for Anita to angst about.
Remember, the faithfulness part is there he declines sex/ardeur feeding with Anita. Sounds OK... except that the situation at the time called for urgent magical boost from head honcho of weres, or else all the Jean-Claude's vampires, Jean-Claude himself included, would snuff it. Werelions and wereswans were the only options available. Seen in that light, it does look like a pretty dick move on the head lion part. YMMV, of course.
Out of curiosity, how much mileage-varying does it take for you to consider the supposed hero of a book having someone's innocent family killed to be fitting retribution for anything? Because I've got to say, most people who aren't sociopaths would think someone had crossed the line even if it was just eye-for-an-eye on the whole family-murdering thing, let alone putting a handful of blood-sucking fiends the hero personally rather liked at risk.
Notice that the question was whether the lions' Rex is a dick, not whether Anita's actions were justified. That said, let's consider the sequence of events. (1) The Rex withholds his help in a life-or-death (or, well, undeath-or-death) situation, thus breaking his promise to the weres' coalition. (2) Subsequently the coalition kicks lions out, which means no help for lions in the future. (3) Anita engages in a magical orgy and blacks out. (4) When she comes to, she learns that Asher, Jean-Claude's lieutenant, have invited lions from Chicago to replace current lions' rulers. Now, granted, Anita could do the noble thing and say "OK, this Charlie Foxtrott was brought by one of ours, so let's help the lions one last time". She chose instead just to negotiate the lives of all the lions except the ruling family (IIRC, the Rex, his Regina, and Rex's brother). Not nice at all... but hardly heinous, I think.
So, Jean-Claude invited them to St. Louis to kill the current Rex and take over the pride, and Anita negotiates for the lives of everyone in the pride except the current Rex. So, she "negotiated" exactly what Jean-Claude offered in the first place? And "hardly heinous"? To invite mob hitmen to murder a family and take over the pride? Not to mention they've just invited The Mob to St. Louis. They aren't Pirates Who Don't Do Anything. They're the raping, murdering, prostituting, extorting, drug-selling Chicago MOB. If the police want to know who opened the doors for organized crime to come to town, they can look no further than Anita!
Pretty sure Jean-Claude just invited them to take over without specifying they couldn't kill anyone who wasn't in charge. (Or he gave Anita that impression so she'd have something to fine-tune.) Also, the "murder a family" part might be the legal take, but it's a legitimate move by werelion rules. Which admittedly suck, but still. Also, I got the impression that it was understood that they'd answer to the Coalition and/or Jean Claude, who wouldn't be happy with unnecessary criminal activity or not being in charge of it, respectively. Yes, Anita essentially killed three people for not being her buddies. But in doing so she reinforced the political position which allowed her to protect others, rather than adopting an entirely untenable one. Also, those three people had just abandoned her and her allies to near-certain death.
Its both a Moral Event Horizon on Anita's part and Values Dissonance. The different kinds of were groups dont function like human society. Democracy is nice but vampires and weres can be controlled by anyone more powerful. That Werelion Pride was functionally useless, requiring protection just to keep from being taken oven by other Werelions. In a world where Asskicking Equals Authority they sucked. Anita had the protection removed after the Rex had betrayed her, leaving Her and most of the Vampires to die rather than cheat on his wife. Thats another problem as monogamy isnt something that lions have. If anyone else has been leader of that Werelion Pride they likely would have a harem of woman, like real lion prides. Basically the guy was Too Dumb to Live as a werelion.
In Guilty Pleasures, Anita is basically told that Jean-Claude has permanently magically altered her very being in a way that vampires use to make someone there slaves, and she's not even a little upset about it.
If we go at it logically, he had just saved her life, so technically she shouldn't complain too loudly. Given that it's Anita, whom that wouldn't exactly bother, I'd say it was because she didn't fully understand. Once she figures out it allows him in her head—which, given she was surprised he got in her dreams, hadn't registered yet—she hits him at the next reasonable opportunity. She then tells him, in no uncertain terms, to back off. Anita was very upset about it.
Yeah, keep in mind, this was pre-NIC Anita, who still behaved with a semblance of rationality, and pre-Character Derailment Jean-Claude, who was still the Manipulative Bastard we knew and had PSL for loved.
Hamilton constantly puts her menfolk in little booty shorts. Men have body hair. It's just how it is. This is never even mentioned in passing, though- NO ONE seems to have any. Anita herself never even mentions shaving her legs. Is everyone in the Anitaverse going in for full-body electrolosis, or is this just another one of those Mary/Gary Stu-ish details?
I think that falls under the law of conservative detail.
It seems off though that every other physical aspect is described in lavish detail, down to eyelashes and the stitching on clothing, and like this has been forgotten. Especially since most of the men are shapeshifters- as in fur-bearing.
They're occasionally referred to as "bare," which I always took to mean hairless. For the females and those of Belle Morte's line, shaving makes sense, and for the werecreatures...well, I've always figured that goop was sticky. In other words, "Ow...ow...ow. Screw it, I'm getting rid of this stuff."
Hamilton apparently likes her men as they appear on the covers of romance novels, and isn't going to let a little thing like realism get in her way. ... Normally that last bit wouldn't come out so snarky, but y'know... it's Laurell Hamilton.
It's strange, but I have a brunette male friend who has arm and leg hari but no chest hair beyond a treasure trail, so maybe it can happen?
Anita's Power Copying of abilities. Has it been said WHY she keeps stealing abilities from people? I mean, as far we know, she's specifically a Black Magician Girl necromancer. This was not only her greatest power but also her species for Christ's sake. Her gaining a vampire servant? Okaay, I chalked that up to rare, but hey she IS a necromancer, and What's His Face is dead. It seemed semi-logical. Draining the life out of a vampire? Technically, raising the dead requires her to put life/magic into corpses anyway so it was reasonable enough. Hell, as creepy as it was/is, her developing and feeding the ardeur through vampires (instead of every maneverything breathinganything that moves) made sense even if it was weird on several levels. But healing folks through sex, calling jaguars, leopards, lions, tigers and men (oh my!) and effectively mind raping people? Where is that covered in necromancy and why has NO ONE ELSE in over FOUR MILLION YEARS figured out how to do all of those things and more? Besides the fact that she can now do practically everything under the sun and necromancy most definitely isn't everything under the sun (nor is it really under the sun), there's also her physical parameters. To my knowledge, Anita is Jean-Claude's human servant with three marks in her. While the final one will make her more or less immortal, shouldn't the other three have made her proof against pretty much ALL diseases including lycanthropy? Hell, if she gained the ability to call animals thanks to Richard and Jean-Claude, shouldn't she have been calling wolves, dogs, bears and other types of canines? Which brings me to something else that just occurred to me: if a necromancer's greatest power is over the dead, then why do people still refer to Anita as one? At this point, she's closer to a witch or enchantress.
In order: What you said about taking life force actually is a viable explanation for the first few. Healing is putting energy into the person (usually), and sex is a close connection—that idea's been around for a while. Stronger the bond, easier to move. Mind rape works because life energy has the taste of the person to it, which is how I interpret the scenes where Anita magically senses her lovers. At the bottom of Anita's life energy is a frikkin' ocean of rage. She's just putting a few cups—or gallons, not like anyone would notice what's missing from the ocean—of that into her attacks. No one else had figured it out because crazy shit happens on a quantum level or somethingnote Seriously though, we are still making scientific discoveries in every discipline, and Anita states that there are so few animators that every animator shows up for every animator's funeral. Not a whole lot of people to work through it, very few notes to compare.. I don't recall three marks=no diseases ever being stated, but if it were, lycanthropy is an exception to the rule of no-diseases because it's useful/supernatural. No, because Richard's wereanimal and Jean-Claude's animal to call is specifically a wolf (presumably canis lupus), not any canine (which would be a family, and include way too many species). She's still a necromancer because that's what she was born, the rest is training and gaining. And anyway, that's what she's famous for. Oh, and what she's been thinking of herself as for years.
One minor point about the healing. IIRC, sexual healing is specifically Raina's ability, and, Raina being dead and part of the munin, necromantic access to her personality and abilities seems at least somewhat logical.
It's a ridiculous God-Mode Sue power, but as of Bullet, it seems to be explained. If I understand correctly (1) Anita is an exceptionally powerful necromancer; (2) the vampires have said many times that you must never never bring a necromancer into a triumvirate or make one a human servant, or they will gain terrible powers; (3) part of that seems to be Power Copying; (4) Anita's beast powers are a result of her Power Copying the Master of Beasts, a super-vamp who has power over all weres. Apparently, his powers work about the same as hers.
She's got so many different sources of power at this point, it's hard to keep them straight. First, there's her "own" powers, the stuff she gets from the necromancy, the zombie animation, and the basic level of witch training she's recently had. Also, at least by the current book, Anita seems to basically be a lynchothrope, and a pan-ware at that ever since being scratched by a pan-ware; she doesn't actually change, although she's come close a few times, but she carries many strains of it, and has many of the characteristics of it (fast healing, requires heat to heal, craves flesh, ect) and she gets some of those mystical abilities. It's mentioned she's not the only person to be a carrier without actually turning, although it's very rare. She's also the human servant of a vampire, and so she has a lot of his powers, and she gets powers from being linked to Richard (she started showing some warewolf-ish powers even before she was infected because of that). And she gets control of whatever vampire powers are used on her. And she has other sources of power that derive from those; the munin came from her link with Richard and her control of the undead, but now that's become a whole separate source of power itself; the ardor came from her human servant stuff, but the power she drains from that feeds into all of her other powers and makes them stronger. Take all that, mix and match, and add a good dose of heroic willpower, and she can basically do anything.
The best thing Anita could do for St. Louis is leave, or kill herself. Apparently, as a necromancer, she is incredibly attractive to the dead, to the extent that they come to St. Louis to be near her and terrorise everyone once they are there.
Initial situation, Nikolaos is in charge, the wererats are holding her at bay, the werewolves are run by Raina and Marcus, who are abusive, Gabriel and Elizabeth abuse the wereleopards. Werehyenas and lions were (presumably) quite happy, swanmanes were subject to sexual abuse.
Current situation. Jean Claude is in charge, wererats were slightly better off, until Anita figured out that she could rape their king and suck their power. Also, several visiting vampires with power over rats have come to town including the Master of Beasts, who nearly killed the Ratking.
Swanmanes are addicted to BDSM sex so no change there but their King now has to tithe power to Anita. Werehyenas took over 50 casualties in a battle against Chimera, who was in town to 'court' Anita and bought the wereleopards with him and also brought traitorous werewolves into the pack.
Anita killed Gabriel and ran Elizabeth off, the wereleopard now have two new very submissive females, two apathetic 'alphas' and two enthusiastic rapists added to the Pard. There is no suggestion that Anita protects the female leopards from sexual assault, she hardly notices them. Certainly when she conspired to kill the Lions' Rex, she asked the new Rex-to-be not to kill the lions who had jobs as it would cost money. She did not stand up for the lionesses even after being explicitly told that it is standard for them to be raped during a takeover.
Incidentally, in the werelions first appearance they are explicity said to be a member of a group composed of very small groups of animals who have moved to St. Louis because there are so few of their kind there. Anita demands a lion to feed from, the Rex gives her several choices, which Anita rejects for being too weak. The Regina is not strong and the Rex rules in conjunction with his brother, which is somewhat indicative that he is not either. So, they moved to St. Louis and deliberately started a small, low powered pack to live in peace and quiet. Anita invites vicious Mob enforcers to take over their pack instead of protecting them.
The werewolf pack no has a slutty lupa who is slowly driving the Ulfric insane and getting him into fights which aren't his. Little to no change. Richard has banned vengeance for crimes before his tenure as Ulfric, so all the female werewolves have to be one big happy family with the abusive male werewolves, except for the two that Anita killed, plus the remaining leopards, who used to rape the female leopards as punishment. They are now allied with the vampires and get called on to provide security everytime Jean Claude has visitors. And they have to volunteer to work a hotline for all the weres who are too useless to look after themselves. Maybe slightly improved conditions for the pack as a whole.
The vampires do have more protection from internal threats with no Nikolaos, but older stronger vampires are constatly attacking the city with accompanying deaths. Jean Claude is really the only beneficiary. When Nikolaos was in charge, he was the one performing sexual favors on demand, now Anita does that and he reaps the benefits.
So...Anita should go off herself (because moving would just move the problem). Do you really think it would be in-character for her to do so? More likely she'd BSOD and repress, methinks. Also, it would have a chance of hurting/killing Jean-Claude or Richard, so call it a gender-flipped Always Save the Girl. Or she hasn't thought of it in those terms, because a master of planning she is not.
It wouldn't be in character at all. I was more commenting on how LKH's attempt to make Anita even more of a Mary Sue than she was has shifted her from 'Not Terribly Effective Hero" to Nice Job Breaking It, Hero!. She probably doesn't realise this.
Shouldn't the local and federal government be at least a bit disturbed by Anita's actions? Admittedly this is only working with knowledge of the books going up to Danse Macabre but Anita should still be a U.S Marshal and yet she has gotten herself heavily involved in supernatural politics, can be considered an accessory to at least a few murders and is on very good terms with an assassin. You would think that she would realize that the Justice Department might be a bit uneasy if they ever found out.
She does. She stays away from anyone who could report her as much as possible, and whenever something comes up that could out her, she tends to try hide, one way or another. If that fails, such as when she almost shifted in front of a bunch of cops (maybe), she feels like breaking down the walls to get somewhere safer. ...Huh. Just realized her claustrophobia probably had a hand in that.
Ok, so back in Killing Dance. After spending the entire book berating Richard to give in to his beast and be as vicious as she is, he finally does it. Yes he got icky, smelly, nauseating shapeshifter goop all over her in the process. Alright, I can understand how that would gross a girl out. He unintentionally conveyed cannibalistic urges to her. Fine, I can understand how that would freak a girl out too. What this troper can not understand is why if you're so freaked out, sickened, and repulsed by nauseating shapeshifter goop and unwanted cannibalistic urges, your very first impulse is to go run to a vampire and stuff his penis into your mouth. That's the first sexual act Anita performs for JC. Call me nutty, but that just never made a whole lot of sense to me. And to this day people still defend her, like somehow it was Richard's fault that Anita betrayed him and went to slobber down Jean-Claude's pole(amongst other things) after he finally did what she was constantly badgering him to do. Keep in mind, that Jean-Claude is for all practical intents and purposes a walking corpse. So she ran off to fellate cold, dead penis. Clearly she couldn't have been too sickened/traumatized/repulsed by the experience with Richard could she? And then adding insult to injury, when Richard is very understandably is angry about her betrayal she has the nerve to point her gun at him and go into 'I'm a stonecold killer and i'll even kill you and sleep like a baby afterwards' mode on him. For mercy's sake, you just finished blowing(amongst other things) another man, and you can't even let Richard vent a little on the furniture? What the hell, hero? It used to upset me, but after Richard's epic Character Derailment, it doesn't even matter anymore.
While it was a pretty stupid thing to freak about, it seemed pretty clear that it was seeing Richard as a monster rather than a person with cool powers that caused her to freak, not just goop and feeling things she considered monstrous. You don't think it's even a little understandable that the next time she met him she freaked at him behaving violently? That she went with her usual coping methods rather than acting vulnerable in front of someone she knew was dangerous?
Be Careful What You Wish For. Anita wanted Richard to kill Marcus to protect himself and the other werewolves, Richard tried telling her again and again that not only he didn't want to, but it wasn't going to be what she thought. Werewolves ripping each other to shreds is a very different animal (pun slightly intended) from just shooting someone dead. Anita simply wasn't prepared for the sheer brutality of what killing Marcus met within the rituals of werewolf pack dominance fights. While Jean-Claude is a vampire, vampires are a lot more neat about their violence (on most occasions.) Also, it makes a lot of sense thematically. Richard and Jean-Claude are opposites. Richard is warm and alive, Jean-Claude cold and dead. Richard detests what he is and doesn't want power for himself, Jean-Claude (at least seems to) enjoy being a vampire, and constantly seeks to gain more power. When Richard completely shocks Anita by shapeshifting on top of her then leading the whole pack in eating Marcus' dead body, she naturally runs to the exact opposite person in her life. Also, it is partially Richard's fault, since he kept telling Anita she needed to see him shift before they could proceed to getting married, but he could have done it in a less horrific fashion. Doesn't excuse Anita's actions per se, but does make them more understandable.
Early in the series it is established that while Vampires "roll" humans with their eyes for a second to create the illusion of moving so fast that they appear to blink from place to place, Werewolves actually move so fast they appear to blink from place to place. Even if they only moved so fast that they leave a visible blur this suddenly transforms EVERY single last occasion of Anita making a Werewolf back down at gunpoint into complete hogwash. Even if we assume that the Shifter can not dodge the bullet once it has left the chamber...which is within the realm of possibility even with Blur-Speed, and should be childishly easy with Blink-And-You-Missed-It speed...they could effortlessly move faster than Anita could track them with her gun, never being within her line of fire. Hell, it's conceivable that even if she managed to pull the trigger that in the fraction of a second it would take for the hammer-action of her gun to eject the bullet, the Shifter she's facing could sprint behind her and rip her spine out as if she were made of paper-mache. This is doubly true for were-felines who are explicitly stated to be even faster than the already nightmarishly-fast Werewolves.
I don't recall weres being given blink speed. They're faster than humans, granted, but I don't think we've ever seen them "blink" in the way vampires can.
If memory serves, they discuss the relative quickness in Skin Trade. It's like this: most vampires are a bit faster than humans, but not by that much; they cheat by using mind tricks to appear moving at blink-speed. Weres are quite a bit faster. The most powerful weres (and vamps of a certain almost extinct lineage; practically just Wicked and Truth remain) can achieve blink-speed. So, if I understand correctly, a trained human can shoot vamps and (with luck) common-level weres. It's the high-level weres that could "blink" behind the shooter in the time needed for the hammer to fall; but I bet Edward could somehow surprise even them :)
After reading the first couple of books in this series, one might come away wondering what the hell any of the members of Anita's Male Harem see in her. She's morose bordering on clinically depressed and appears to be married to her job to the point of not having a life, and does not appear to have even a hint of a sense of humor. One is left to assume that she must be hot beyond words, but this doesn't really come across in the text. One gets the impression that Anita is intended to be an Author Avatar living out Hamilton's own fantasies, and not meant to appeal to anyone else.
The series is awful, but that particular quirk is over-justified, if anything. Sleeping with Anita is a power up for supernaturals, plus she has the magic power of making people fall in love with her, plus she has large breasts. Yes, she's a pain in the rear, but I could see a bunch of people deciding to hold their nose and go for it and/or being sucked into her Mary Sue magic. (In the first few books, Jean Claude is running a game on her at least at first, and Richard, well, who can explain love?).
Also, Anita's scary. Most of the people who "fall in love" with her are abuse victims desperate for some form of protection.
I think this is another firm case of YMMV—in the novels preceding Narcissus in Chains, I could understand Anita's appeal. She's funny (to me, at least, but then again I like Deadpan Snarker characters), beautiful (if the comic books are any indication), and tough as nails. It makes sense that Jean Claude likes her because he's got the "you're the only woman who ever resisted me angle", but when he actually does fall in love with her...I can see what you're saying. I can tell you why Richard loves Anita—because they are actually compatible since they like many of the same things and he can put up with her hot temper—but not Jean Claude. Then again, I think he said at some point that he loves her because of how flawed she is and BOY does that make sense because she certainly has problems. After Narcissus in Chains...yeah, there is no explanation for why all these people love Anita. That is indeed Hamilton using her Author Avatar to heal whatever personal problems she has, which is probably many considering what a twatwaffle she (allegedly) is.
IJBM that in one of the post-Shark-Jumping novels, Jean Claude has to ask Anita for permission to have sex with Asher. Let me say that again: permission. Mind you, this is a 400 year old vampire asking permission to sleep with someone he has been in love with for longer than Anita has been alive. Now, granted, it makes sense that he would have a discussion with her about taking another lover because that's what a polygamous couple should be doing—being honest. But permission? I find that incredibly insulting for Jean Claude, even if he himself doesn't see it that way. I hate that he stopped being a Manipulative Bastard and turned into Anita's booty-on-the-side when she's not boinking every other thing with a penis— and as of Bullet, she has now included vaginas as well. Jean Claude is a grown damn vampire and he should not have had to grovel at her feet to ask to be in a relationship that existed way before her sarcastic ass came in the picture. And furthermore, it's ridiculous considering Anita has so many partners at this point in the series that I literally cannot name them all and Jean Claude doesn't even sleep around so taking Asher to bed with him is far more reasonable than what Anita does on a daily (and sometimes, hourly) basis.
This Troper misread the above spoiler to mean "Anita has grown extra vaginas to accommodate all her lovers." The kicker was that this didn't even seem like an unlikely or ridiculous development in light of all the other mad sexy powers happening in this series.
Isn't Asher the vamp that more-or-less lost his free will because he's now Anita-powered? The one who can't hardly feed or dress himself without asking for permission? I've not touched the series since Obsidian Butterfly came out in paperback, so I may be misremembering, but if that's the vampire, then it's less that Jean-Claude needs permission than Asher the half-burned doll needs permission.
Yes, I think you've got it right. A lot of Asher's bitchification happened in Cerulean Sins where he became little more than a scarred up, European version of Nathaniel. At least Asher's just Anita's bitch rather than everyone's bitch like Nathaniel.
IMHO, you're thinking of Damien. IIRC, Asher rolls Anita and almost kills her, so he's as close as the series has to an independent male.
We find out later, however, that even Anita is surprised by this after a point; turned out Jean-Claude kept saying Anita would flip (regardless of whether or not he should be worried about that) long after she wouldn't, because of issues he had with Asher and wouldn't admit.
One thing that's bothered me is, wouldn't Anita be having a lot less problems with the ardeur if she would just let Jean-Claude feed the ardeur properly on someone other then her? They've made really clear that if any member of the triumvirate gets power, they all do, and that one member can "feed" to support the other members. I know Jean-Claude can feed the ardeur from a distance at the strip club, but that's not supposed to be much of a feeding. Are all of Anita's problems caused by her forcing Jean-Claude to basically be monogamous?
There's a lot she could do to solve her problems, but it wouldn't feed Hamilton's borderline-rape fetish and enable Anita's "It's not really my fault, I'm not a slut, I HAD to fuck him!" justifications. So Anita just complains and never actually does anything because it's exactly how both she and her writer actually want things.
[dr] Have you ever noticed that when Anita is travelling around alone, nobody who is outside the list of main characters, except for bad guys notice her? So she is walking around and everybody SHOULD know her face, but most do not stop and watch her walk by. It really gets on my nerves because she is a big-shot celebrity and nobody really gives her the attention she deserves... and I guess people noticing her is overshadowed by "The author over-amplifying the details of characters". So nobody stops and stares at her, while she is staring at somebody else to see every damn detail. This includes the Harlequin, where they are at the theatre. Nobody crowds her. And after the movie, a couple come to Anita and Nathaniel, but do not notice Anita as Marshal Anita Blake, just some girl.
So in this universe where dozens of people can reanimate the dead...why has there never been mention of amazing unsolved cases being overturned? In cases where there are bodies, wouldn't it be a great idea to have the dead come back and reveal what happened to bring peace to their loved ones? Granted, the age of the corpse determines if it can be used, but Anita never once mentions this being done and I find that hard to believe. Then again, if it doesn't have to do with her vagina, she's probably not interested in it.
If a murder victim is reanimated as a zombie, the zombie goes berserk and on a rampage. I can't remember if they only want to kill their killer, or just anyone but they're terrible at answering questions. A bit flimsy, since a few weres or vamps could volunteer to take out the zombie if they turned out to be a murder victim and things threatened to go south.
I thought that was mentioned in one of the first books. It isn't done because reanimated witnesses are already worse at accurately remembering things than living witnesses (whom are already terrifyingly awful at giving helpful recall), and the more brutal or painful their death the worse this factor gets, compounded with the snag that if someone is shot in the dark or stabbed in the back or poisoned or killed in some other way that doesn't give them a good look at their killer they wouldn't be able to add any useful information anyway.
Zombies are really bad at answering questions, basically. You essentially have to "lead the witness," which is something the opposition can use to demolish the case. And if the zombie was the victim of the murder, the only thing they care about is finding and killing their murderer. No point in raising them in the first place, since they won't answer any questions, just try and kill whoever killed them. Even if zombies do have supernatural "sense my killer's location" senses (never stated one way or another), using the zombie to locate the killer, even if you had some way of stopping them on hand (incredibly difficult) wouldn't likely be admissible in court.
Why have we never seen Anita's father? Pre-Shark Jumping, she had mentioned him once or twice but we're about 20 books in and he's still The Ghost. She never indicates if they just fell out after he remarried or if she just doesn't like her relatives.
Canonically, Anita is afraid bringing danger to him, but in reality, Hamilton doesn't want to write a male character who's boring and human. Notice how most of the human male cops are demonized, if they're not gay men with beards?
Also, Hamilton realizes that interaction with Anita's family might draw attention to her flaws. She's written herself into a corner with the stepmother who sends Anita expensive gifts (which Anita mentions she hates) but apparently hates her for being "ethnic."
Because I feel like focusing on something entirely silly compared to all the other issues: why is Anita Blake's hair constantly regarded some unusual exotic marker when it is literally the most common hair color in the world?
Because's it's the only feature of Anita's that Hamilton will allow to indicate Hispanic heritage. It has to be superspeshul, otherwise, someone might mistake Anita for "white bread."
Also Hamilton apparently thinks 99% of the women in the world are tall, thin blondes and absolutely despises them.
The series is in the habit of making a big deal out of Anita's physical attributes when they are in fact unremarkable. People are always commenting on how tiny she is when in fact she is stated numerous times to be 5'3". That's only an inch shorter than average for a woman. But we have to make her sound superspeshul and exotic.
How can Micah be 'fixed' (presumably with a vasectomy) when it's been shown powerful lycanthropes can heal from any wound? The surgery wouldn't last. Even if he had had it done with silver utensils they would not only have prevented the vasectomy from reverting but also prevent him from healing from the surgery the way normal people do. He clearly has no damage, so it's quite likely Micah isn't as 'fixed' as he believes.
In Dance Macabre a doctor asks Micah about his vasectomy: "Did he just burn the ends or did you put in silver clips?" (Micah answers, "Both".) So, probably Micah has small silver implants in his body to prevent regeneration at specific points.
In Narcissus in Chains it's mentioned that Micah is as short as Anita is. I'm having trouble finding out Anita's exact height, but the comic database lists her as 5'2", which is very short for a grown man like Micah. Yet his height (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to be remarkable, let alone a focus of angst the way Anita does for her own height.
The books themselves state several times that she is 5'3", which barely qualifies as "short."
Does this woman ever get her period? I mean, she apparently has sex multiple times a day and seems prone to marathon magical orgies. . .
She started taking birth control a few books in, although I think a missed period was once a source of drama for a bit? (Someone correct this if I'm wrong.)
So Richard got added because Anita was "becoming too attracted" to Jean-Claude, who LKH didn't like much, at the time. Richard's character got raped because he was based on LKH's ex, who she hates now. She went with Jean-Claude as the "main" pairing for Anita because of reasons. What I want to know is, if you create a character whose species is necromancer, who is inherently attracted to the dead, and you create an attractive, sex-god of a vampire...why the fuck are you surprised when she's attracted to him?! Especially if you're as unhealthily invested in your characters as LKH seems to be. So fucking much of this could all have been avoided if LKH had just, IDK, killed Jean-Claude off while she still hated him. Or just accepted that Anita would be attracted to him, and went with that. Also? What happened to Nathanial being the submissive to end all submissives?
Leopards are powerful, deadly predators. So why are the people who can turn into leopards such helpless weenies? Why do they need Anita to protect them? They're the ones with the fangs and claws!
The leopard pard (pack) was demoralized and abused into utter submission by their evil leader. Once Anita killed him, there was no one was wasn't such a broken abuse survivor they could actually take over and lead (the only one who tried emulated the abuser's example, then broke down completely once Anita established dominance over him.) Somewhat Unfortunate Implications, but understandable.
As mentioned in the main page under Hollywood Law, the various vampires and werewolves and other supernatural creatures (except for demons) are all supposed to be taxpaying US citizens,yet Jean-Claude regularly has people summoned to his presence by the expedience of sending a heavily armed thug (Anita) or a powerful vampire (Asher) to retrieve them, often against their will. That's kidnapping. But no one ever thinks to call the cops afterward. Likewise, the entire idea that a vampire or werewolf has to get "permission" from the local vampire lord or werewolf pack leader before moving into a new territory is also a violation of civil rights. One can imagine a vampire or werewolf who is new to the Saint Louis area, and who has been harassed and/or threatened because they didn't get approval first suing Jean-Claude or Richard Zeeman for their entire net worth because of civil rights violations. Why is this never brought up?