The Marr/Hamilton debate continues

(This story starts here with “Laurell K Hamilton Knock-Off for Teens” at and then comes here with “Writer calls Melissa Marr a ‘Laurell K Hamilton Knock-Off’“, continues in the comments, and on to another post here “St Louis Writer Writes Back” and continues in the comments, then gets picked up at Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Novels with “Knock-Offs and Knocking It Off Already” and “On Ideas, Repetitiveness and Copyright Infringement“. And then claws come out, the fangs appear and the fur really starts to fly *g*, back at the original post.)

Melissa Marr responds to a couple of the issues not yet addressed at her LJ, “kerfuffle with my book.

(For the record, I have not really addressed the issue of the appropriateness of Marr’s work for 12 year olds simply because I believe this is a decision only to be made by the youth and the youth’s parents. This is not something to be decided by book reviewer, journalist, librarian, school board, book club, or anyone else.)

And now the St Louis book reviewer, Jane Henderson, has finally addressed the issues with less of an intention to stir up controversy with off the cuff remarks, “More on young adult fantasy, Hamilton” and “More on fantasy book, part 2” , and provided more discussion. And gee, we’ll take less slander any day.
I still don’t think the comparison works, and Henderson’s “evidence” is shaky at best. In fact, she’s really just shown her own ignorance for Hamilton’s books (I’m sorry, Ms Henderson, but Merry Gentry is not “part mortal and part faerie” as you’ve put it, but rather “part sidhe, part brownie and part human”. There is a distinction. The brownies are not so glamourous, and this matters if you’re going to discuss attraction and seduction. I really think you should read a few more books from this series. They get– uh, more explicit, less crime-focussed as they go.), and the age-old debate of what’s appropriate for 12-year olds, which goes back to at least the 1970s with authors such as Judy Blume and V.C . Andrews.

This is a better start, Ms Henderson, but I think you need to do some more homework before addressing these topics.

4 comments on “The Marr/Hamilton debate continues

  1. FWIW, the quote in that latest post is missing the middle (which is hard to tell as there are no ellipses to show omission). In my blog, I’ve uploaded the corrected quote with the omitted section back in place for context.

    I do respect Ms Henderson’s clarifying her original intention. I don’t agree, but I’ve no issue with disagreeing. Varied opinions are quite welcome. She’s raised some interesting topics in the newest posts, so I’ve opened the floor to discussion of them in that aforementioned blog entry.


  2. The claws will remain out as long as Ms Henderson feels the need to explain what the “?” in her original article’s title meant.

    Could she be any more condescending, I wonder?

  3. What does she mean by ‘monotone’, when describing the covers? Does she mean monochromatic, as in, mostly one colour?

  4. Lily,
    I think that’s what she means.

    What does it say about the state of journalism at St Louis Today when their book reviewer doesn’t read the books, uses incorrect words in her posts, defends her accusations that have been very clearly determined to be wrong, and refuses to do any research of her own on topics she raised?

    I have no faith in her book reviews, and the rest of STLToday is in doubt.

Comments are closed.