Talk:Anne Rice/Archive 1

First paragraph

Before I make an addition that may be incorrect for some well-known reason: Is there any good explanation as to why "The Mummy"/"Ramses the Damned" isn't listed here? -- Derek

In the spirit of being bold in updating pages, I'm just going to add "The Mummy"! -- Derek

It was probably just an oversight. Generally, as long as whatever you're adding is both NPOV and accurate, nobody will mind.  :-) Cheers, --KQ

P.S., Derek, if you sign with three tildes ~ in a row, with no spaces, it will change it to a link to your userpage. Four will put a link to your userpage and the time you saved the page.

• I've added a little bit at the end of the third paragraph to ellucidate Rice's standing as a writer. It's meant to give just a litte perspective. Please erase if stupid or over the top--Case 18:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Link to Belinda is to Belinda the moon of Uranus. Folks, please watch the links.What could of have happend if i one all of us is very write well known as i the wrote on.

Where does the Talamasca fit in? Does it make sense to be a separate page that talks about its purpose and its main characters like Petyr Van Abel and David Talbot or does it make sense to just define it? I wasn't even sure where this belonged so I wanted to get some thoughts.... --Jpittman 02:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to make a seperate Talamasca page. Especialy since someone might put in a prank article pretending its real. Like they tried to do with Borges's imaginary land of Tlon. The Talamasca could make a fun article. There is enough to make it long. In my more romantic or crazy moments, I've thought of Wiki as a sort of Talamasca. A loose association of "scholars" working to gather all the information we can even on less respected matters. Accepting all information and loosely filtering it. An open inquirery into all things. We watch and are always there. The character Arron describes the Talamasca along these lines in the Witching Hour to the character Michael Mayfair. I'm just being indulgent. Still fun though to think along these lines. Rice created a complex myth system with the Talamasca which is very rich. It is the perfect kind of alternative history for an article. Tons of characters and events to get into. The Mayfairs should get a seperate page also.--Case 19:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anne_Rice article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anne_Rice}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Her reputations is damaged? Please!

I don't know who gets off or got off writing about Mrs. Rice's reputation and popularity being damaged by her post on Amazon. I and the Rice readers I know never even heard about it, so I don't think it was at all a significant event in her writing history. What a few bloggers in their small community might say is not all that relevant to the great number of readers who genuinely enjoyed "Blood Canticle."

I second that. I actually removed the part about where she allegedly had written with bad English.

EliasAlucard|Talk 19:27, 15 May, 2005 (UTC)

Her reputation was damaged long ago when she wrote Memnock & banned fanfiction.

hey there NO-NAME, it's MEMNOCH by the way. And the piece is fine. Fleurbutterfly 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Er, the person's opinions count less because they haven't signed their name? People are entitled to dislike the book. Please be more tolerant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.22.72.99 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added the link to the reply posted on Amazon.com. I admire Anne for taking a stand - It was certainly long overdue. Drae 09:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • ...I'm sorry, you say you ADMIRE her for that? It was nothing more than a lengthy, self-indulgent rant, a more literate version of, ironically, many fanfiction-writing teens' old "DUN LEIK, DUN REED!!! H8TRZ!!" rants. Don't get me wrong; her books are... fine. But that little tantrum shows a woman with the vocabulary of an entire dictionary but, alas, all the maturity of a self-important 13-year-old fangirl. Her prose is lovely much of the time, but if I'm to judge by her little "episode" on Amazon, she should stick to novels and leave essay-writing waaaaay alone. I won't comment on how silly it seems to me that she refuses to so much as have an editor LOOK at her work (mostly because I haven't read her most recent, editor-free books, I just happen to know that people should very rarely be allowed to edit their own book completely by themselves, and it strikes me as kind of arrogant to assume one can do it and get consistently good prose), because it's a moot point here. That was NOT the most mature response to criticism that she could have pulled out. Defending your work is fine, but jeez, stop whining just because somebody didn't like your latest novel as much as the rest of them; it's rather uncooth, and not really befitting a reknowned author.

• • I do think it damaged her reputation, because I've met people that had never read her before, then read that and instantly said they never wanted to bother. Heck, after reading that, I'm inclined NOT to read her later work myself. Granted, I wasn't a diehard fan to begin with, but sheesh. Lord help us if she discovers her own Wikipedia page! /jk

• • Seriously, though, folks, do keep in mind though that just because something hurts a reputation does not mean book sales or the quality of her writing will go down. I don't doubt that some people became curious to see what the fuss was all about, and have since bought or read the book to check for themselves. Controversy sells; it's why The Da Dinci Code sold so many copies even with bland characters.

• • Just because you hadn't heard of that post, does not mean it wasn't infamous, though, EliasAlucard. I don't even normally actively look for Anne Rice information, and I still heard whispers of the infamous "Anne Rice Amazon.com tantrum" on other sites.

• • In any case, though, Drae, while I very much disagree with your opinion on her Amazon comment, I would still like to take the chance to thank you quite sincerely for adding the link. I've been looking for it for months, myself, and somehow hadn't found it until seeing it in this very article. Runa27 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• • who is that ranting anti-Anne Rice at top? Who happened to NOT SIGN his post? Really, sign your post guys so we'd know where to throw our tongue lashing replies. Hehehe. Really, i've read the whole Vampire Chronicles and Blood Canticle is fine work. Most of those who don't like the book are those who weren't able to start the chronicle. And c'mon guys, if the old woman wants to write a prose about how hurt she is that people have been vocal about their dislike of her book, let her be, freedom of expression guys! Fleurbutterfly 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A reminder for argumentative people:

NC Image

Why was it removed? EliasAlucard|Talk 13:30, 12 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

This is a waste of time

Look, if you got some important stuff to add, or constructive criticism to this article, then feel free to say so. If you're going to keep on acting like a pompous prick, then get the hell out of here. You're not bringing anything of value by saying everything is stupid and the rest of us editors have a bad voice in our head when we read, or whatever your claims.

The facts remain, that she has written many vampire books, and although a majority of them are within The Vampire Chronicles, not all are. Therefore, it is better suited just to mention that she's famous because of her Vampire books.

Second, of course there are a lot more readers of her books that aren't goths or whatever. But it's not everyday an author brings such an impact to the goth-culture because of her/his books. So leave that part as well. I don't know if all of these different but similar IP adresses are from the same person, but I advise you to get a registered account, and sign your names when you're going to discuss something on the talk pages from now on.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:13, 25 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

She actually have returned to Catholic faith, have you heard? I've read it on Peoples Magazine and she wrote about Jesus Christ something to that effect. Fleurbutterfly 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a waste of time, another note to EliasAlucard

You idiot. I'm not threatening you. It's not my draft. I haven't written even 20% of this Anne Rice Article. Stop assuming things like you actually knew something. This article is by any means not mine. I do not own it. But as little as it is mine, it's even less yours. You're an anon user. I've got over 2000 edits in my edit history. I'm taking Wikipedia seriously. How many edits have you done? It's a handful, less than 10 edits all in all. Stop reverting, because you're braking the 3-revert-rule. In fact, I've edited this article more than you have edited anything on Wikipedia. If you got something to add, do it (provided that it's true), if you've seen something you know isn't true, remove it. But stop changing everything to the same thing but with different words. You can do that for an entire eternity. The article was fine as it was. Stop reverting it, or else you'll be banned by the ops for a revert war.

EliasAlucard|Talk 13:04, 26 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

You go ahead and enjoy your life. Leave Wikipedia to us who don't have one. And if you're going to respond, don't write 59 000 letters just to prove some stupid point. And for the last time, the version with the opening paragraph that you dislike isn't my version. I didn't write that one. It's still better than your shitty version though. My wording of "you better" is a threat? When did I write that anywhere on this talk page? Moron.

By the way, this is a clear sign of how stupid you are: "So for the last time ...she is a popular mainstream writer ...NOT a Goth writer. Much like Bram Stoker is NOT a Goth writer." Nowhere in the article does it state or allege that she is a Goth writer. All it says, is that she's had influence on the goth culture today. There's a clear difference, you stupid idiot. If you can't tell the difference between such simple stuff, then stop editing here altogether. No one wants your help here.

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:34, 26 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

Daughter's age

I have no interest in getting into a revert war over this, and if it's changed again, I'll leave it alone. However, according to annerice.com, her daughter died at 5 [1] in 1972 [2]. I trust this over external third party sites. Being born in 1966 doesn't necessarily mean that she was 6 years old when she died in 1972; it depends on the dates of birth/death. Clearly, she died before her sixth birthday. To further illustrate, I was born in 1978, but I'm 26 years old. At first glance, this may not make sense (since it's 2005, I should be 27, right?). Well, I was born in September, so I'm 26 for two more months, even though this is the 27th year since 1978. I'm guessing that it was a similar situation for Anne Rice's daughter. --Myles Long/cDc 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for citing a source for your information, it is greatly appreciated. It's a damn shame the anonymous editor could not do the same and had to resort to harassment instead. Hall Monitor 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. In fact, the bio EliasAlucard cited [3] proves my point. Michele was born September 21, 1966, and she died August 5, 1972. She was *almost* 6 years old, but not quite. --Myles Long/cDc 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a revert war either. I just can't take that anonymous user seriously. He changed it to 1971 for instance. I think his IP should be banned. He should use his registered account since he claims he has one. And all of his messages are just confusing. I feel like erasing all of them since they're not making any sense, and they're very incoherent to read... and quite frankly, a waste of time. Anyway, I forgot to add "and" at the age issue. Feel free to correct it.

EliasAlucard|Talk 19:50, 26 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

I really must return to work. EliasAlucard ...your proof positive that politics run rampant here. You as well Hall Monitor. I am opting not to sign in for one main reason. Users should not need to. That was what all this was about. Can someone come here and fix something without being harassed. Clearly not. It WAS pointed out several times to you the source of her age. AnneRice.com ...about 6 times including on your own discussion page. Vandalism is what you cried rather than admit to a mistake(s). You, as mentioned is proof positive that this is NOT an open forum.

Speaking for myself, you were vandalising by adding superfluous {{cleanup}} tags and submitting incorrect years, i.e. 1971. Shall I provide diffs? Go away, troll. Hall Monitor 18:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that one Hall. If she died in 1972, and you changed it to 1971, how could it be my mistake? She was barely 2 months from 6. It never was about pride from my part. Look, I just think that your edits suck. Plain and simple. You come waltzing in here, and act all high and mighty, calling everything about the article bad and stupid, and everyone else too. Then you make changes. Changes I don't like. Then you refuse to login and sign your comments. Do you know how confusing and what kind of chaos all of your messages are? The very fact that you refuse to sign in just to prove a stupid point, proves you to be a hypocrite when you accuse us of pride. Please go away. Stop editing. We don't need you here, really. You're just wasting our time. Also, until next time you're going to accuse me and everyone else of bad English, get this straight: You are equals you're. Your is not the same thing. Get it straight, dipshit.

EliasAlucard|Talk 20:23, 26 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make one thing clear: anyone who happens to be a self-proclaimed professional, and can't even differ between your and you're, is not a professional. And why are you so offended by "the name calling?" Are you twelve or something? Are we hurting your feelings? This is getting ridiculous. Your vandalism on Hall Monitor just proves us right when calling you a vandal. Look, I'm going to be frank now: every edit your IP does on Wikipedia is going to be reverted by me, or someone else, until you're blocked permanently.

EliasAlucard|Talk 22:22, 26 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

i actually read the reverts because I just wanted to work on this and now i'm not signing in either-this looks bad in here. all that Eliasalucard wrote looks like a flame war (holocaust)-no thank you. i will come back later when this guy goes away 05:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, then don't come back; I'll be here forever.

EliasAlucard|Talk 11:03, 01 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Rice home damaged by Hurricane Katrina?

Please be aware that I have twice-reverted this edit by Pacian. To protect the integrity of Wikipedia, I have politely requested that Pacian or someone else please WP:CITE a credible source for this information. Hall Monitor 22:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

VAMPIRE LESTAT

From the very first book i was hooked and totally in love with him , and and the witches also and in the last book just when you brought the vampires and witches togeather you stated that was to be the last Why? i some time think about the charecters and all the things you could have them do or become or the adventures they could have . please reconsider lestat and mayfairs are the greatest friends ive ever found in books, i never read much untill the witching hour then the vampire lestat i have two sets the ones i read and the special keepsakes edition . you are a great writter and have made me a great reader and i know atleast 65 people who are just dying to hear about the witches and the vampires again. there are vampires in the movie the vampire lestat that we never introduced to atleast 3 you could write about them . anyway we love you in california.sincerly teresa milligan

Deary... this isn't Anne Rice's personal website, nor is Wikipedia the US Postal Service. PantherFoxie 05:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Anne Rice Has Found God/No more Vampires

According to Newsweek Anne has promised that she will "Only write for the Lord" since she has re-discovered her faith in the Roman Catholic Church and her next series are going to be based on and narrated by Jesus Christ. This might mean no more vampires, witches, etc. Perhaps this should be included in the main page?

I have a small question. If she re-found God in 1998 and said she wasn't goingt o write anymore vampire novels (which is kind of confusing too as one thing ha snothing to do with the other, but that's just me), how come Blackwood Farm and Blood Canticle are from 2002 and 2003 respectively? That is kind of off. Can someone please review the dates? Are you quite sure it was in 1998 and not after 2003?

--201.132.17.72 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard?

Her name was Howard Allen O'Brien? I don't get it. Did she have a sex change?

No, that's just what her parents named her. It's a bit sad, dontcha think? But yeah, no worries, Anne Rice/Howard Allen O'Brien is 100% female, since birth.PantherFoxie

• • hahaha! had thesame reaction! I was really surprised that she have a boys name! Fleurbutterfly 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The discovery of Rice's diabetes

In the "Health" section, the article says that Rice's diabetes "were discovered" when she went into a diabetic coma. Does this mean that she had not known it herself? Or were her diabetes simply not *public* knowledge until the coma? -- Creidieki 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Rice herself wasn't aware that she had diabetes until she went into the coma. Hbackman 05:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How is it possible for her to have reached 57 years of age and not know that she had Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes? Perhaps this should be Type 2 (adult onset)? TC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.93.176 (talk • contribs) .

Type I refers to diabetes due to the death/disease/malfunction of the pancreas due to disease or defect. Type II is insulin resistant diabetes where the pancreas still functions but at an impaired level. Things have changed a LOT from the old labels and understanding of diabetes and there are millions of people who have no idea they are diabetic right now. 64.140.179.102 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The onset on Type 1 Diabetes in adults is often very sudden and the crisis it precipitates is acute. As per the post above, the pancreas basically stops working all at once. It sounds as if this is what happened to Rice. Many people die from diabetic shock in these situations. Type II is more insidious and can affect someone for years with no symptoms-- all the while slowly doing damage. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Her Amazon response

I don't think it's good form to reprint her entire response. First off, it interrupts the flow of the article. Second, reproductions of text normally go on Wikisource. Third, we don't own the copyright. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this; however, as someone just re-added the Amazon letter, perhaps we should open it up to discussion so that we have some consensus and don't get into an edit war. Any other opinions? I'll delete the letter again in a few days if people don't generally think that we should keep it. Hbackman 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

...no responses. I'll assume that that means everyone's okay with this. Hbackman 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ack! Put it back, that was classic! I'm not OK with it, please please please puhleeeease put it back *cries* Lady 3Jane 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait before a reply... I somehow missed your post. :( Anyway, if you can make an argument that Quadell's concerns aren't valid (or aren't sufficiently valid enough to warrant the removal of the text), people may be willing to consider reinstating the text. Objection number three is the most important -- if you can't prove that copyright is in the public domain, whether or not it interrupts the article's flow to have the text of the letter in there is a moot point. Hbackman 23:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't see this discussion before adding a link to the reply Anne posted on Amazon.com. I don't see the harm in linking to the source, however if this breaches anything, please feel free to remove it. Drae 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking is fine, since it's not a violation of copyright to link to something, and I do think that it's worth it to make the text accessible -- I just agree with Quadell's thoughts on putting the actual text in the article. Hbackman 23:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LSD

Where did Anne Rice deny trying LSD? The original reference came from an interview. Is she trying to deny a previous admission? After smoking marijuana and experimenting with LSD for about a year Anne had a disturbing vision. She began wondering what happens when a person dies and if that person knows they are dead. --Thoric 06:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I was curious about the above comment, since the current page no longer has any mention of LSD, so went trawling back through the History to check. A quick googling shows that the connection has been widespread, but does anyone know the truth? Is it that she previously admitting to it, but has now back-tracked, or is it that she never said anything of the sort, but finally "denied" years of third-party speculation. To be honest, I've always thought that "seeing through a vampire's eyes" is more akin to MDMA use, but then even that could just have been speculated from someone who had never used it, having read enough reports from people who had. Nick Cooper 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Vampire Chronicles

I believe she began writing the Vampire Chronicles after the death of her daughter, but I don't have any source to back it up. If anybody can provide such source, then I believe a sentence or paragraph should be added in the "The Vampire Chronicles" section mentioning such.--Sandridge 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See "Prism of the Night - A biography of Anne Rice" by Katherine Ramsland. Anne Rice began writing "Interview with the Vampire" some months after her daughter's death, rewriting an old short story of the same title which she had written some years before. However, at this time she did not intend to write a whole series.

Her biography at A&E mundo Biography(tm)

Film Adaptations

I question the source of the following statement, "It has been rumoured that the second film's theatrical release was based solely on its producers' wish to capitalize on the death of Aaliyah." What is the source of this rumor? Perhaps it just isn't explained well, but obviously the producers planned on releasing the film or they wouldn't have produced it, and production obviously began before Aaliyah's death since she is in the movie. I'd like to remove this sentence altogether, but thought I'd see what other people thought first.--Sandridge 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification Please

Does she currently reside in La Jolla or somewhere in the Coachella Valley? La Jolla is on the coast, and not even particularly close to the Coachella Valley, which is in the desert.

>>>>>>> Anne Rice has recently left La Jolla and has moved to Rancho Mirage, a desert community. (see: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060111-9999-1m11rice.html)

Minor change

I've removed a comment about her reply in amazon.com being "a single unbroken paragraph". I suspect this is entirely due to the limitations of the amazon interface, which converted her newlines into spaces. Toby Douglass 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it as it stands, but I've written Amazon reviews and had no problems inserting linebreaks.Cactus Wren 06:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article reorganization

Having just read this article for the first time, it seems to me that the sections on diabetes and her relocation could be rolled into the biographical section. I feel it interrupts the flow of the article to have these sections intermingled with sections on her books and her responses to critics/fans. Just a thought. --GentlemanGhost 10:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I reorganized the article to give it a more chronological structure. It needs more discussion of her writing career, which is, after all, why she's notable. Nareek 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazon post

I'm concerned that the citation of the Amazon post in the Catholicism section is misleading. From the section, one would think that she was renouncing writing about vampires because she'd become a Catholic. In fact, she kept writing about vampires after her conversion, her post doesn't really address the religious question, and she seems to be saying that she's glad the Chronicles are over because some fans are giving her a hard time about her not writing the way they want her to. I'm thinking that sentence should be cut. Nareek 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A little more on the biblio

I'd like to know about where & when Anne Rice's fans started becoming disheartened with the series & what went wrong. (I know that Memnoc was a huge dissapointment & that the gay & yaoi fans concidered either Merrick or Blood & Gold to be "the final straw." & even just information on the changes in her website over the years (easily accessed by inputting her html in at archive.org) & maybe the comic addaptions of her books from America & Japan (there's an official manga & loads of doujinshi).

Bibliography violates structure

A Bibliography should ALWAYS include the dates of original publication. The way it is now violates the form of a bibliography and really now do the right thing and put the original publication dates back in. This new format is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesterloli (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Why has the bibliography been changed??

I've referred to this article on wikipedia numerous times for it's well outlined bibliography section. What happened? There are no dates at all in this new structure. It was much better the way it was before.

I would also like to note that when you click on each title of the different novels, almost all of those corresponding articles are also lacking the publication dates as well. To put it bluntly this oversight is quite annoying. I'm willing to do a bit of research to find the publication dates dates if someone else can fix the article itself. I don't want to muck it up even more. 69.105.196.188 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview With The Vampire (1976)
The Feast of All Saints(1979)
Cry To Heaven (1982)
The Vampire Lestat (1985)
The Queen of the Damned (1988)
The Mummy (1989)
The Witching Hour (1990)
The Tale of the Body Thief (1992)
Lasher (1993)
Taltos (1994)
Memnoch The Devil (1995)
Servant of the Bones (1996)
Violin (1997)
Pandora (1998)
Armand (1998)
Vittorio the Vampire (1999)
Merrick (2000)
Blood and Gold (2001)
The Master of Rampling Gate (2002)
Blackwood Farm (2002)
Blood Canticle (2003)
Christ The Lord: Out of Egypt (2005)

found this list of her works here: http://www.annerice.com/bs_AllNovels.htm, however it does not include her stories written under her pseudonyms

69.105.196.188 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

what movie? which movie?

Removed the line

Japanese Visual Kei rock band Malice Mizer allude to the movie in their song Transylvania from their 1996 album Voyage ~sans retour~.

until someone who knows this band better can clarify which movie is being referenced. -- Geno Z Heinlein 13:50

The "Drink from me & Live forever" line on the Interview witht he Vampire" posters was used in the song Transylvania. I can't remember, but I think it was the Au Revoir PV where Gackt was dressed as both Louis & Lestat.September 2007 (UTC)

I've watched Au Revoir many times (big MM Fan)... and I dont' really recall Gackt being dressed as Louis and Lestat... I recall him wearing a beige suit resembling those Louis used, his hair pulled into a tail at the back of the head... and him wearing the most natural make-up possible... Is that what you were refferring to? Maybe I can watch the video again, paying close attention, and then we could verify if that's true.

--The Brat Princess (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Influences

Why isn't there more information listing her influences, and obviously there needs to be a list of authors she has inflenuced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.195.190 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Her "return to Catholicism" is tightly linked to her downfall in popularity, mainly because of how it effected her writing & changed her characters; reviews even say that the "characters seem out of character." That was also about the time Anne Rice put a ban on Vampire Chronicals fanfiction & had it purged from websites like FanFiction.net. The Gay & Yaoi communities where let down & started the slew of negative feedback on Amazon from Memnock on up.

If i was the nasty type, id suggest that her "sudden" revertion to religion is due to her health scare, death of partner and realizing old age is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.167.230 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it was never really a reversion. If you find yourself thinking "I'm going to die soon... oh shit will i go to heaven!?" then you were never an atheist to begin with, just an idiot. --86.137.159.110 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a decent sized criticism page for her site, I'm neither an atheist, goth or cliched vampire fanatic. But I find Rice's "return" to christ a little cliched and like mentioned very good timing considering her loss in popularity. Either way she only had one decent novel and two average novels after, so we can't possibly class her as a classic in modern literature, sure the wannabe new age pagans and pasty goth chicks will disagree as will the now born again christians (note these are the atheists that followed her books from the start only to change because she changed her ways). Blah blah to end the ranting there needs to be a decent "LITERARY CRITICISM" page I've just finished literature at University and I can tell you Rice is far from a classic or even a decent writer, not only that she is a trend whoring God botherer who changes beliefs because a chill in the wind. If vampires were alive they would suck you dry and fuck the eye sockets. 124.186.236.114 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If vampires were alive they wouldn't be vampires. --86.135.221.95 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some form of a criticisms section- I've read that she told her editor that she no longer wants any constructive criticism whatsoever, and claims that all retcon errors are purely intentional. Also, I know that she came under fire from the fanfiction community in general for so aggressively attacking those who write and read fanfic of/about her works. I would try to add something, but I'm not well-versed in the line you need to toe for Biographies of Living Persons. Anyone else who agrees or disagrees, or is more knowledgeable on these kinds of bios? Viralhyena (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, it does not matter what you think of her conversion, whether you think it is genuine or not is irrelevant. Secondly, "If you find yourself thinking "I'm going to die soon... oh shit will i go to heaven!?" then you were never an atheist to begin with, just an idiot" is a ridiculous assumption (it's a flip of the theist-turned atheist was never a theist argument) and constitues bias. Third, that has no bearing on the reason why she converted, that's her business. Finally, criticism sections are frowned on in Wikipedia policy. As much as one may personally feel that it is cliched or that is is genuine, this is not a factor in determining the edits to the page, as that constitutes original research. I'm not familiar with much of this woman's writings, but as I said, personal feelings on this are moot points. It seems as though people are unfavorable to her religion and so they judge her by this and not her writings, or they may perhaps do judge her by the writings but do not like the new style. Doesn't matter, still irrelevant. I'd also like to state that the "not only that she is a trend whoring God botherer who changes beliefs because a chill in the wind. If vampires were alive they would suck you dry and fuck the eye sockets" is hellishly biased, so please refrain from that particular... comment.

Inclusion of Birth Name

A minor point perhaps: I have taken the liberty of restoring the author's birthname to the introductory paragraph and mention this here only because I am an inexperienced editor who understands the need for extra care in the editing of biographies of living persons and may not truly understand why, though long included, it was recently removed - by an anonymous editor for unstated reasons. Perhaps they considered it simply too implausible to be correct or for its being unreferenced. This is now however the only mention of the author's original surname and without this edit the subsequent comment regarding her unusual birth name seems orphaned. I did not provide a citation either, though reference to the authors website, where the information is recorded, would seem to be acceptable under the policy for citation of self-published material. I do not have access to relevant passages in the Rice biography by Katherine Ramsland or the conversations with her published by Michael Riley - please cite if you do. Other sources on the web seemed likely to be quite secondary. The true primary source would be her vital records! Any guidance on how or whether to properly reference such data in Wikipedia is welcomed - (forgive me if it somewhere in a policy I haven't seen). Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family interview

Perhaps this is just a minor point, but I included the links on the opening page to her interview with Dr. James Dobson, which she linked on her official website, and which is also on the Focus on the Family website. Ruth E (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Adult" as a euphemism

The article says:

Rice has also published adult-oriented fiction under the pen name Anne Rampling

"Adult" is used here as a euphemism. I think it should call a spade and spade and say "erotic" or some other appropriate adjective instead of "adult-oriented". If I were familiar with those writings I'd choose the word myself instead of posting this comment here. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre in book stores

I've always noticed that Rice is filed under fiction, whereas most authors who write in what is clearly fantasy/scifi would be categorized as such except a few like dean koontz or stephen king. Shouldn't there be some mention of that, or at least explination of why? Because even in libraries with horror sections I never see her work there. 69.207.32.133 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne rice is a pseudonym, the books are actually a biography/true story non-fiction. The Unbeholden (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV issues

I have some POV issues with the Christian Conversion and Personal Quotes section. No biographical page should exist as a forum for a person and their supporters (or a person and their denigrators) to disseminate their own views. Christian Conversion should be rewritten factually (and preferably with more sources, and I don't know that there's space for the Personal Quotes at all.--140.247.7.64 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To Be Added: Writing Style?

I noticed that Anne Rice's style of writing is not mentioned on the page (detailed environmental descriptions, gloomy emotional philosophy). Perhaps, as an author, it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.255.246 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Early Years" section in this article is Convoluted.

Why is Anne Rice's conversion to Catholicism mentioned in the "early Years" section?? It did not happen in her Early Years but in her later years. That line should be deleted from that section. Besides, there is a whole section dedicated to her conversion later in the article. It seems apparent from the content of this article that whomever has written & edited this article wants to focus the entire story of Anne's life on her conversion. Unfortunately, that is NOT her whole life - it's only a small recent part of it. So I ask, is this an article about Anne Rice's life? Or is it an article about her return to Catholicism?? Because frankly at this point - it's hard to tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.159.118 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read an article from the Associated that Anne Rice has now rejected Christianity. So someone will need to rewrite that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.138.229 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Music

Almost all of the items in the Music section are about her works, not the author herself. Don't they belong on their respective works' pages and not here? 98.163.227.30 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Section about return to Catholicism

Very poorly written. Here are my thoughts and proposed changes:

"After the death of her husband Stan Rice, Anne shocked her fans by decided to return to the Catholic Church." That her fans were "shocked" is a strong, universal statement that needs supporting references to remain. Instead, I would change to: "After the death of her husband, Rice chose to return to Roman Catholicism."

"The decision has proved controversial for both opponents and supporters." Supporters of whom, Rice or the Catholic Church? Without references, this should be removed.

"Regardless of her conversion, Anne has maintained her firm support for Gay rights - likely due to having a Gay son. She has also expressed support for a woman's right to choice in the matter of Abortion." This has no references and contains pure conjecture. Assuming that supporting references can be supplied later, I would change to, "Her return has not come with a full embrace of the Chruch's stances on social issues; Rice remains a supporter of equal rights for gays and lesbians, as well as abortion rights." The reference to Christopher should be permanently removed unless supported by a quote specifically linking her advocacy for equality with her's son's sexual orientation.

"Many have hypothesized about Anne's motives and her seeming contradictions." Again, without supporting references, this should be removed. --Jrwsaranac (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwsaranac (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, the quote from Snow does not belong following the statement "Below are some of Anne's own quotes on the matter," nor my edit, "Rice has written extensively on the matter." I have removed it, as it offers nothing on the topic of Ms. Rice's biography.--Jrwsaranac (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EncyMind (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Slight problem with "After the death of her husband, Rice chose to return to Roman Catholicism." Rice returned to Catholicism in 1998. Her husband died in 2002. Further, once she returned to Catholicism, she was faced with the problem of their marriage having occurred outside of the church. Her husband agreed to a Catholic wedding. There is a widely circulated picture of her and her husband at their wedding - the second one, the Catholic one.

There are quotes where she specifically mentions Christopher, her son, in regard to her problem with the Catholic doctrine and homosexuals. She did not cite her son specifically when she made her announcement that she was leaving Catholicism and Christianity itself. Rice supported gay rights and wrote homoerotic literature long before her son was born. EncyMind (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

As another editor has tried to insinuate that I'm a vandal for daring to edit her work, I'm going to make a the same points here I made in my edit summaries. I removed the sections dealing with Rice's Facebook and Amazon postings, as these were never attributed to reliable sources - rather, they were primarily original research, with links to the posts themselves as reference. This is incorrect, under the guidelines posted at WP:BLPSPS and similar pages regarding referencing. Blogs and message boards are not generally considered reliable sources. In regards to the image galleries and large quotes from Rice, other than one editors assertion that these were necessary "for an understanding of Rice's work" or "important to understand what motivated Rice to write and obstacles she faced to complete it" - again, that is original research on the part of the editor, and not backed up by reliable sources. Also, the image use policy is quite clear on this - "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)" - these appeared to be more decorative than anything else. Further, the editor is trying to make this out to be some sort of pattern of "male chauvinism" - which brings up WP:POINT and [{WP:AGF]] concerns. The other editor really should discuss this here before continuing to edit-war over the article, as it is not hers to control. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I just removed the chunk regarding amazon and facebook. This is 2011, the era where social media is as common as can be, and I don't think we need paragraphs-long descriptions about Rice being an active facebook user or amazon webforum poster. This is puffery. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the specific images that were removed, this image was pure decoration, as was this one, and this one. This one had little to do with her writing - just that she owned it once. Big deal. This one, supposedly somewhere she "wandered as a child" is never mentioned in the text of the article. Only this one was marginally acceptable. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The sunsets of New Orleans have been described in every book Rice has written. The transition from day to night is a literary motif in her novels. Rice's fear of the ensuing dark are a recurrent theme in her books. Lafayette Cemetery is the resting place of her most famous vampire, Lestat, as well as the Mayfair Witches. Her home was intimately described as the Mayfair Manor. St. Elizabeth's Orphanage housed her renowned doll collection, which included dolls described in her books. It also figures into her return to Christianity. User Mike Mazowski completely stripped all of my work (see his earliest "edits"), without regard to the formatting of headings, the acceptable image of the author's signature. Rice uses both her Facebook and Amazon discussions to work out moral and philosophical problems central to her writing. Her announcement on her Facebook page that she was leaving Christianity was a cultural widely reported in the media - do a little research. On her Facebook page she talks about her struggles as a writer, books, art, and media that inspire her writing, etc. For a Rice scholar - and yes they do exist - both her Facebook and Amazon.com discussions are a treasure trove.

Why a photograph with her son is so objectionable is beyond my grasp. Male authors are pictured with family members. She comes from a family of writers. Why you two find a photograph with her son, a NY Times best selling author, repugnant is simply unfathomable. Are the female authors only allowed one or two photos while the male authors have no restrictions? Where they resided, even if it isn't a part of their writing, is okay, but not the female authors?

Tarc, you are a reader of Rice's fiction. It doesn't sound like you have ventured into her Christian fiction yet, but you have to be aware of the moral and religious aspects of her metaphorical books. Go to this Amazon.com discussion to see the nature and quality of Rice's particpation in those forums. It is readily apparent. A book will emerge from these discussions. She is, by the way, reclusive. This is one of the primary ways she interacts with the world. http://www.amazon.com/forum/christianity/ref=cm_cd_pg_newest?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxQLM3M1YVA5HA&displayType=tagsDetail Out of similar discussions, both on Amazon and Facebook, Rice left Christianity. It was no small matter, if you will only read the other sections or do some quick, independent research.

Completely stripping someone's content is not merely editing. It is sabotage. That she is only allowed one image when prominent male authors are not restricted smacks of gender bias . . . which is already a published problem with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly, helpful, collaborative environment. I have had better experiences with Internet trolls. EncyMind (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote box discussion

Please discuss here. I've moved it up a bit to make it more in-line with the relevant text. Honestly it best to put in the article about the book, but it's not too bad here, so as it is I don't mind it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it serves no purpose. For the book article, perhaps, but it really offers no insight into Rice the person. Honestly, it's purely decorative in its current form. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As non-free content, it should have commentary to be acceptable in the article, just like a non-free picture. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reinstating the changes Ms. Rice had requested.

I think you can understand why she would not want personal identifying information (i.e. home address, signature) posted on the internet.

Lm945 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Legality of Fanfiction Stance?

It seems to me her stance on fanfiction, while easily supported by her money, and eager desire to wield a lawyer like a bat, can't possibly be legal. Does anyone know any more about this or have any references to legal analysis of it? I don't write fanfic, nor am I a particular fan of this woman, but reading about that just makes me annoyed. It seems like a blatant abuse of power and attack on fair use. 67.163.183.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

Try taking a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_fan_fiction#United_States_copyright_law It looks like it's legal for her to get these works taken off of fanfiction.net FantajiFan (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section discussing her stance against fan fiction. While I can understand why John removed most of the stuff that can be interpreted as trivia, it is not trivia to mention that Rice has passionately advocated against fan fiction and views it as a copyright issue...even going so far as to have all stories featuring her characters removed from FanFiction.Net (and likely other sites). This is why I restored the information, but with better formatting and a reliable source added in.[4][5][6] Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Anne Rice: Talks About Her Faith And Being A Christian.

Here is a link/video you might find interesting with Anne Rice speaking about her faith in Christ, her life, and her writing. http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/#purpose-in-life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyecurtis (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New image of Anne Rice

Will someone upload a new, more recent image of Anne Rice please? The picture is dated five years or so and she doesn't look like that anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhristTheLord (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Renounce

I could have sworn it previously stated that she made a statement against her previous works, anyone know for sure? Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember it--it was shortly after the Amazon incident. I believe it was in the LA Times interview right after Hurrican Katrina.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a reference. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- What was the nature of this statement? Perhaps it was simply vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.255.246 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

EncyMind (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Rice has not renounced her previous work. She has always stood by it and considered her return to faith a natural evolution of her writing. What she has said is that she will no longer write about the vampires. She considers the work finished.EncyMind (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank God. The first one was brilliant. The second one was jolly good. The third was terrible, and they became progressively unreadable after that except by her fan cult. She really coasted off "Interview" and "Lestat" for the rest of her career. Not the first author to do so. But she'll always deserve kudos for that first book. What an idea, and what execution. 222.230.59.146 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vainamoinen

Hi, there!

I just wanted to let everyone know that I'll be doing some major work on this article in the next few weeks, with the intention of hopefully getting it up to GA status later this summer. A lot of the work is going to revolve around sourcing, as almost all of the refs now in place are improperly formatted. It would also help us to get some more print sources into the article, as opposed to the internet sources that now dominate. A good deal of this work will be tedious, so all help is appreciated! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anne Rice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Nothing sticks out to me that would create much confusion, appears to be appropriately paraphrased as far as I can tell, and I have dealt with the wording issues I noticed that would pose problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   With the exception of some citation issues I noticed this seems to be a well-referenced article that doesn't stray into any original ideas.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers most the significant parts of her life and career in sufficient detail, but isn't drawn out. However, it lacks any real mention of how her work has been received save for noting that it is popular.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Deals with her personal issues in a respectful yet frank manner.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I have tagged the areas where I noticed a need for citations. Having a section or sub-section on critical reception of her writing and filling in those citations should make this article fit to pass. These can readily fixed I think and so I will put a final review on hold.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I think I've now resolved all the referencing problems, and I'll try to have a "Critical reception" section done in the next few days. Thanks again! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On the part about her auctioning off possessions, I was looking for a source on the preceding sentence as well, not just her auctioning off the books. I can see why you would be confused about that, though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Today I'll be focused on going through sources for a "Critical reception" section, but tomorrow I'll definitely try to clear that up. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Update -- I've added a "Critical reception and analysis" section, which covers the critical reception of her early works, and later literary analysis and commentary. Getting that section done took longer than I had planned (it's amazing how hard it is to find decent sources to work from for stuff like that), but I think it looks decent now. There is an uncited quote from a reviewer early in that section. The source I quoted it from was a little too primary for my tastes, so I'd like to find a better source that mentions it. Once I do that (tomorrow or Thursday, hopefully), I think the article will be ready to pass, but if you see any outstanding problems that need to be addressed, let me know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I believe the article is now ready to pass. All referencing issues have been resolved, as far as I can tell, and the "Reception and analysis" gives a fair summary of the way her work has been received and interpreted, I believe. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to try to perform a final review later tonight or early tomorrow, but something more that still needs to be done is to have some more material in the lede. Something I just noticed is that the lede currently doesn't cover her early life and it does not note that there have been more adaptions of Rice's work other than the two movies. The subsequent renunciation of Christianity should probably be noted briefly as well now that I think about it, with due consideration to the nuances of that renunciation, i.e. that she was dropping the label but keeping the faith. Also, there should be a brief summary of the new material about reception included in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the article another time, I feel safe saying that the additions to the lede are the only thing keeping me from passing this nomination.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for giving it another look. I'll have it done tomorrow/later today for sure. Right now, I must sleep! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be ready now. Let me know if you think any further changes are needed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool beans, gonna promote this now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the promotion and all your suggestions! You were a big part of getting the article to where it needed to be, so your help is very much appreciated. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Michele, Michelle

The spelling "Michele Rice" appears to be correct.[7] But the inspiring daughter is "Michelle" in our article on the first novel that she inspired, Interview with the Vampire, and she is "Michelle" in one source that both articles cite concerning her inspiring role.[8] The articles should be reconciled and some explanatory Note should be included in both. (Google hits 20% 'michele rice anne rice' and 80% 'michelle rice anne rice'.)

--P64 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bullies Section

I've reverted this edit for a few reasons:

1. Poorly formatted. Please use ref tags
2. Facebook, Amazon forums, and the blog are not reliable sources.
3. If you're going to call someone a bully you need a reliable source for that.
4. I don't see any reliable source for her volunteering her time to STGRB.

— Strongjam (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming anyone was a bully? This is about Anne Rice dealing with online abuse; it's a very important topic in her life. Maybe you don't realize it, but Anne Rice is a celebrity and Wikipedia contains several quotes from celebrities(?) Especially from their own web pages. This is the author's Facebook & Twitter accounts - You can't get a more reliable source for quotes than from her own words. Wikipedia sources minor d-list Youtube, Facebook & Twitter "celebrity" accounts.

I also fail to see the problem with this reliable source [9]It's part of Goodreads campaign against Online Bullying ... It's backed by The Guardian Article, Time Magazine Article & The New Statesmen.

What could possibly be your issue with any of this? --j0eg0d (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS are not acceptable sources for making claims about living people. Since this dispute with the reviewer involves two living people it's not usable for this. The blog is not part of Goodreads, and just because it's mentioned in other sources does not mean it's a reliable source to claim someone bullied Rice. Also, please use WP:INLINECITEs, so it's easy for the reader to verify the claims being made. You have reliable secondary sources, just stick to what they say and include inline cites to them. — Strongjam (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anne Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091216071515/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_S_webrice.3a134da.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_S_webrice.3a134da.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.annerice.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anne Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.annerice.com/ques_per.htm#howard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)