Ms. Henderson,

If you had bothered to research before comparing the two authors–research by, say, reading the books you planned to compare, you would have found that the two authors and series are quite dissimilar.

Wicked Lovely is a wonderful novel which I would happily give to any girl age thirteen and up. At heart, Wicked Lovely is modern fable about teenaged girl’s struggle to navigate our culture’s opposing, oppressive stereotypes of femininity–”Summer Girls” who care nothing for the future, and recklessly trade on their looks and sexuality, or the “Winter Girl,” powerful and knowledgeable but cold.

The heroine of Wicked Lovely dares to find her own way through these opposing pressures, to avoid the cage-like roles the strange, new world of faerie (or, of modern adulthood) try to force on her and become her own person. She does not trade on her looks or her sexuality, but her intelligence, her compassion, and her willingness to look beyond the arbitrary constraints set out by society.

Any parent should consider themselves lucky if their daughter asks for Wicked Lovely instead of the latest Gossip Girl novel.

It appears to me as if you’re trying to portray yourself as some kind of family-oriented crusader who is going to Protect The Children. I’m sure that’ll get you quite a bit of praise and attention from the ‘right’ people, but it does make you look somewhat Debbie Schlussel-esque in your blithe inaccuracy.

Also, throwing around a serious accusation such as “copyright infringement” which could wreck a writer’s career should not be done on the basis of similar covers (which aren’t actually that similar) and a shared plot point (which can also be found in the works of Shakespeare, Gogol, and Barrie, among thousands of others). Did you honestly think that Laurell K. Hamilton invented faeries? I suspect Ms. Hamilton would herself be shocked by such an assumption.

I cannot believe that anyone runing a “book blog” would writing something so utterly ridiculous.
Have you read either of the books? The stories aren’t even remotely similar - even your own brief synopsis is rather misleading and inaccurate (because Meredith Gentry, Sidhe member of the royal courts who grew up at least partially within and surrounded by fae with a human great grandfather is EXACTLY the same as a 17 year old girl discovering the courts)

The book jackets are similar? You are quite literally judging books on their cover? They both have pictures of women seen from behind. Well, that’s so incredibly unique and in no way could I throw a rock in a book shop and hit 3 of them.

Frankly this article reads like you had a deadline looming and quickly scanned some blurbs and threw something together at the last minute.

1) I’m appalled that someone who claims to have been an editor would break the cardinal rule of judging a book by its cover. I was also an editor and I know that book covers are all extremely derivative. When a particular artistic concept sells, other art departments are quick to jump on the bandwagon. That’s why YOU NEED TO READ THE BOOKS!

2) I can’t even begin to describe how irresponsible it is to use words like copyright infringement before actually reading the books. There is nothing of he sort going on. (I know because I have read both books.) It is especially awful considering the recent scandal with Cassie Edwards who really did do something wrong.

3) It is not a compliment to compare anyone with Laurell K. Hamilton’s recent work, which is an embarrassment to the urban fantasy genre. Marr’s books are actually good and much, much tamer. They treat the issue of teenage sexuality with sensitivity.

4) I’m so disappointed that someone who claims to be an editor like myself would be so misguided.

Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the genre “urban fantasy.” It’s a sub-genre within fantasy, wherein faeries, vampiers, wizards, etc are dealt with during modern times. It seems to me the only thing these two books have in common is being within the urban fantasy genre, which is certainly nothing to start hinting copyright infringement about. Hamilton didn’t invent the genre and isn’t the only popular author who writes it. Shame on you for writing something so ignorant and ill-informed.

It’s apparent that you need a refresher in Journalism 101. It is essential to do actual research. Like reading books before commenting about the contents of said books. Duh.

[…] goes for the ridiculous claim that Melissa Marr is ripping of Laurel K. Hamilton’s Merry Gentry books. As […]

Are you suggesting that Laurel K. Hamilton’s ideas are all uniquely her own and are not drawn from the great well of folklore that so many writers draw from? Your piece shows a stunning lack of knowledge of the fantasy genre, as well as a genuine lack of understanding of young adult literature. I read and thoroughly enjoyed Marissa Marr’s first book, and I thought the sexuality represented was thoroughly appropriate for its TEEN readership. There really is no comparison between the sex in Hamilton’s books and in Marr’s. None. As for the idea that her books “take a page from” Hamiliton’s — also ridiculous. There is a wealth or urban fantasy fiction, and to tell you the truth, I don’t even think of Hamiliton when I think of the genre. I don’t read romance novels and she’s not even on my radar (no offense to her). To throw around a term like “copyright infringement” in a case of two books from the same genre (and you really present no evidence of anything more than that) is completely irresponsible of you and, if I may say, just plain stupid. Read some books, Jane Henderson.

Perhaps if Ms. Marr’s cover had a model doing the same pose as Ms. Hamilton’s, or if the actual storylines were ANYTHING similar, I might concede your point. However, as I am an avid reader of the urban fantasy genre which has been around since LONG before Ms. Hamilton even began writing (ie, Mercedes Lackey’s Serrated Edge series, or “War Of The Oaks” by Emma Bull, etc), I can tell you that just because a storyline involves a girl/woman involved with faeries doesn’t make two vastly separate books even remotely similar. That you even imply such a thing, no matter the drivel you spout about not accusing the latest Marr novel of copying (which you did, despite lame protestations otherwise) nor the fact that you have not even read the book you are accusing, is reckless and irresponsible and not worthy of this publication. Shame on you.

I would like the comments to reflect what I said. Most of these don’t.

I actually have read most of the book. And sure, there the details that are different. The effect of the monotone, shadowy jackets plus the erotic elements seems to me that the new book for young adults is evoking the feeling (of course it’s not copying the text) of the Hamilton series, which is far better known and older. It appears to me to be suggestive, if not derivative. I do not really see how anyone can argue with that. No one has offered a single book and jacket that has the same mortal/faerie heroine having encounters with faeries in modern world with a book cover that is monotone picture of young woman/girl from backside with bare skin and a tattoo! Neither Lackey ’s nor Bull’s book covers look remotely like these books I am referring to.