I read The Vampire Lestat (
tm 
), and I was a little disturbed by the references to 'cherubs' and 'organs' and the depiction of homo-erotic scenes. Yeah, ok, I can handle one or two, but the whole book was full of it. Now, I don't hav a problem with that concept, but had I known it was going to involve constant gay intercourse I would have probably not read it, as that is not my chosen preference for subject matter.
I do like some of the ideas Rice has included in her books, but I think it is silly to try and claim ownership over the whole concept. To take a legend that exists in the public domain (vampires having been the result of unscientific fables to describe certain actual occurances) and lay ownership to it is incredibly ego-centric. If she came up with an idea that was NOT in the public domain, fair enough she can claim it as hers (for example, if she decided that all the vampires in her world were able to, say, shrink to the size of a peanut), but there are far too many resources that people could claim they used as inspiration for her to realisically win a legal battle on vampires in general. And if she did, then the defendants really need to get a new lawyer
As for the 'Vampire Lestat in the window' thing, how could you possibly lose against that? All you need to do is claim that she made the character up - if she counteracts that argument, she's lost the rights to that character. If she doesn't, you're in the clear.
From what you guys have written here, she certainly sounds like a nutter. But then again many geniuses have been mentally unstable, which is why they are able to be more creative than the general populace - they see things from a radically different perspective.
