kamalianciranoush asked: so Eric and Sookie do not get the happy ending in the books? she chooses Sam? O_O
Yes…
![stillhidden:
hsm7:
truebloodwillpsychuout:
hsm7:
stillhidden:
exitpursuedbyasloth:
truebloodwillpsychuout:
exitpursuedbyasloth:
Heya, sunny!
I fear my wording on the other post was unintentionally misleading. A bomb (actually two) about Bill was planted in “One Word Answer”, but they were not exploded. One was eventually partially revealed (Bill being sent by the Queen, though this was alluded to in earlier books as well), but the other was, like most of Harris’s bombs, never exploded (unless DEA is going to be like one big Michael Bay movie or something).
“One Word Answer” was published about a year before Definitely Dead, which is the book where it is revealed that Bill was sent by the Queen to procure Sookie. In OWA, you can definitely see little hints of that scattered in the conversation between Bill and Cataliades/Waldo/Sophie-Anne.
Keep in mind that Cataliades is Sookie’s demon godfather, and is generally a friend to her (and this is one of the things I think CH may have actually planned, since he always was rather friendly and helpful to Sookie). He, knowing Waldo killed Hadley, deliberately steers the conversation so that Sookie would be able to figure it out and start asking questions to get Waldo to out himself. He also seems to do this, though much more subtly, in regards to Bill being sent to procure her. He doesn’t seem to care for Bill, as when Bill made his presence known (just as Sookie and Cataliades start talking about the Queen), a flash of displeasure crossed Cataliades’s face (they pretended not to know each other, but they HAD to have known each other, at the very least Cataliades had to know about him). Cataliades simply has a working relationship with vampires, but he’s neither overly fond of or intimidated by them, it’s just business. Sookie, however, is family. At one point, this happens (keep in mind Bill is trying to procure Sookie for Sophie-Anne at the time):
“Mr. Cataliades said, “The queen was pleased with Hadley’s enthusiasm and childlike ways. Hadley was only one of a series of favorites. Eventually, the queen’s favor would have fallen on someone else, and Hadley would have had to carve out another place in the queen’s entourage.”
Waldo looked quite pleased at that and nodded. “That’s the pattern.”
I couldn’t get why I was supposed to care, and Bill made a small movement that he instantly stilled. I caught it out of the corner of my eye, and I realized Bill didn’t want me to speak.”
Mr. Cataliades is alluding to what is currently happening to Sookie (she’s the Queen’s latest fixation), and Bill get uncomfortable. He doesn’t want her to ask questions about that particular thing. Shortly after that, this happens:
““Pretty girls glut the market,” Waldo said. “Stupid humans. They don’t know what our queen can do to them.”
“If she wants to,” Bill murmured. “If this Hadley had a knack for delighting the queen, if she had Sookie’s charm, then she might have been happy and favored for many years.””
Bill is deluding himself into thinking that Sookie, with all her charm and delightful personality, could be a happy, pampered pet of the Queen’s for years, and therefor he’s not doing anything bad by her. Or, alternately, his possessive side is acting up and he’s warning himself about what’s to come, that the Queen is going to steal his favorite toy.
At the end, after Sookie shows just how clever she can be, and reveals she can sense the blank spots of vampires (and therefor knew Sophie-Anne was in the backseat of the limo), Bill is kind of pissy with her in that understated way he can be, and touches her a lot (this is after he raped her in the back of the Lincoln). Sookie also comments on how creepy and unsettling he can be. But this was still back when CH used negative language when referring to Bill the Rapist.
But, the other bomb was the implication that Bill may have procured Hadley for the Queen as well. When Waldo is trying to goad somebody into killing him (so he would escape the Queen’s torture), he says this to Sookie:
““Your cousin [Hadley] was a bitch and a whore,” Waldo said, unexpectedly.”
Then four lines later, referring to Bill:
““Get your whoremonger to do it, he’s more than willing.”
Bill was looking more vampiric by the second, and he tugged the stake from my fingers.”
I don’t think the use of the title of ‘whoremonger’ for Bill had no meaning. If the ‘whore’ he mongered wasn’t Hadley, then Waldo was referring to Sookie and how to Queen is trying to procure her. Don’t forget Waldo was trying to get Bill to kill him, and threatening to reveal a secret as big as that would probably do it.
But, however way you cut it, this is important information that really should have gone into one of the main novels (it’s not like there wasn’t room for it at the beginning of Definitely Dead). But, well, it’s all about sales, innit?
No, it’s about intelligent folks like Exit reading the books carefully, doing a critical analysis, and coming up with their own conclusions about what’s going on. SVM novels (just like True Blood) leave plenty of room for imagination, anticipation, speculation, and interpretation. Would we have such passionate debates about the books if CH served us everything up on a silver platter? If all actions had predictable consequences? If the motivation of every character was immediately discernible and never varied? If we knew who the killer was on page 15? I don’t think so. Arguing about what’s happening in the books is part of the reading experience. How about we stop bashing CH for not being obvious about her story and just enjoy the ride?
Uh, cause Charlaine herself has basically said she does things for book sales. So by spreading important information and key plot elements into a bunch of anthologies, there are more books to be sold.
Slow your roll, scooter.
And the tag:
Though seriously after 12 books if we can’t discern the motivations of the characters than CH is not doing her job
This, this! This is one of my biggest problems. It’s not whether we can tell who Sookie will end up with (Though, frankly, if she suddenly develops deep romantic love for Sam in the last book, that’s not a good way to write anything). It’s that we can’t tell not just the motivations of ANY other characters — after all, we are in Sookie’s head, and for all her telepathy, she can’t tell much and often — it’s that we can’t tell what the hell HER intentions and motivations are. A book before last showed us Sookie coming to terms with a lot of things, moving past the “normal life with picked fences and babies,” etc. Then the last book reversed all that and now she’s all “but baaaabiiiiiessss!!!!” And that’s just one example. I get that characters can change their minds and that’s fine, but there’s usually a motivation and impetus to that. Random changes are just that: random.
So yeah, the tag.
Oh, and this:
How about we stop bashing CH for not being obvious about her story and just enjoy the ride?
How about no. I can’t enjoy something that isn’t enjoyable. I don’t know anyone who can. Pointing out problematic stuff isn’t “bashing,” it’s pointing out problematic stuff. That causes direct lack of enjoyment.
I figure it’s personal. There are those who enjoy these books and either don’t see the problems or don’t care, and that’s perfectly fine by me. I am not going to issue a decree for them to “NOT.” I’d prefer the same courtesy in return, though. As in, not to be told to “stop” and “enjoy.”
Exactly! There is nothing wrong with people putting forth an argument — a valid, well though out and articulated argument, with examples, no less — supporting their views. I don’t understand the need to continually admonish others because there is a difference of opinion. Support your point of view, but give others the courtesy of allowing theirs. The arguments may or may not sway points of views, but that’s okay. We all like and value different things, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Assigning the words “bashing” or “bullying”, as was done by another blogger in an earlier post, just because someone puts forth a cogent dissenting opinion is lazy and cheapens the veracity of your position…which, by the way, started as a compliment praising the level of critical analysis by EPBAS and then turned, at the last moment, to an admonishment. Commanding people to “stop” their way of thinking and to “stop” sharing their thoughts and opinions is demeaning.
OK, first of all, I am not commanding anyone to do anything. I am not God. I don’t know why anyone thinks so and feels the need to tear me down for saying what I think. I thought tumblr was a free forum.
I do not disagree with Exit’s argument that there is a lot in the books that’s not obvious and is not disclosed. I look at the novels and the short stories as one long continuous story (possibly even one long mystery). I don’t expect CH to reveal everything, and I don’t have any trouble figuring out Sookie’s motivations. It’s possible to dissect the story into such small details that you lose track of the big picture and of who Sookie is. Nothing in the books, including her ambivalence and indecision is contrary to the personality that CH had been establishing over the years.
For instance, how can Sookie not think about babies after attending a baby shower? What woman wouldn’t, even if she happens to be dating a vampire? The way I interpret such complaints is that the reader is frustrated because CH is not herding Sookie into a neat and tidy enclosure that the reader already set up for Sookie in her own mind. The one in which Bill is beaten to death with all the books, and Sookie somehow gets to live happily ever after with Eric. This is the reader’s personal fantasy. This is not CH’s or Sookie’s fantasy. Neither CH nor Sookie ever romanticized Eric or villified Bill because in real life people don’t think like that. We don’t label people we know personally as heroes or villains in our minds. We only see them as flawed individuals who do things we are OK with one day, and bad shit that makes us crazy the next day.
Sookie is a 28 y/o woman whose life only really started 3 years ago. She’s not ready to give up her hopes and dreams and settle for whatever Bill or Eric or Sam or Alcide or Quinn is offering. She wants the husband and the 2.5 kids and the picket fence. She wants personal and financial independence. She wants to be with someone who loves and respect her and gives her silence. She wants to be safe. She wants her life to have excitement. She wants to be needed and appreciated and put first. She wants it ALL. But all is not possible. That’s just a fantasy. So Sookie’s practical side and idealistic side are constantly in conflict with each other. Hence we get the ambivalence in the past few books.
CH is a mystery writer. She wrote conventional mysteries for years. She explained that she wanted to expand her audience, so when she wrote Dead Until Dark, she added the supernatural element for the Sci-fi/Fantasy fans and a romantic element for the romantic fiction fans. She is not a romance writer and doesn’t see her books as romance novels that have to have a predictable HEA ending. Southern Vampire Mysteries are exactly that—mysteries. The books are NOT a modern day love story between a girl and a vampire. Anyone who fails to take this into consideration when reading the books will be confused and frustrated.
I freely admit that I strongly dislike Exit’s very negative opinion of Charlaine Harris just because she said that she enjoys her financial success. I don’t think that anyone’s work should be devalued simply because they get paid for it. Alan Ball and the TB cast and crew don’t work for free either, but we are not judging them and their work on the basis of that. If CH wants to sell short stories for anthologies, why shouldn’t she do so? All writers do that. Those little side stories add to the narrative and let us spend some time with our beloved characters in between the novels. Yes, putting a major plotline into a short story and not in the novel was a mistake because not everyone got to read the short story, but CH recognized that and didn’t do that again. Writers are human; they make mistakes.
Oh, and by your own argument, I am just as entitled to have an opinion as you are, even if my opinion is that your opinion is inappropriate, and you should keep it to yourself. I have no issue with people criticizing the books, but any negative opinions about CH herself are something I don’t appreciate reading on my dash and will speak out against. And I would do the same for anyone criticized unfairly.
You know I have no problem with your opinion, whether I agree or not. Frankly, I enjoy your ideas, agree at times, and enjoy the discussion. What I have an issue with is that you feel the need to tell people to “stop” doing this or doing that. An opinion is an noun. What you add to your opinion is a verb. Just like when you told us to “stop with the fatalistic bullshit” right after you called us Tumblr drama queens yesterday. Regardless the legitimate ideas, thoughts, and examples you present to support your opinion, they are overshadowed by your rudeness and condescension.
This. Exactly this. The bold in particular.
It’s not the opinions, it’s the manner in which they are presented. And no, no one thinks it’s a “god” commanding them to do or not to do something, just a person with an unfortunate way of telling someone who disagrees with them to “stop this or that, you fatalistic drama queen.”
Once someone calls me that, they lose all ground their argument might have gained them. As simple as that. Frankly, they do that, and I stop reading their opinion, period. They are being rude, I lose interest in hearing from them at all.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/30e7af903d235ec55f4cad515301b55c/tumblr_mglc0jxKWI1r0wjy3o1_500.jpg)
hsm7:
hsm7:
Heya, sunny!
I fear my wording on the other post was unintentionally misleading. A bomb (actually two) about Bill was planted in “One Word Answer”, but they were not exploded. One was eventually partially revealed (Bill being sent by the Queen, though this was alluded to in earlier books as well), but the other was, like most of Harris’s bombs, never exploded (unless DEA is going to be like one big Michael Bay movie or something).
“One Word Answer” was published about a year before Definitely Dead, which is the book where it is revealed that Bill was sent by the Queen to procure Sookie. In OWA, you can definitely see little hints of that scattered in the conversation between Bill and Cataliades/Waldo/Sophie-Anne.
Keep in mind that Cataliades is Sookie’s demon godfather, and is generally a friend to her (and this is one of the things I think CH may have actually planned, since he always was rather friendly and helpful to Sookie). He, knowing Waldo killed Hadley, deliberately steers the conversation so that Sookie would be able to figure it out and start asking questions to get Waldo to out himself. He also seems to do this, though much more subtly, in regards to Bill being sent to procure her. He doesn’t seem to care for Bill, as when Bill made his presence known (just as Sookie and Cataliades start talking about the Queen), a flash of displeasure crossed Cataliades’s face (they pretended not to know each other, but they HAD to have known each other, at the very least Cataliades had to know about him). Cataliades simply has a working relationship with vampires, but he’s neither overly fond of or intimidated by them, it’s just business. Sookie, however, is family. At one point, this happens (keep in mind Bill is trying to procure Sookie for Sophie-Anne at the time):
“Mr. Cataliades said, “The queen was pleased with Hadley’s enthusiasm and childlike ways. Hadley was only one of a series of favorites. Eventually, the queen’s favor would have fallen on someone else, and Hadley would have had to carve out another place in the queen’s entourage.”
Waldo looked quite pleased at that and nodded. “That’s the pattern.”
I couldn’t get why I was supposed to care, and Bill made a small movement that he instantly stilled. I caught it out of the corner of my eye, and I realized Bill didn’t want me to speak.”
Mr. Cataliades is alluding to what is currently happening to Sookie (she’s the Queen’s latest fixation), and Bill get uncomfortable. He doesn’t want her to ask questions about that particular thing. Shortly after that, this happens:
““Pretty girls glut the market,” Waldo said. “Stupid humans. They don’t know what our queen can do to them.”
“If she wants to,” Bill murmured. “If this Hadley had a knack for delighting the queen, if she had Sookie’s charm, then she might have been happy and favored for many years.””
Bill is deluding himself into thinking that Sookie, with all her charm and delightful personality, could be a happy, pampered pet of the Queen’s for years, and therefor he’s not doing anything bad by her. Or, alternately, his possessive side is acting up and he’s warning himself about what’s to come, that the Queen is going to steal his favorite toy.
At the end, after Sookie shows just how clever she can be, and reveals she can sense the blank spots of vampires (and therefor knew Sophie-Anne was in the backseat of the limo), Bill is kind of pissy with her in that understated way he can be, and touches her a lot (this is after he raped her in the back of the Lincoln). Sookie also comments on how creepy and unsettling he can be. But this was still back when CH used negative language when referring to Bill the Rapist.
But, the other bomb was the implication that Bill may have procured Hadley for the Queen as well. When Waldo is trying to goad somebody into killing him (so he would escape the Queen’s torture), he says this to Sookie:
““Your cousin [Hadley] was a bitch and a whore,” Waldo said, unexpectedly.”
Then four lines later, referring to Bill:
““Get your whoremonger to do it, he’s more than willing.”
Bill was looking more vampiric by the second, and he tugged the stake from my fingers.”
I don’t think the use of the title of ‘whoremonger’ for Bill had no meaning. If the ‘whore’ he mongered wasn’t Hadley, then Waldo was referring to Sookie and how to Queen is trying to procure her. Don’t forget Waldo was trying to get Bill to kill him, and threatening to reveal a secret as big as that would probably do it.
But, however way you cut it, this is important information that really should have gone into one of the main novels (it’s not like there wasn’t room for it at the beginning of Definitely Dead). But, well, it’s all about sales, innit?
No, it’s about intelligent folks like Exit reading the books carefully, doing a critical analysis, and coming up with their own conclusions about what’s going on. SVM novels (just like True Blood) leave plenty of room for imagination, anticipation, speculation, and interpretation. Would we have such passionate debates about the books if CH served us everything up on a silver platter? If all actions had predictable consequences? If the motivation of every character was immediately discernible and never varied? If we knew who the killer was on page 15? I don’t think so. Arguing about what’s happening in the books is part of the reading experience. How about we stop bashing CH for not being obvious about her story and just enjoy the ride?
Uh, cause Charlaine herself has basically said she does things for book sales. So by spreading important information and key plot elements into a bunch of anthologies, there are more books to be sold.
Slow your roll, scooter.
And the tag:
This, this! This is one of my biggest problems. It’s not whether we can tell who Sookie will end up with (Though, frankly, if she suddenly develops deep romantic love for Sam in the last book, that’s not a good way to write anything). It’s that we can’t tell not just the motivations of ANY other characters — after all, we are in Sookie’s head, and for all her telepathy, she can’t tell much and often — it’s that we can’t tell what the hell HER intentions and motivations are. A book before last showed us Sookie coming to terms with a lot of things, moving past the “normal life with picked fences and babies,” etc. Then the last book reversed all that and now she’s all “but baaaabiiiiiessss!!!!” And that’s just one example. I get that characters can change their minds and that’s fine, but there’s usually a motivation and impetus to that. Random changes are just that: random.
So yeah, the tag.
Oh, and this:
How about we stop bashing CH for not being obvious about her story and just enjoy the ride?
How about no. I can’t enjoy something that isn’t enjoyable. I don’t know anyone who can. Pointing out problematic stuff isn’t “bashing,” it’s pointing out problematic stuff. That causes direct lack of enjoyment.
I figure it’s personal. There are those who enjoy these books and either don’t see the problems or don’t care, and that’s perfectly fine by me. I am not going to issue a decree for them to “NOT.” I’d prefer the same courtesy in return, though. As in, not to be told to “stop” and “enjoy.”
Exactly! There is nothing wrong with people putting forth an argument — a valid, well though out and articulated argument, with examples, no less — supporting their views. I don’t understand the need to continually admonish others because there is a difference of opinion. Support your point of view, but give others the courtesy of allowing theirs. The arguments may or may not sway points of views, but that’s okay. We all like and value different things, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Assigning the words “bashing” or “bullying”, as was done by another blogger in an earlier post, just because someone puts forth a cogent dissenting opinion is lazy and cheapens the veracity of your position…which, by the way, started as a compliment praising the level of critical analysis by EPBAS and then turned, at the last moment, to an admonishment. Commanding people to “stop” their way of thinking and to “stop” sharing their thoughts and opinions is demeaning.
OK, first of all, I am not commanding anyone to do anything. I am not God. I don’t know why anyone thinks so and feels the need to tear me down for saying what I think. I thought tumblr was a free forum.
I do not disagree with Exit’s argument that there is a lot in the books that’s not obvious and is not disclosed. I look at the novels and the short stories as one long continuous story (possibly even one long mystery). I don’t expect CH to reveal everything, and I don’t have any trouble figuring out Sookie’s motivations. It’s possible to dissect the story into such small details that you lose track of the big picture and of who Sookie is. Nothing in the books, including her ambivalence and indecision is contrary to the personality that CH had been establishing over the years.
For instance, how can Sookie not think about babies after attending a baby shower? What woman wouldn’t, even if she happens to be dating a vampire? The way I interpret such complaints is that the reader is frustrated because CH is not herding Sookie into a neat and tidy enclosure that the reader already set up for Sookie in her own mind. The one in which Bill is beaten to death with all the books, and Sookie somehow gets to live happily ever after with Eric. This is the reader’s personal fantasy. This is not CH’s or Sookie’s fantasy. Neither CH nor Sookie ever romanticized Eric or villified Bill because in real life people don’t think like that. We don’t label people we know personally as heroes or villains in our minds. We only see them as flawed individuals who do things we are OK with one day, and bad shit that makes us crazy the next day.
Sookie is a 28 y/o woman whose life only really started 3 years ago. She’s not ready to give up her hopes and dreams and settle for whatever Bill or Eric or Sam or Alcide or Quinn is offering. She wants the husband and the 2.5 kids and the picket fence. She wants personal and financial independence. She wants to be with someone who loves and respect her and gives her silence. She wants to be safe. She wants her life to have excitement. She wants to be needed and appreciated and put first. She wants it ALL. But all is not possible. That’s just a fantasy. So Sookie’s practical side and idealistic side are constantly in conflict with each other. Hence we get the ambivalence in the past few books.
CH is a mystery writer. She wrote conventional mysteries for years. She explained that she wanted to expand her audience, so when she wrote Dead Until Dark, she added the supernatural element for the Sci-fi/Fantasy fans and a romantic element for the romantic fiction fans. She is not a romance writer and doesn’t see her books as romance novels that have to have a predictable HEA ending. Southern Vampire Mysteries are exactly that—mysteries. The books are NOT a modern day love story between a girl and a vampire. Anyone who fails to take this into consideration when reading the books will be confused and frustrated.
I freely admit that I strongly dislike Exit’s very negative opinion of Charlaine Harris just because she said that she enjoys her financial success. I don’t think that anyone’s work should be devalued simply because they get paid for it. Alan Ball and the TB cast and crew don’t work for free either, but we are not judging them and their work on the basis of that. If CH wants to sell short stories for anthologies, why shouldn’t she do so? All writers do that. Those little side stories add to the narrative and let us spend some time with our beloved characters in between the novels. Yes, putting a major plotline into a short story and not in the novel was a mistake because not everyone got to read the short story, but CH recognized that and didn’t do that again. Writers are human; they make mistakes.
Oh, and by your own argument, I am just as entitled to have an opinion as you are, even if my opinion is that your opinion is inappropriate, and you should keep it to yourself. I have no issue with people criticizing the books, but any negative opinions about CH herself are something I don’t appreciate reading on my dash and will speak out against. And I would do the same for anyone criticized unfairly.
You know I have no problem with your opinion, whether I agree or not. Frankly, I enjoy your ideas, agree at times, and enjoy the discussion. What I have an issue with is that you feel the need to tell people to “stop” doing this or doing that. An opinion is an noun. What you add to your opinion is a verb. Just like when you told us to “stop with the fatalistic bullshit” right after you called us Tumblr drama queens yesterday. Regardless the legitimate ideas, thoughts, and examples you present to support your opinion, they are overshadowed by your rudeness and condescension.
This. Exactly this. The bold in particular.
It’s not the opinions, it’s the manner in which they are presented. And no, no one thinks it’s a “god” commanding them to do or not to do something, just a person with an unfortunate way of telling someone who disagrees with them to “stop this or that, you fatalistic drama queen.”
Once someone calls me that, they lose all ground their argument might have gained them. As simple as that. Frankly, they do that, and I stop reading their opinion, period. They are being rude, I lose interest in hearing from them at all.
hsm7:
SNIP
Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about all of this. This storyline is so far from anything that happens in the books, I fear I won’t even recognize Eric anymore by the end of this season. I’m not sure if I want Eric to turn into one of those comic book superheroes who’s so busy saving the stupid world that he never gets the girl.
Since the books are told from Sookie’s POV, the other characters really don’t have a story unless it intersects with hers. So, for me, I’m thrilled that Eric is fleshed out. If his character followed the books…well, we wouldn’t know much. We know his heritage, both vampire and human, and we know he loves Sookie. We get hints at other traits like his charm, his love for life, etc., but it’s nothing compared to what TB Eric has shown us. What is it about Book Eric that you don’t think you’d recognize in TB Eric?
I, for one, am not expecting a superhero. What I like is the fact that he’s confronted with moral challenges and that, contrary to his early portrayal as the villain of the story, or as a self-involved, self-serving character, we find that his hard exterior belies a deeper moral compass. I don’t look at it as he’s out trying to save the world. Rather, he’s in a predicament that has widespread implications and he has to ask himself what he’s going to do about it. Also, I think he has to go through this transition in order to be with the girl. He’s a little broken right now after the amnesia, and he needs to be whole again without his two sides warring with each other. That is the only way he’s going to get Sookie. She does love all of him, but he has to be able to offer all of himself. Thus, he needs to decide who and what he’s going to be.
But you see, this storyline IS kinda about saving the world. I mean if the Authority becomes completely corrupted, the Sanguinistas take over, and there is an actual war between vampires and humans (as all TB spoilers have been hinting at), and Eric is the only one who is not buying the Lilith illusion, then he ends up getting thrust into the position of the reluctant superhero who has to save the world. Not just Area 5 or even just the Kingdom of Louisiana as he does in the books. And while I do appreciate the idea of Eric Northman discovering his full potential and taking a stand on something other than his small town interests, I think it’s important to remember that this is True Blood, not the Avengers. I hope the writers don’t take it too far.
I actually felt like Harris artificially never took things far enough in the book series. I mean, there’s a terrorist bombing of a vampire summit, a hotel comes down, there are casualties everywhere, and Sookie somehow ends up back in Bumfuck, LA again? It’s like she was at ground zero in Oklahoma City or 9/11 and it barely touched her.
I get that Harris likes small towns and their crises and small cast of interconnected characters, but the way huge events happen and Sookie is just bumbling along, apparently oblivious to the larger implications, always frustrates me. She’s so bored by Eric’s description of vampire political structure in book 10 that he can barely get her attention. This, despite these political alliances directly affecting their lives through Victor and Felipe (and later Freyja). The author probably never wanted to write a political book—she writes mystery seasoned with a dash of romance or horror—but I like the way the scope is expanding on the show.
It’s not Joss Whedon (who wrote the Avengers and the Buffy series), but it’s nice to see them get outside Bon Temps and Shreveport once in a while. It’s realistic to see more at stake than just Louisiana, with occasional forays into the neighboring states of Texas and Mississippi. I enjoy the contrast between small-town, individual problems (Sookie and Jason trying to figure out who murdered their parents) and weightier matters (the implosion of the mainstreaming movement and a vampire coup).
As for how Eric is changing in response to these pressures, I enjoy the layers they are adding to his character.
This. You just put your finger on what I really love about Eric’s development. He changes in response to the changes in his life. If a sacrifice is needed, really needed, he will go there. If he needs to take on a responsibility he may be reluctant to take, he takes it. Because he has to. And it has an affect on him. He doesn’t just shrug off the events and reverts to what he was before. Oh, he may try to put on a mask, but his masks aren’t fooling anyone.
Life changes him, he changes with it, he adapts or he grieves and moves on, but the movement is there. And it’s very real.
OMG, THIS. THIS-ITY THIS THIS.
This is exactly the thing I love most about Eric — he is always processing and changing. NEW INFORMATION MOVES HIM IN NEW DIRECTIONS. If Eric becomes more truly heroic, it feels like a very natural outgrowth of the things he has always cared about, and his motivations will be as always — the Authority (Salome?) perverted his beloved sister’s mind, and once BIll full-throatedly joins them and becomes Salome’s new lover of some gruesome shit, Sookie will be in very real danger. If he is deposed as Sheriff and replaced by someone with no respect for what is Pam’s, his progeny and his bloodline are threatened. Every single thing he cares about is threatened.
If he decides he has to bring down the Authority, he has a multitude of reasons to do it that have nothing to do with being a superhero, but if the side effect is his realising that he essentially does believe in peaceful coexistence and wants to evolve in the way Godric wanted, and he’s willing to fight for it, I think that makes perfect sense in light of everything we know about his sense of honor, justice, loyalty and fairplay, along with the fact that Eric’s love isn’t easily given, but once it is, it becomes elemental.
I’ve said (at length) in earlier posts that I felt like Harris skimped on character development for Eric until the last few books. Thank heaven the show hasn’t made that mistake. Static characters are boring. I love it that Eric is (once again) being set up as a reluctantly heroic figure. IMHO, he IS the hero of the story, many viewers just haven’t realized it yet. It’s season 5, it’s probably time to make his role a little more clear. This trajectory makes sense if the writers are planning to reunite Sookie and Eric in a more permanent fashion. Everyone knows that Sookie is the heroine; if she is going to be paired with him permanently, he can’t remain the villain, or an attractive side character.
I’ll close with a quote from Joseph Kratzer’s review of “In the Beginning” at What Culture:
I absolutely love how Bill has been gradually replaced by Eric as the male lead of True Blood. He is an infinitely more interesting and compelling character and I’m hoping after he rescues his sister Nora we’ll see this trend in full force.
Amen! Even if he fails to rescue Nora (which is a distinct possibility), the fact that he will take it upon himself to try and rescue her, and try and rescue Bill (to whom he owes nothing).
This is what they’re doing in season 5—shifting Eric into the spot formerly reserved for Bill as the audience’s eyes and ears in vampire scenes. Notice how we got Eric’s POV in the massacre at the wedding party, not Bill’s. He’s gradually emerging as the “voice of sanity” and the person the audience can trust in the chaos of conflicting loyalties and agendas. It’s a smart way to transition him into Bill’s role without viewers being consciously aware that the former hero is being supplanted.
What she said. :)
Indeed. Eric is the hero, and last week was his first moment in those shoes. When I think about the titles “Hopeless” and “In the Beginning” it makes me think of the expression “It’s always darkest before the dawn.” At the end of “Hopeless” Eric is at the mercy of Russell, and any hope that Roman’s view represented for order and the maintenance of the status quo is gone, and in the next episode, everyone succumbs to the madness… except Eric; Eric who has in him this seed of change that Godric planted and Sookie’s love nourished; Eric who has always been essentially honorable.
None of this is in the least bit surprising, either. It’s been coming for a long, long time.
(Source: missfordtb)
Exit Liveblogs Deadlocked
I’ve just come to the part of the story where Sookie’s rapist makes her dress like a stripper on the 4th of July so they could go on some impromptu and probably doomed caper that I guess nobody knows they’re even fucking on to rescue somebody maybe, and Sookie’s rapist is speaking with a suspicious amount of authority and generally doesn’t sound anything like Bill (really, Bill is going to call Appius an asshole?), and she’s alone with her rapist when he gets a fangrection at the fact that he dressed her like a patriotic stripper, AND I JUST DON’T WANT TO READ ON. WHERE COULD THIS POSSIBLY GO THAT IS GOOD? IT IS JUST GOING TO MAKE ME RAGE, ISN’T IT?
Oh man! But the best part is how she’s standing there in her hooker outfit and considering Bill’s fang-rection compliments and thinks: ”I tried to accept this as an impersonal tribute, though I don’t think any woman minds knowing she looks good, as long as the admiration isn’t expressed in an offensive way and doesn’t come from a disgusting source.”
Because compliments from a dude who raped you on how hot you look in your hooker costume aren’t disgusting or offensive at all, are they!
"I’ve had moments when I recognized that my reactions to current events were out of the stratosphere (most often when I was in the grips of my monthly woes)"
-Charlaine Harris, Deadlocked, pg 181
OH HAHA, PERIOD HUMOR! SHE’S HYSTERICAL WHEN HER PERIOD ARRIVES! HAHA, SHE CAN’T CONTROL HERSELF WHEN SHE’S HAVING HER MENSES! YES, THIS IS A PLACE WE NEEDED TO GO. HAHA, UTERUS!
(via exitpursuedbyasloth)
LOLZ. Oy vey.
Exit Liveblogs Deadlocked
“Sookie, I’m on my way over to see you,” Eric said.
See, I knew there was a good reason for not answering. “No,” I said. “I don’t think so.”
…
“We’ll talk about it later.”
I should have told him about Mustapha’s visit, but I lost my remaining patience. “Uh-huh. Right.” I hung up.”
-Deadlocked, pg 122-124
“That night was notable only for what didn’t happen. Eric didn’t call me. I understood that his out-of-town company had the biggest claim on his time, but I almost felt shoved aside and disregarded as Dermot.”
-Deadlocked, pg 143
Gee, Sookie, do you think maybe he didn’t call because you said you didn’t want to see him and hung up on him?
And did you ever consider the possibility that he didn’t want to talk specifics over the phone, because it might be bugged? I mean, the Nevada vamps (who don’t trust him) are breathing down his neck, he’s being framed for murder, don’t you think he has reason to be paranoid? Or are you just going to continue to be petty and suicidally reckless by not telling him valuable information regarding either Mustapha or Vince the Substitute Security Guard? Are you trying to get everybody killed?
Is there no growth for your character? Aren’t you actually regressing? If the plot hinges on everybody being hit with the Stupidity Ray, shouldn’t one reconsider the plot?
Right? And, what I always wonder is, if she wants to talk to him and she loves him and she’s a strong independent woman, is there a reason she can’t CALL HIM if she wants to talk to him? And say something mature like “What gives, Eric? Why don’t you call me?” or, “Hey, sorry I hung up on you — PMS. Wanna come over and make sweet love to me?” or really, anything at all? I mean, combine that with all of her hanging up on him, being pissed off and telling him she doesn’t want to see him, AND if he’s going on the assumption that his lover is not a fucking idiot, then I can totally see his point in wanting her to somehow prove she loves him.
So many commenters carry on about how much she’s matured, but I don’t really see that she’s written like that. It’s obvious from the start that something more than Eric’s (not even actual) infidelity is afoot. And, it’s also obvious that he is in deep shit the whole time, and under a great deal of pressure, and yet, it’s all about her, and all about Eric being a dick.
Whatevs, bitches.
Haha, are these the same commenters that tried to say the Naked Cubby Tickle Fight was CH’s way of showing that Sookie was now willing do anything to survive…except talk to her boyfriend when she’s mad at him, apparently.
I really didn’t like the last book (for many reasons), but at least Sookie used her head a couple of times, and was willing to work with Eric against their common enemy, even when she was pissed at him.
This is a regression of her character. She’s acting suicidally petulant and endangering everyone.
I feel like both Sookie and Eric are maligned in this book. Sookie is acting like she can’t add 2+2 and get 4, and Eric is acting like he’s helpless. In order to make their inevitable semi-happy ending appealing, we have to like them at least a little bit by the end, right? And be rooting for them? I almost felt like, at best, after this book, they deserve each other.
Finally, Sookie’s POV gives me claustrophobia.
Exit Liveblogs Deadlocked
“Sookie, I’m on my way over to see you,” Eric said.
See, I knew there was a good reason for not answering. “No,” I said. “I don’t think so.”
…
“We’ll talk about it later.”
I should have told him about Mustapha’s visit, but I lost my remaining patience. “Uh-huh. Right.” I hung up.”
-Deadlocked, pg 122-124
“That night was notable only for what didn’t happen. Eric didn’t call me. I understood that his out-of-town company had the biggest claim on his time, but I almost felt shoved aside and disregarded as Dermot.”
-Deadlocked, pg 143
Gee, Sookie, do you think maybe he didn’t call because you said you didn’t want to see him and hung up on him?
And did you ever consider the possibility that he didn’t want to talk specifics over the phone, because it might be bugged? I mean, the Nevada vamps (who don’t trust him) are breathing down his neck, he’s being framed for murder, don’t you think he has reason to be paranoid? Or are you just going to continue to be petty and suicidally reckless by not telling him valuable information regarding either Mustapha or Vince the Substitute Security Guard? Are you trying to get everybody killed?
Is there no growth for your character? Aren’t you actually regressing? If the plot hinges on everybody being hit with the Stupidity Ray, shouldn’t one reconsider the plot?
Right? And, what I always wonder is, if she wants to talk to him and she loves him and she’s a strong independent woman, is there a reason she can’t CALL HIM if she wants to talk to him? And say something mature like “What gives, Eric? Why don’t you call me?” or, “Hey, sorry I hung up on you — PMS. Wanna come over and make sweet love to me?” or really, anything at all? I mean, combine that with all of her hanging up on him, being pissed off and telling him she doesn’t want to see him, AND if he’s going on the assumption that his lover is not a fucking idiot, then I can totally see his point in wanting her to somehow prove she loves him.
So many commenters carry on about how much she’s matured, but I don’t really see that she’s written like that. It’s obvious from the start that something more than Eric’s (not even actual) infidelity is afoot. And, it’s also obvious that he is in deep shit the whole time, and under a great deal of pressure, and yet, it’s all about her, and all about Eric being a dick.
Whatevs, bitches.
SNIP
About Bill and his role as a suitor: He should have stopped being a suitor in book 3, by any reasonable human being. But Sookie thought about potentially getting back together with Bill in books 5 and 6, and there are heavily suggestive overtones in later books (totally inappropriate, IMO), so I would say his potential suitor viability carried on after that. Which it totally shouldn’t have.
Also, Charlaine has said she never intended to develop Eric the way she did, that he got ‘more and more complex’ and ‘she hadn’t expected that at all’, because in the beginning ‘He was pretty much an asshole…I didn’t see the charm at all…readers reacted to him much more strongly than I ever expected, and I thought ‘Oh..okaaay…’ and I thought ‘Well, let me just keep looking at him’ ‘, all of which calls into question whether or not she intended to Eric to get with Sookie at all (if you believe her claim that she’s always known who Sookie will end up with). (this video, if you’re curious, start at the 25:00 min mark).
Also, my satisfaction with this series depends more on Sookie and Eric getting together. Not going to be happy with the books if Sookie and Eric happen, but it’s filled with a bunch of rape culture fuckery vis-a-vis Bill the Loveable Rapist.
(and angst and drama for the sake of angst and drama is never a good thing)
Judging by outcries of “hate the ending of this book” that I’ve seen so far, and by all the “it’s okay, stay calm, people, they will be together in the end” rhetoric, it’s fairly safe to assume that Eric and Sookie are not, in fact, together at the end of this book, and in a way that is “angst” for some and “fuckery” for the less dainty speakers.
Can’t say I didn’t expect this. And I am with Exit on this: It’s not just that I want Eric and Sookie together, I could very well do without the absolute nausea factor of Sookie prancing around with her rapist. Don’t need the spoilers on that, it’s in the book synopsis, for goodness sake.
And I agree with what Unreconstructedfangirl said earlier: If Bill wasn’t still hanging like a bad smell around Sookie, no one would be asking CH questions about “what’s in store for Sookie and her Lovable Rapist?” This isn’t to say that CH intends this to be a question at all. But, much like with Eric’s popularity, sometimes the consequences of the writing aren’t what she would expect. I am not worried about Eric. I am, however, wondering if the consequences of Bill is something she, perhaps, should have expected. Given the nature of what he did to Sookie, this could and should have been avoided.
I’m of a slightly different mind than everyone else. I’m trying to give Ms. Harris all the benefit of the doubt I can. So I’m assuming that some of the stranger behavior Sookie exhibits is MEANT to seem odd to us, as readers. In other words, Sookie is a damaged character, because she was sexually abused as a child, and sometimes that comes out in her romantic choices. I
hopethink that Harris is trying to portray that. Why else have her do such weird stuff (sleeping (platonically)with her fae relatives, going back to Bill after the graveyard sex scene in book one, putting up with Quinn for longer than two dates)? I’m assuming that Bill hanging around like a “bad smell” is more of the same.She’s written several sexually damaged heroines (perhaps as a result of her own experiences). Lily Bard and Sookie come straight to mind. Realistically, damaged people have a hard time making good choices. Sookie’s often seemed comically over-sexed to me. Not so much in her behavior, as in her thoughts. I mean, her cousin takes off his shirt and she has trouble concentrating. Promiscuity is a well-known side effect of childhood sexual trauma. So I attribute a lot of her inappropriate sexual thoughts and “flirting” with Bill (and others) to the abuse. I desperately hope that this is what Harris is trying to convey, and not that rape and abuse are OK. I see this as another case where we’re stuck in Sookie’s first-person POV, and she doesn’t understand what’s so weird about her behavior, BUT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO NOTICE. We’re supposed to read some of what Sookie says and does and go WTF? Otherwise, as so many of you have written, it just makes no sense.
I have to say that I agree with you in the sense that I think it is possible to be too strident on the issue, and too unforgiving, and that it’s possible Charlaine Harris has intentions that aren’t so obvious. Rape is bad and evil, and not to be tolerated, yes, and it can never be taken back, I agree; but I also think rehabilitation, true repentance and forgiveness have to be possible, too. I agree with everything Exit and Stillhidden are saying about how grody it is that Sookie is still hanging around with a dude who raped her and never really took responsibility or was in any way truly rehabilitated. I think the problem with the story is that it isn’t really acknowledging that HE RAPED HER. I think it’s possible that Charlaine Harris INTENDS for us to feel that Bill is reformed, but the simple fact is that Charlaine Harris isn’t a very good writer, and Sookie’s first person POV is extremely limiting. If she intends to show us that Sookie is making flawed decisions because she is compromised by a history of sexual abuse, then she isn’t really succeeding in conveying that.
If I’m absolutely honest, though, I have to say that I’m simply not wild about Charlaine Harris’s writing, full stop, and it’s the main reason I give her less benefit of the doubt than this. It really bothers me to know that she doesn’t plan her story. Things she says like what Exit quotes above — like that she just wrote Eric as an asshole and didn’t know why so many readers responded to him really, really bug the shit out of me. I simply don’t trust her as a story-teller to do justice to her characters. I infinitely prefer how carefully crafted the story is on True Blood, where Bill’s guilt is very clear, and the reasons for Sookie’s not so great decisions are also very clear.
But, that’s just me. I guess I’ll go take my medicine and read Deadlocked now.
(Source: luvtheviking)
"The union becomes especially strained when a woman from whom Eric drank blood — remember, he’s a vampire — is found dead on his front lawn.
Sookie must face her doubts about her relationship with Eric as she and her old flame/rapist, Bill, investigate the death.
When asked if readers can expect to see sparks fly between Sookie and her rapist, Bill, Harris laughed, saying, “I’m not telling.”"
-Charlaine Harris, from this interview
Charlaine, Charlaine, Charlaine, the proper response when a reporter asks if there are any romantic sparks between your protagonist and her rapist is “Fuck you.”
Alternate add-ons include:
- “You fucking fuck.”
- “You pig-fucking fucker of pigs.”
- “You smooth-brained mooncalf.”
- “What the fucking hell is the matter with you?”
- “You gonna ask if there are any sparks between Sookie and her molesting uncle Bartlett, asshat?”
- “Fuck you. In all the ways a person can be fucked. With no lube.”
- “You remember that Bill raped her, right? You still want to ask if there are sparks between them? Is that the place you wanna go?”
If you insist on being all Southern about it, you could always just go with “Bless your heart”.
(via exitpursuedbyasloth)
***
Oy vey. The question really was formulated like that? With “old flame/rapist”? And that was her response?
Mind? It boggles.
All that Exit said. Except the proper Southern response should be “Bless your fucking heart!”
Sigh.
Also, tags:
Gosh I hope that rapist and the chick he raped finally get together
Unchecked Tire Fire Mysteries
Proper responses to rape culture bullshit
It’s so fucking romantic
From now on I am going to substitute all uses of the word ‘Bill’ with ‘rapist’
Because it seems some people are forgetting and I just want to remind them
I’m helpful like that
(via stillhidden)
Ah-hah, no, that was my edit, hence the tags
#From now on I am going to substitute all uses of the word ‘Bill’ with ‘rapist’ #Because it seems some people are forgetting and I just want to remind them
#I’m helpful like that
I mean, it’s not inaccurate, it’s even informative. It’s like substituting “Sookie” with “protagonist/heroine/part-fairy waitress”, Eric with “Vampire Viking Sex God”, and Quinn with “douchebag assclown”.
And, maybe if people see with they’re really asking when they ask these bullshit questions about the romantic future of a rapist and the one he raped, they would stop fucking asking them, or a least feel a little shame for half a fucking second. That’s my dream, anyway.
(via exitpursuedbyasloth)
They can’t stop asking them until Charlaine Harris stops making them a perfectly logical question to ask about her books. I don’t blame people for asking, since that’s fully a frisson she is setting up, which is the real travesty. I blame her.
(via exitpursuedbyasloth)
"Q: How would you explain Sookie and her rapist’s relationship in this book now compared to the past?
Charlaine Harris: Their relationship is a funny mixture of familiarity, affection, and regret. They’re no longer lovers, but Sookie has flashes of remembering how wonderful her sexual relationship with her rapist could be."
-Charlaine Harris interview, 4/19/12
Yep. That’s what she said. Of course, she said Bill in place of ‘her rapist’, but as they’re one in the same…
I just fucking can’t with you anymore, Charlaine, I just fucking CAN’T.
You wrote Bill Compton as an abusive, stalking, controlling boyfriend who repeatedly raped Sookie (I hope you’re not obtuse enough to have written a scene where a girl believes her choices are either sex or death and not have intended it to be rape). There are no take-backsies for that. You can’t undo it by pretending that it never happened, or worse, advocating a ‘what’s a little rape between friends?’ mentality, or whatever the fuck it is you think you’re doing.
In the majority of rapes, the victim knows the attacker. So I take no issue with you exploring the complex and often contradictory emotions that a woman feels when the man she loved rapes her, nor do I have issue with the fact that your rapist isn’t some moustache-twirling Snidley Whiplash.
What I have a problem with is the fact that you continue to portray the relationship between Sookie and her rapist as only a friendly one, chumming around town as chums, that her rapist is her trusted ally, a gentle and loyal rapist is he. That in your latest book, you’re teaming Sookie and her Friendly Neighborhood Rapist up as a crack investigative team (that the Rapist is in charge of), like some Gorian version of Moonlighting…Rapelighting. That you would use the word ‘wonderful’ to describe a sexual relationship that was full of rape and abuse.
Seven fucking hells, Charlaine, do you even pay attention to the words that are coming out of your mouth?
(via exitpursuedbyasloth)
Ugh. Just … I want to say something clever, but I’m fresh out. I just feel like puking.
Will let exit’s tags speak instead. They are much more eloquent:
#What the everloving fuck Charlaine?
#Rape Culture Bullshit
#Oh it was so wonderful all those times he raped her
#I JUST FUCKING CAN’T
#Seriously are you trolling us Charlaine?
#Unchecked Tire Fire Mysteries
(via stillhidden)
I went to a Q and A with Charlene a year or so ago, and yeah, she was just completely head over heels in love with the fact that HBO is running her show, and she said this verbatim, because it’s making her rich. So, I don’t think this is so much rape culture bullshit, as just a little “artistic license” rewrite to play more into the show’s version (aka Alan Ball being over the top Team Bill).
(via sarahmonster213)
No. No.
Alan Ball is not “Team Bill.” I don’t understand how anyone paying attention can think that AB is “in love” (or whatever the sentiment implied may be) with Bill as a character. He paints him as abusive, weak, manipulative, and often downright evil. And consistently a lesser man than those around him. If this is “love,” I shudder to think what AB would do to a character he mildly dislikes. Or, you know, full on hates.
Let’s dismiss that idea right away.
I will also say “no” to the idea that the only reason CH is saying such things is because she is getting some monetary gains. She isn’t getting paid for the amount of Bill Compton per square inch. And she would get the same check is she were to write Bill Compton’s death scene in some gruesome way. Bill Compton is not the meal ticket in this situation. Quinn’s got a bigger fan club at this point.
So no. Whatever she may have said — and the “I love getting paid for this” sounds more tongue-in-cheek than a blatant commercialism — I have got no issue with her loving he work filmed, or enjoying getting paid. Why shouldn’t she?
I don’t buy that the woman who has been through something like that herself, would sell rape for profit. Perhaps it’s a way of coping. Or perhaps she really did drop the ball this badly.
And it absolutely is rape culture. The culture that tells a victim that applying revisionist filters to what happened is the better option than demanding justice. Sookie reminiscing about “good old times” with her rapist feeds right into that.
(via stillhidden)
Oh by God. Seriously? Ugh.
(via stillhidden)
Winter Sign: Things True Blood Got Right: Eric's character development
True Blood has managed what I thought would be near impossible—improving upon the book’s characterization of Eric. Book Eric, let me be clear, is a GREAT character. There’s good reason he is the reader favorite among Sookie’s suitors. He’s charming, cocky, funny, and entertaining. But he is not…
Loads of amen — a great read.
Ok, I know this is the second time I’m reblogging, but I have something to add. READ THIS, because it’s all true, and we all own Ohiogurl a debt of gratitude for spelling it all out so clearly, but READ THIS and then consider the question of whether anything whatsoever is REALLY being done to prop Bill up as a character, or create any sort of equivalency between Bill and Eric. The narrative energy that is expended on building Eric’s character and showing us who he is constant, incredibly consistent, and very careful. Bill is given NOTHING of this sort of development. The worst thing that’s happened to Bill in 4 seasons of True Blood is that his lies were revealed when he didn’t want them to be. For all the ways that Ohiogurl points out in terms of how sympathy for Eric is created on the show, think about how much sympathy is created for Bill (hint: the answer is NEXT TO NONE).
In fact, the development of Bill’s character consists of a slow removal of any kind of illusion we might have initially had about him or the reality of his love or ability to love. He SAYS all kinds of things about himself, who he is and what he feels, but his actions never support his picture of himself, and his feelings are always showy, melodramatic and accompanied by (thanks EPBAS) his trademark telenovella tears. Eric meanwhile says comparatively little, never makes a show of his feelings, and every single last thing about every scene he’s in conspires to SHOW us his depth, virtue and value.
Since this series is about what True Blood gets right, I would like to say that True Blood knows the difference between what you are TOLD in a narrative and what you are SHOWN, and it uses this awareness very carefully. The writers of True Blood are constantly accused of doing all manner of terrible things to the story, but the truth is that they leave it to us to see what’s really going on. They don’t tell us. They leave the thinking to us.
If only more of True Blood’s fans were capable of thinking with any degree of subtley.
Things True Blood Got Right: Bill’s Betrayal
With Alan Ball announcing that he is stepping down as show runner, and the resultant glee from some “fans”, especially book lovers, I wanted to write about some of the things the show has done right. I get tired of the constant negativity. Particularly when the show has significantly improved many aspects of the story. So I’m devoting a post to things the show has bested the books at.
Bill’s betrayal.
This is unquestionably done at least ten times better on the show. The reveal is truly shocking, and yet makes perfect sense. Rewatching the first seasons after learning this is a revelatory experience, because you can see all the little bread crumbs the creators drop to warn the audience that Bill isn’t quite what he seems. When a big revelation retroactively changes everything that went before and makes you want to see it all again to look for clues, you know they’ve done it right.
It works so well because the show took significant liberties with the source material. In the books, Bill betrays Sookie twice. In book 3, he abandons her for his maker, Lorena. He sleeps with Lorena and plans to leave Sookie behind (albeit under Eric’s protection). Through various plot machinations, Sookie ends up locked in a car trunk with a drained, unconscious Bill near the end of the book. Out of control with blood thirst, he takes too much of her blood and rapes her. Although she still cares for Bill, this is too toxic even for Sookie, and she breaks up with him at the end of the book. This breakup sticks (unlike the twenty times before it), but Sookie continues to harbor fugitive feelings for Bill until book 6. At the end of this book, Eric discovers that Bill first wooed Sookie under false pretenses—he was ordered to by the vampire queen, who was interested in her telepathy. Eric forces Bill to confess this to Sookie, and she freaks out. She wanders the streets of New Orleans, crying, and when she returns her feelings for Bill have congealed into rage and disgust.
On the show, the betrayals/reveal are condensed into one intensely dramatic scene. Bill attempts to kill Eric in the last episode of the season, treacherously betraying him while they are working together to neutralize their common enemy, Russell Edgington. After removing his rival, Bill speeds to Sookie to try to worm his way back into her good graces. Sookie is suspicious because Show Bill nearly drained her (a nod to the books), although he didn’t rape her. He dallied with Lorena on the show as a ploy to protect Sookie, but his twisty, deceptive behavior has made Sookie wary. Bill makes a long, noble speech and Sookie is on the verge of taking him back, when Eric arrives. He has escaped Bill’s trap and is not in the mood for tolerating Bill’s lies any longer. He forces Bill to confess to being sent by the queen, but he also reveals a new, insidious layer to Bill’s betrayals that is not present in the books. Show Bill allowed Sookie to be beaten up right after they met, because this forced her to drink his blood to heal. Vampire blood (on the show) generates an immediate, but short-lived, sexual attraction to the vampire who donated it. Bill used this attraction, and his “heroism” in saving her, to manipulate Sookie. Her love for him was based, at least partially, on a lie. Horrified and enraged, Sookie kicks Bill out and breaks up with him for good.
It is easy to see the similarities and differences. Both storylines are based upon the revelation of Bill’s deceptiveness and Sookie’s angry, anguished reaction. Both depend upon Eric to hold Bill’s nose to the grindstone, as he has no desire to come clean on his own. But the show version is more horrifying, as Bill didn’t just lie about why he was initially interested in Sookie, he pretended to nobly save her when he was cold-bloodedly manipulating her. Moving the big reveal from books 3/6 to season 3 is also more dramatically effective. In the books, the dramatic tension of the betrayals/breakups is drained away by stretching the storyline over so many volumes. Combining the two breakups into one concentrates the angst and drama. The show’s reworking of Bill’s betrayals packs more dramatic punch because Bill did more despicable things (the added perfidy of letting her be beaten) and Sookie learns about his betrayals all at once.
The show’s handling of this character arc is also much more emotionally satisfying. When Bill’s actions are revealed, it’s a surprise because it ret-cons the very first episode, but it makes sense. The show had been gradually revealing more and more unpleasant, or at least ambiguous, sides to Bill’s character. Bill’s betrayal is signaled throughout the first few seasons. He warns Sookie the night they meet that vampires often turn on those close to them. In 1x03 he lets three vampires terrorize Sookie while he sits, cold and unperturbed, watching, in a chair nearby. The way the scene is lit, so that Bill is all in shadow except his hands, evokes unease and mistrust. The clues are so numerous, in retrospect, that it’s amazing we missed them the first time. Sookie has threatening dreams of him, and he reveals a sadistic side when he glamors a cop who stops them while they are driving home. He appears unnaturally fixated on her blood. At the time, viewers assumed he was simply a typical Gothic hero—alternately attractive and threatening. They glossed over his scary behavior and focused upon his seductiveness, humanity, and love for Sookie. But in retrospect, when you watch the first three seasons again, it is clear that Bill’s betrayal was carefully planned and worked into the story.
There is no corresponding warning about Bill written into the books. Ms. Harris has freely admitted that she rarely plans plot arcs beyond a single book. She had no idea when she wrote book one that Bill would betray Sookie in books 3 and 6. That wasn’t even a blip on her radar. As a result, book one Bill is considerably more sympathetic and less creepy than season one Bill. His betrayal isn’t set up in the writing (because Harris didn’t plan to have the betrayal at the time she wrote the first book). The show writers, having the benefit of reading the first 6-7 books before they started writing the scripts, could plan in advance how to make Bill’s betrayal make sense when it was finally revealed.
You could argue that the show writers had an unfair advantage—they knew what was coming (unlike the author) and could work it into the story more naturally. That is true. But it doesn’t change the fact that Bill’s betrayal is so much more delicious in the show. What an intriguing surprise to learn that he really WASN’T the hero, but the villain after all. Suddenly the boring, cliched star-crossed lovers of season one become a cold-blooded predator and his victim. In a wonderful irony, Bill & Sookie’s relationship is the anti-Twilight. I’m amazed no critic has yet pointed out that their relationship, which looks like an adult version of Stephenie Meyer’s famous pairing, is actually a potent, entertaining critique of the cliche of the vampire lover. Naive girl falls for dangerous, yet seductive supernatural creature—and then discovers he was sent to deceive and manipulate her, he’s dangerous to her as well as her enemies, and she CAN’T trust him. This is no true love story, after all, but only a tale of a manipulative liar and his victim. Of course, True Blood, and Bill and Sookie, are more complicated than that quick summary. But it does succinctly describe their character arcs, and why the betrayal enriches the story so much. It moves the show from a well-done cliche to an implicit critique of the cliche upon which it is based. Bill and Sookie are actually an object lesson in why falling in love with a vampire is dangerous, not romantic. The script writers were wise enough to alter the book template and they created a much more compelling, damning, intriguing story.
So, so good. All there is to say is — EXACTLY.
The angst!
SNIP for space…
For what it’s worth, this wording can be coming entirely from the marketing department, and not from CH.
Again, for what it’s worth, I don’t think at all that Sookie will be entertaining any romantic feelings toward Bill ever again.
That’s not what I’m dreading. What I find really troubling is not some artificial triangle — that is a time-honored and tested tension-builder in a lot of narratives. Obviously, there WAS an Eric vs. Bill in the books, no matter what CH says. They are designed as polar opposites, in physical description and personality-vise. Eric vs. Bill was pretty clearly indicated for at least 3 of the first 4 books.
And then it became Eric vs. Quinn. Same difference. One clearly wrong choice vs. One clearly right one that the heroine just cannot accept due to various narrative obstacles until the last possible moment.
Again, if that were the deal, I wouldn’t blink. It’s not the romantic triangulation (or even romantic indecisiveness where Eric is concerned) that I find so unsavory. It’s not Bill as a possible romantic detour. It’s Bill in conjunction with Sookie, period.
If Bill were a different person in the books. If his transgressions were confined to cheating or conspiring with QSA. If he weren’t a rapist. If he were removed. If he were “abjured” by Sookie. If he weren’t now a friend and a confidant, and an investigative buddy to boot.
I don’t care if he regrets his “loss of control.” I don’t give a shit about his whys and whereofs. He raped her. It happened. Whether she dealt with it, processed it, or pushed it into the recesses of her subconscious, I cannot in all conscience accept that she is hanging out with this guy as if that didn’t happen. As if anything he could do or say ever can reverse what he did.
I don’t think at all that Sookie still loves him or even has a shred of attraction left. The very fact that she can lie on top of him naked and not feel anything is telling. But the very fact that she CAN lie on top of him naked?!!!!! Or would?! Makes me want to throw up.
This is fucked up. There’s no human, logical, decent explanation or justification for it. None. This is where CH lost me.
And it took a while, too. The whole scene is written so off-hand, it didn’t even register properly as anything but a mild caper. It was played for laughs. Which, in retrospect, makes it worse, more insidious. When I first read Dead Reckoning, it didn’t even make a dent. I was concentrating on other things and other occurrances, thinking them through and finding motivation. I even liked the book.
But then I re-read it. And it hit me. The whole scene, and then add to that the fact that it’s fucking BILL! who actually admonishes Eric! into stopping the bite?! And then talks Sookie through her romantic dillema? And she LISTENS to him?!
I don’t know if two more books are enough to unfuck this situation. Right now, I cannot see it.
What makes it all the more worse is when you remember that CH was going to kill Bill off in the ninth book, and then didn’t. So how very integral is anything Bill does to the plot, when it was never supposed to happen in the first place? So that scene of Unforgiveable Fuckery was just CH’s idea of filler crap.
Thinking about the apparent plot of Deadlocked, it would seem that the dead girl’s blood was spiked with something to entice Eric into feeding from her, based on the synopsis and the cover with a phial of something being added to the blood. And it’s has to be faerie-blood the girl was spiked with, that’s the only established vampire catnip.
But the thing is, Eric has been around faerie blood, pure faerie blood, before, and has neither lost his shit nor been unable to resist it. Not only has he been around a bleeding Sookie half-a-dozen times or more. He was surrounded with Faerie Blood when they killed several faeries at Ludwig’s hospital, and ignored it all to check on Sookie (and lick her face). He and Pam held the faerie-doped glasses at Victor’s club, and weren’t compelled to chew on the glass. He drank a whole Faerie in Sookie’s front yard, and yet it didn’t make him go crazy, or attack Claude or Dermot or Sookie, he just got all melancholy and pointed at Sookie saying “You’re my boo!” and then broke out. He’s been in the same house as Claude and not lost his shit.
But now, suddenly, he can’t resist the smell of faerie blood? Some strange girl walks up to him stinking of faerie, offering herself to him, and despite the many enemies who would like to fuck with his shit, he is not at all suspicious of this too-good-to-be-true free lunch, and in fact, can’t resist the alluring smell (despite 11 books of resisting the alluring smell)? And how did a girl stinking of faerie blood manage to walk through a party full of vampires without getting tackled?
Yep. If this is how it’s going to go, then Sheldon’s reaction pretty much will be mine.
I don’t even get this plot-line. I understand that there are two more books, and they need to be filled with plot. I understand that Eric and Sookie need more obstacles before they can be together properly (and by understand, I mean I am resigned to that being the usual rout serialized fiction takes).
But why this random “who-done-it”? Wasn’t there already a huge obstacle planted in the form of the Queen of Oklahoma? And didn’t they already have a minor falling out over all the biting/keeping secrets stuff? Plenty of weeds for them to wade through before they can ride off into the … whatever passes for sunsets with vampires. Why wasn’t THAT working?
And apart from what seems like a completely unnecessary complication, there’s fucking Bill. Investigating. With Sookie.
****
Ha! I swore to myself I wouldn’t speculate about the book, and just wait to read it. Yeah, that didn’t last.
Total agreement, and love for the part bolded immediately above, which fully encapsulates my feelings.
(Source: sosanguine)
The angst!
Just read the synopsis for Dead Locked from Amazon UK at Sookieverse Blog. I need to stop reading these things! Now I am going to be thinking about Sookie and Eric all day when I should be studying sepsis and shock and stuff like that for my test tomorrow!
I mean I love angst and all, but I had enough of that in the first 11 books, right? I am usually optimistic, but its hard not jumping to conclusions when you read these things.
Anyone want to discuss?
I try to not get too worked up over synopsis. They tend to be misleading, and their job is to whip people into frenzy so they can’t wait to spend their money on the thing.
Having said that, if the synopsis are in any way accurate, I am not happy. It’s not the fact that Eric is clearly being set up once again, it’s that they make it sound like Sookie is STILL doubting whether she loves him or not. And that she doesn’t trust him. After all that’s happened? After everything that the previous 11 books have been establishing? That makes no sense at all, no matter what the context.
Add to it that she will be investigating Eric’s “crime” with her friendly neighborhood rapist and occasional area investigator Bill Compton (with whom she now has naked tickle fights and from whom she takes sage relationship advice — the mind bobbles!), and I am just … ugh … I don’t know what to think.
I told myself I will reserve judgement until I read the book. That’s all any of us can do.
Indeed. It sounds lame, I am almost certain I won’t like it… but hey! I rarely like her books, so I’m not fussed. Either she’ll tell as story that makes sense after 11 books, or she won’t. If she doesn’t, I’ll tell myself.
