|
|
If you've read the books and would like to discuss [future] plot lines, please do it here so as not to spoil it for those who are new to the series - thanks!
|
Posts:
427
Registered:
8/12/09
|
|
(8780 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 11:43 PM
|
> > The comments were in reference to her feeling
> that
> > alot of people are romanticising him or focusing
> on
> > the sexual aspects of his character, and
> forgetting
> > what he actually is.
> >
> > She is just trying to remind people of his true
> > nature. When you read some of the things that
> people
> > say about him, you can see why she would feel
> the
> > need to do that I think.
>
>
> If I didn't know your post was about Eric I'd swear
> this was about Bill because that's exactly what I
> find happens, LOL.
Wow too true.
When I reread that even I was confused who I was talking about LOL.
I think most people (on here at least) seem to have no problem with seeing Eric's rough side but I have seen comments sometimes (even on CH's own board) alluding to him being the perfect guy and basically ideal husband material. He isn't, he is dual natured and most certainly flawed.
But I think CH is getting alot of fangirling and questions about his sex life and she thinks we've all gone off the rails lol.
|
|
|
Posts:
640
Registered:
8/8/09
|
|
(8779 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 10:53 PM
|
> > But don't you think that the reason she didn't
> do
> > this with Eric was that she was pulling this
> new
> > "Eric is really bad" theory right out of
> her,
> > um, bottom? That is why there are no
> hints or
> > foreshadowing. She made it up!
>
> I think that there is alot of misunderstanding about
> what she said 
>
> She didn't mean that Eric is essentially BAD. As in
> Eric is the BAD GUY of the story.
>
> She meant that he is not an all round good guy. He
> is a vampire and as such he is a killer and he is
> ruthless. In clarifying her comments she said this,
> and also that he is no worse than any other vampire.
>
> The comments were in reference to her feeling that
> alot of people are romanticising him or focusing on
> the sexual aspects of his character, and forgetting
> what he actually is.
>
> She is just trying to remind people of his true
> nature. When you read some of the things that people
> say about him, you can see why she would feel the
> need to do that I think.
>
> Personally I think she should just shut up for a
> while and correct these misconceptions, if she feels
> they exist - in the story by making him actually DO
> something that is ruthless and vampy.
>
> While she writes him one way and describes him in
> interviews another way, she's always going to be
> digging herself into a hole.
>
> --
> Edited by Aaine at 11/07/2009 7:35 PM PST
Yeah, she sort of indicated that when she had to clarify what she said later. And I actually agree with what she said the second time around in regards to vampires, in general. What I have a problem with is her not using that same standard on Bill. If Eric is all of those things, then so is he.
And, just between you and me, I think Eric fans are fully aware of what he is. We have always known that he has the capacity for good and evil...he is a vampire, after all. She needs to give us more credit than that.
And I would like her to shut up, too. I read where she once said that she didn't like explaining what happened in the books because they shouldn't need an explanation. She should go back to that because things were much clearer when she let her writing speak for itself.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,984
Registered:
8/1/09
|
|
(8778 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 10:45 PM
|
> The comments were in reference to her feeling that
> alot of people are romanticising him or focusing on
> the sexual aspects of his character, and forgetting
> what he actually is.
>
> She is just trying to remind people of his true
> nature. When you read some of the things that people
> say about him, you can see why she would feel the
> need to do that I think.
If I didn't know your post was about Eric I'd swear this was about Bill because that's exactly what I find happens, LOL.
|
|
|
Posts:
427
Registered:
8/12/09
|
|
(8777 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 10:34 PM
|
> But don't you think that the reason she didn't do
> this with Eric was that she was pulling this new
> "Eric is really bad" theory right out of her,
> um, bottom? That is why there are no hints or
> foreshadowing. She made it up!
I think that there is alot of misunderstanding about what she said
She didn't mean that Eric is essentially BAD. As in Eric is the BAD GUY of the story.
She meant that he is not an all round good guy. He is a vampire and as such he is a killer and he is ruthless. In clarifying her comments she said this, and also that he is no worse than any other vampire.
The comments were in reference to her feeling that alot of people are romanticising him or focusing on the sexual aspects of his character, and forgetting what he actually is.
She is just trying to remind people of his true nature. When you read some of the things that people say about him, you can see why she would feel the need to do that I think.
Personally I think she should just shut up for a while and correct these misconceptions, if she feels they exist - in the story by making him actually DO something that is ruthless and vampy.
While she writes him one way and describes him in interviews another way, she's always going to be digging herself into a hole.
--
Edited by Aaine at 11/07/2009 7:35 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
640
Registered:
8/8/09
|
|
(8776 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 10:17 PM
|
> >
> > Even an author like CH has to be intellectually
> > accountable for her product. Her just making
> stuff
> > up later is insulting to her readers.
>
> Exactly.
> Making Eric "evil" off the page (or making any other
> character something else entirely off the page) does
> not make a "twist".
>
> It makes lazy writing.
>
> If you are going to do something like that to twist
> your story, you need to lay the groundwork the whole
> way through the story - moving characters, directing
> plot, foreshadowing etc - and there is nothing in the
> books that would indicate this is the case. You have
> to do this so that when the twist comes into play
> it makes sense.
>
> We know Harris is completely capable of doing this,
> since she already did it with Bill. Once you know
> about Bill's agenda, going back to reread the books
> before it came out - there are hints dropped
> everywhere. Some of them are very blatant,
> others not so much. The plot was in sync with it as
> well - Hadley, the Queen, Hadley's murder...it was
> all leading up to the big reveal.
But don't you think that the reason she didn't do this with Eric was that she was pulling this new "Eric is really bad" theory right out of her, um, bottom? That is why there are no hints or foreshadowing. She made it up!
|
|
|
Posts:
427
Registered:
8/12/09
|
|
(8775 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 10:06 PM
|
>
> Even an author like CH has to be intellectually
> accountable for her product. Her just making stuff
> up later is insulting to her readers.
Exactly.
Making Eric "evil" off the page (or making any other character something else entirely off the page) does not make a "twist".
It makes lazy writing.
If you are going to do something like that to twist your story, you need to lay the groundwork the whole way through the story - moving characters, directing plot, foreshadowing etc - and there is nothing in the books that would indicate this is the case. You have to do this so that when the twist comes into play it makes sense.
We know Harris is completely capable of doing this, since she already did it with Bill. Once you know about Bill's agenda, going back to reread the books before it came out - there are hints dropped everywhere. Some of them are very blatant, others not so much. The plot was in sync with it as well - Hadley, the Queen, Hadley's murder...it was all leading up to the big reveal.
|
|
|
Posts:
442
Registered:
8/27/09
|
|
(8774 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 8:21 PM
|
I understand that but it still doesn't give CH an excuse to portray Eric one way in the books when he is with Sookie and then say he is bad for what he does when he is not with her. If she can get away with that, then all bets are off for every character, not just Eric. She can say, for example, that Jason is actually a Rhodes Scholar but only acts stupid in front of Sookie...or she can say that, while Bill appears to be a southern gentleman in front of Sookie, he is actually a cross-dresser in his spare time.
Even an author like CH has to be intellectually accountable for her product. Her just making stuff up later is insulting to her readers.
Could not have said it better myself. She will have NO artistic integrity IF she all of a sudden decides that Eric was being "evil" behinds Sookie's back. She, as a writer, is all ready on thin ice because of all the inconsistencies she has had in the past with her characters
To bring Bill to the edge of death and then pull back because people "talk you out of it" ...WTF ? I would say the very same thing IF it was Eric she was ready to do away with.
Sorry but I can't stand her.
|
|
|
Posts:
640
Registered:
8/8/09
|
|
(8773 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 8:05 PM
Rate this post:
|
> The books are written through Sookie's eyes. So we
> only see what she sees and feels, which is a pretty
> narrow view. We don't know what's going on when
> she's not there. So CH has alot of leverage there.
> She can spin things pretty much the way she wants.
> . She can make terrible things come out later on, if
> she wants.
I understand that but it still doesn't give CH an excuse to portray Eric one way in the books when he is with Sookie and then say he is bad for what he does when he is not with her. If she can get away with that, then all bets are off for every character, not just Eric. She can say, for example, that Jason is actually a Rhodes Scholar but only acts stupid in front of Sookie...or she can say that, while Bill appears to be a southern gentleman in front of Sookie, he is actually a cross-dresser in his spare time.
Even an author like CH has to be intellectually accountable for her product. Her just making stuff up later is insulting to her readers.
|
|
|
Posts:
412
Registered:
10/14/08
|
|
(8772 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 8:04 PM
|
Does any one know when TB Season 2 will be back On Demand?
TY
bluedog
|
|
|
Posts:
10
Registered:
11/5/09
|
|
(8771 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 7:57 PM
|
> > But what charlaine should have said to explain
> > herself eric is bad but he has not been bad
> around
> > sookie so she just knows he has a reputation
> for
> > being bad and since the story is told from
> sookie's
> > point of view, having not witnesses any
> instance
> > except the highway one its not mentioned. but
> no you
> > writers just have to keep trying to tell us
> things
> > you dont write trying to sell with your mouth
> after
> > the fact instead of with the pen damn just write
> it
> > already.
>
> I would hate it if she tried to say that he was bad
> because of the things he did when Sookie was not
> around to witness it. What would be the point of
> even developing his character through the story then?
> No, there is no way around the fact that her comments
> are not supported by her books. She can't brainwash
> us now into forgetting what we read or tell us that
> we just didn't understand. It's not like her writing
> is so complex that it requires intellectual analysis,
> LOL.
The books are written through Sookie's eyes. So we only see what she sees and feels, which is a pretty narrow view. We don't know what's going on when she's not there. So CH has alot of leverage there. She can spin things pretty much the way she wants. She can make terrible things come out later on, if she wants.
|
|
|
Posts:
442
Registered:
8/27/09
|
|
(8770 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 7:19 PM
|
> True Blood to resurrect its vampire sheriff?
> True Blood's third season. E!'s Kristen says the
> show's writers are considering exploring Godric's
> 1,000-year history with Eric though flashbacks.
>
> This sounds like a great idea. I'd love to see how
> the wicked and feral Godric we saw in last season's
> flashback became a stoic and merciful leader. And I'd
> love to see Eric in the role of naïve student
> learning from one of the oldest vampires on the show.
>
>
> Hope this is true!!!
I think its true. The ep's with Godric and Eric were so well written and recieved by critics ... they are probably going to win all kinds of awards. AB would be crazy not to bring him back
|
|
|
Posts:
1,628
Registered:
10/10/08
|
|
(8769 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 4:37 PM
|
This is all the stuff on Tommy Mickens
It was from this spoiler:
• Tommy Mickens is a grungy but handsome man in his early ’20s who just so happens to be Sam Merlotte’s long-lost younger brother. Apparently, at some point he’ll be showing his unadorned backside, which, with Sam’s similar feral tendency towards the “full moon,” proves that they really must be related after all.
Woo is writing the new character of Tommy Mickens, who will make a huge impact on our favorite characters. “Tommy Mickens is someone I don’t want to reveal too much about, because I don’t want to ruin the surprise,” Woo said. “He’s a completely new character, but he plays very prominently in the emotional life of at first one and then, later, several other of our characters. He’ll be the first domino to push the rest.”
|
|
|
Posts:
1,628
Registered:
10/10/08
|
|
(8768 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 4:29 PM
|
edit
--
Edited by rclaurel at 11/07/2009 1:37 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
16
Registered:
6/8/08
|
|
(8767 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 3:50 PM
|
True Blood to resurrect its vampire sheriff?
True Blood's third season. E!'s Kristen says the show's writers are considering exploring Godric's 1,000-year history with Eric though flashbacks.
This sounds like a great idea. I'd love to see how the wicked and feral Godric we saw in last season's flashback became a stoic and merciful leader. And I'd love to see Eric in the role of naïve student learning from one of the oldest vampires on the show.
Hope this is true!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,174
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(8766 of 8780)
Nov 7, 2009 2:27 PM
|
> Bill is an Honorable Man and that is why Lorena is
> Hell bent on having him and exclusive by Mariana
>
> http://www.trueblood-news.com/interview-with-mariana-k
> laveno-i-have-a-feeling-that-lorena-is-pissed-off
That is a great interview. Thanks for posting it. I bet the do have a great time:
"It was the first time I got to work with Anna and we had a great time being bitchy to each other. It took hours and hours to film that scene and she had me cracking up nearly the whole time."
|
|
|
|
|
