What happens when three romance novel readers and devotees of Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse series ruminate on an entire season of True Blood? Read on…

Panelist #1 Wanderer, one of the three “opinionated booksluts” (hey, their words, not mine!) who runs The Scarlet Corset
Thank you to Jessica for having me here on her lovely blog. I answered the invitation to blog about True Blood without hesitation; however, as I sit here typing, it’s sinking in who the other ladies are that I’m sharing this space with: Robin and Carolyn. *gulp* No pressure, none at all!
First things first, the books – yes, I have read all 9 books by Charlaine Harris and yes, I went into the viewing of the HBO show with hope that it would stick to a lot of the key points. It was probably 4 episodes into Season 1 when I scrapped that hope and decided to go with the flow created by Alan Ball.
So, what are my thoughts on Season 2? I think it started out great. The Dallas vamps and Fellowship of the Sun storylines were strong points and the Maryann storyline was the weak point. Sadly, that weak spot was stretched out over the entire season, becoming the major plot in the end. I was annoyed from the start by Maryann and how Tara fell for her BS but then to watch it progress over the entire season – it was just too much. The wobbly distortion thing, the horned helmet, the mass possessions, the black eyes, the orgies…way too much! When I watched the finale and what happened to Maryann, I couldn’t help but ask, “Why couldn’t they do that sooner?”
Sookie and Bill – I’ve had issues with Anna Paquin’s portrayal of Sookie but try to ignore it and just watch the show as any other fan. Something about the TV Sookie doesn’t sit right with me. She seemed almost selfish at times. I never got that vibe in the books. As for Bill, I’ve always considered him a mediocre character (both book and TV versions). He and Sookie are alright together but anytime Eric is involved, Bill is totally overshadowed. Side note about the actor who portrays Bill: he’s gotten better but for a while he would pronounce Sookie as “Sukay” – made me laugh every time!

Eric – Not since the Rachel Shag has there been such hoopla over a haircut. When I saw the first scene after the haircut it was like, hot damn! The trumpets sounded, a light shone down upon him and a sigh was heard across the land. What? That didn’t happen in your house?
Anyway, I’m enjoying Alexander Skarsgard’s portrayal of Eric which is cool because I didn’t think
he fit the role when I first heard of his casting. I hope in Season 3 we’ll see more of Eric, Pam and Fangtasia. I want to see more of him as the leader he is. Speaking of seeing more, wasn’t that a lovely little dream sequence? Definitely saw another side of Eric!

Jessica, Hoyt, Lorena and Godric were surprises for me. Jessica was too whiny at first but she grew on me this season. She and Hoyt are very sweet together and I don’t like the turn her character takes in the finale. I was glad to see Lorena and hoped she’d cause more trouble for Bill but then she sort of departed on a whimper. Godric’s final scene is probably my favorite of the season. The idea of having lived so long a life, seen and done so much, and now you’re ready to go out on your terms? I thought it was a very powerful scene.

Lafayette, Arlene, Sam, Tara – These are the characters I feel are most different from the books. I’m glad they kept Lafayette and I like the current path Arlene’s character is on. I hope they don’t take the route the books take with her. Sam is like background noise for me. I mostly feel sorry for him because he seems to be the guy that gets crapped on all the time. My impression of Tara is too heavily influenced by the Maryann thing so I’m hoping Season 3 will bring her better material. Right now, I wish she’d go away.

Jason – He is probably the character most true to the book. One slight change in the show is his and Sookie’s relationship. I liked the scene where they have a heart-to-heart after the bombing.
Misc final thoughts – The finale has a nice scene where most of the main characters are back at Merlotte’s. It was nice to see the gang back in a central place. When all is said and done, some people can’t watch because of the bad accents. I don’t mind them. Some think the acting is horrible. I think the acting is fine. Some don’t like the differences from the books. I’m ok with them. If I’m entertained at the end of the hour, I am a contented viewer.
Panelist #2: Romance novelist Carolyn Jewel
Mandatory Disclaimer: I have read all of Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse books. I’m also a romance author myself. What I’m not is a television watcher. I haven’t watched television for twenty years, aside from monitoring my son’s TV watching when he was young. (Sponge Bob, yeah!) I didn’t watch Season 1 of True Blood when it was on HBO, but I heard the talk about the show — what’s not to love about vampires? — and then downloaded and read a free copy of the first Sookie Stackhouse book on my iPhone (followed, shortly thereafter by my purchasing all the rest of the books). I bought the season 1 DVD and was just as hooked by the series as I was by the books.
My household then subscribed to HBO for the sole purpose of yours truly being able to watch season 2 of True Blood; the only television I have watched in twenty years. Despite what I’m about to say, I’m not sorry and I will be re-subscribing to HBO in time to watch Season 3.
My feelings about season 2 can be pretty much summed up by my feelings about the finale: Not enough Eric and seriously flawed by a major story line that lacked cohesiveness and tension. I refer, of course, to the Maryanne storyline. Maryanne, by the way, was brilliantly acted by Michelle Forbes.
Throughout season 2 I was sorry to watch Tara, one of my favorite characters, get shuttled into an offensive mess of a storyline that failed in every respect. They took her out of her interesting and transgressive relationship with Sam the shapeshifting bartender and plunked her into a nice little box of color. A show that is about the wrongs of prejudice segregated its African American actors and plunged them into every single racial stereotype known to American culture. Drug dealing, poverty, substance abuse, single-parent homes, absent fathers, domestic violence, you name it, the cliche was played out for us.
Why, I would like to know, were NONE of these characters able to figure out there was something wrong with Maryanne and her situation? Instead, Maryanne simply had a cadre of mindless slaves who did her bidding. Even worse, the relationship between Tara and Eggs (with a name like that, you knew he was marked for death) was suspect from the start in that at no time was it clear that Eggs was not a bad guy. Why on earth would I believe their relationship was true in any sense, when we never knew if Eggs was really a good person? He was Maryanne’s from the start. What a waste of some fantastic actors. By the time of the finale, with its focus on this disastrous storyline, the damage was done. I didn’t believe and I didn’t really care.
Thus, in the season finale, the Maryanne story line continued its wonderfully acted train wreck. I was sorry but not surprised to see those scenes descend into farce. The ostrich egg licking? What on earth does the Pallas Athena myth have to do with an egg? It was pointless and absurd. Jason and Andy continued to provide beautifully done comic relief up until the moment when they, too, were suddenly Maryanne zombies. I was so very disappointed by that cheap outcome.

The series is picking up on Sookie’s non-human lineage — a lineage that Sookie’s brother Jason shares. Why wasn’t he immune too? The bulk of the finale was taken up by Maryanne with its nearly complete lack of tension and conflict. The means by which Maryanne met her end was quite satisfying but did we really have to suffer through all that soggy, tension-less mess to get there? All I can say is I’m glad that train wreck is over.
The best parts of the season and the finale were Romance focused; Jessica and Hoyt, Bill and Sookie, Sookie and Eric (except there was no Sookie and Eric in the finale. What where they thinking?)

Stephen Moyer continued to show his acting chops when he feared Sookie was going to turn down his proposal of marriage. That scene was almost worth the mess that came before. But really, why, with all the wonderful tension between Bill, Sookie and Eric was the cliffhanger ending not more subtle? And why was Eric almost completely absent? We are, of course, to believe that Eric is responsible for Bill’s abduction. (The writers seem to have failed to appreciate the devious nature of Ms. Harris’s version of Eric. Alexander Skarsgard, who plays Eric, hasn’t, but the writers sure have.)
I have hopes this won’t be so appallingly simplistic as we get into Season 3. We’ve already seen that the major deviations from the book have, by and large, been disappointing. And by the way, Jason’s actions at the end were completely out of character. I expected much, much more. But I’ll still be tuning in to Season 3 to see what Alexander Skarsgard does with his role.
Panelist #3 Robin, blogger of Dear Author and Romancing the Blog Fame, and Twitterer extraordinaire
‘Twas Dionysus proved our ruin; now I see it all. – The Bacchae by Euripides
If I had unlimited time and any measure of creativity, I’d write my summary of True Blood: Season in the style of The Bacchae, since so much of Alan Ball’s interpretive dance with Harris’s novels strikes me as a retelling of the Dionysian myth as dramatized by Euripides.
First let me confess my own prejudices: as a slavishly devoted fan of Charlaine Harris’s books, I’ve been alternately amused by and frustrated with the HBO series. I adore the opening song and visual sequence, find Alexander Skarsgard incredibly sexy if not perfectly cast as Eric, and think Stephen Moyer is a spot on Bill Compton. I still cannot see Sam as anything but strawberry blonde and comforting in his physical presence, though, and Anna Paquin annoys me on a regular basis. Then there is the Tara problem: the one character whose race is changed becomes the stereotypical angry black woman who has everything bad happen to her and can’t make one good choice. And she falls for the obviously dubious charms of the psycho maenad. Great.

When I first heard that Ball was going to adapt the series, I was thrilled; who better to interpret the outsider theme of Harris’s books? Who better to fill in all the blanks of life in Bon Temps that Sookie does not have access to because of the first person narrative limitation in the books? Sensationalism, the dissembling that goes on in “respectable” families and towns, social hypocrisy – it’s all in Ball’s repertoire. Race and sexuality are both obvious issues in the tv series and the books, and Ball has been overtly investigating those via the supernatural beings (and Lafayette’s character, whose persistence has been a happy change from the books, as has the attention Jason’s character has gotten, and I wonder how much of that is driven by the talent of Ellis and Kwanten). And he’s been far more willing to delve into the violence of the vamps, something Sookie has been more reluctant to dwell on in the books.
But then there’s the maenad storyline.
Anyone who’s familiar with the myth or has read the Euripides play knows that the Bacchae, aka the maenads, represent chaos — celebration, intoxication, sensuality, and fertility gone to an irrational, violent extreme. Dionysus, the god of wine, is linked to nature, to the feminine, to madness, and to sexual indulgence. In Euripides’s play, Dionysus has been rejected, his worship made illegal, and his mother humiliated and disbelieved (for her truthful story that Zeus impregnated her with him). So Dionysus comes to extract his political and personal revenge. So while it is technically true that Dionysus catalyzes the destruction, Euripides complicates the idea that he’s completely at fault, suggesting instead that the suppression and rejection of Dionysian characteristics results in their tenfold manifestation. It’s the classic yin and yang: Apollo’s reason is essential, but so is Dionysus’s revelry.
But what’s up with Ball’s use of the maenad? There’s definitely an element of revenge (against Sam), and some kind of perverse punishment for a town of majorly judgmental folks, and, I think some general perversity for the sake of tweaking the establishment and illustrating the fine line between “civilization” and “chaos,” as well as the underbelly ugliness of the cannibalistic sentiments that characterize all the petty hatreds among the Ben Temps humans. And Ball keeps to the tradition of feminization in using Maryann to represent the maenad.

But then there’s Tara, the conduit for Maryann’s infiltration of Bon Temps. Tara, with the alcoholic mother and a bad history with men. Who’s angry and feels deprived and like an outcast when Maryann intervenes on her behalf. Tara, who falls so very easily under Maryann’s spell and into Eggs’s bed. And who opens to door to Maryann’s victimization of the town by inviting her to stay in Sookie’s house, by serving as the intermediary between the town and Maryann. What’s up with that? If Maryann ultimately represents some sort of chaotic, unthinking violence, what does that make Tara? And what about the “family” that Maryann’s entourage represents for Tara? It’s clearly cultish, although attractive at first. So what’s the lesson – that it’s dangerous to long so much for belonging? That we can’t trust the angry black woman? That women are irrational? That it’s not gays and blacks who are the threat but women wearing bull’s heads? That we’re all easily compromised unless we have supernatural aspects of our personality that make us immune?
Seriously, if I could answer those questions, I might be able to understand what the hell I spent a bunch of hours over the past few months watching. Sophie Ann’s cryptic lines about how powers exist because we will them into existence seems like it should be meaningful, but I’m not sure how. I mean, what doesn’t exist without us willing it into existence?

Had I not been so disgusted with the hijacking that Maryann’s story represented to me, and had I not been so frustrated with how that stripped so much nuance out of Harris’s vision, I might not be so intent on understanding the purpose of the maenad subplot. And I suspect that it was ultimately a vague, somewhat abstract revenge fantasy that has little relationship to the novels and makes little sense to the overall logic of the first half of the TV series. Except that it allowed the writers to go hog (bull?) wild with the blood and the gore, the sensationalized violence that’s becoming more and more central to the tv series. All of which leaves me feeling cranky and unsatisfied. And in need of a glass of wine.
***
A concluding note From Jessica:
Thank you so much Wanderer, Carolyn, and Robin. I selfishly wanted to know more of your thoughts on the show than you could explain in 140 character Tweets, and I was not disappointed. See you all in — gasp — nine months for Season 3.
Nobody discussed in detail my favorite element of Season 2, The Fellowship of the Sun, aka Alan Ball’s hysterical sendup of a certain kind of hypocritical, fanatical, evangelical Christians. I have to throw in a pic because it makes me smile:

PS. Here you go Robin! May it go down easier in Season 3!

And finally, for those of you (like me) who missed it, here’s an image of Charlaine Harris’s Season 2 finale cameo:

Related posts:
- A Sookie Stackhouse Reader’s Verdict on Season 1 of HBO’s True Blood Having read — and fallen in love with – 8 of the 9 Southern Vampire Mysteries by Charlaine Harris (I’m...
- Academics Take a Bite Out of Sookie Stackhouse I’m in NOLA at the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Annual Meeting (for posterity: April 2009) I just attended am...
- Review: Club Dead, Charlaine Harris My Take in Brief: A terrific third installment, although I was slightly less enthralled this time out. This review contains...
- Academics Sucking the Blood From Twilight Once again, here are my totally fallible notes from sessions at the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Annual Meeting April...
- Review: Living Dead in Dallas, Charlaine Harris My Take in Brief: A terrific second installment. For background on this series, and introductions to the main characters, see...
- Review: Definitely Dead, by Charlaine Harris My Take In Brief: I have a huge bone to pick with Ms. Harris on this one. And some smaller...










#1 by Angela/Lazaraspaste on September 16, 2009 - 6:49 pm
“If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one around to hear it, it’s still a tree” and thus once again Jason proves why I love him.
Random Thoughts from another viewer:
1. TV Sookie has always seemed rather moralistic to me. I don’t know. I just get that vibe from her to point where I honestly have no idea why everyone’s in love with her. I mean, really? Every attractive male except the ones that are gay or related has a thing for her. EVERY ATTRACTIVE MALE. That just bugs the shit out of me.
2. Tara could have been awesome but she’s not. Bad, writers, bad.
3. Maryann was a sub-plot, why wasn’t she treated that way?
4. Could they find no one else to play Queen Sophie Anne? Talk about not being able to act, Evan Rachel Wood. Also, not funny with yahtzee.
5. Jason and Andy’s plotline was a total cop out, and I’m really disappointed because I love both of them.
6. Lafayette was more interesting in Season One but he’s still alive so I can’t complain.
7. Jessica turned out to be an amazing addition. I love her and Hoyt’s storyline. I love her character and her story arc could be really interesting if they don’t eff it up. (Good, sheltered girl turned into ravenous monster, falls in love, gets burned . . . what next? It has so much potential).
That’s all. I was very interested in Robin’s comments on the Manaed thing. If Ball had actually ran with it in a Euripidean way, maybe it could have been more interesting but it totally came off as a secondary plot and I became bored with it fairly quickly. Also, the whole pig thing made me think of Circe.
#2 by Carolyn Jewel on September 16, 2009 - 8:33 pm
I complete agree with the comments about Jason. Kwanten does a fantastic job in the role. And I did really love the whole Fellowship of the Sun story line.
Robin totally rocked on the Maenad storyline. What a mess, and it could have been so wonderful.
I get so disappointed thinking about what Tara could have been. She needs to get involved with a vampire. Or back with Sam or something!
#3 by Robin on September 16, 2009 - 9:44 pm
I so agree with this! Jessica has become one of my favorite characters, actually. Although I’m going to try to forget the ending happened to ANY of those people. As Carolyn pointed out, WTF was up with the egg licking?
Anyway, you’re right that Sam has become the total sad sack, which does make his character less powerful all the way around. I am also ambivalent about Andy; I just don’t know what to make of him, although he’s more interesting to me in the tv series than the books. And yeah, Skarsgard’s growing into Eric. Sloooowly, but still growing.
The question for me is will Ball stick to how the books explained this; he’s altered character pasts already, most notably Eric’s change. So this may be stupidity rather than the failure to explain what is revealed in the most recent book.
I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t expect subtle from the tv series, because I think Ball’s vision is much more blunt. Which is reflected, IMO, in the Fellowship of the Sun plotline (acknowledging Jessica’s comment here).
But the fact that the major black woman character is the one who opened the door to the frenzied slavish destruction (and you are SO right about the farcical nature of the climax), I’m getting a very bad feeling about how Ball is — unconsciously, at least — placing race and gender alongside other categories of social identity, otherness, and outsider status. So far, the greatest evil and the most weak characters are both female, and oen of them is black. Not good, IMO.
So here’s my question: do we think that Season 3 is going to pick up with the plotline from the book that would explain Bill’s kidnapping? At this point, I’m not sure that’s something to be hoped for or feared.
#4 by Wanderer on September 17, 2009 - 2:17 am
Carolyn
Exactly! If Ball was going to give Sookie a best friend, you’d think he’d make her a little more aware of the big ass changes Tara was going through. Oh, and I used the wrong word above when describing Sookie. It should be self-absorbed instead of selfish. I remember clearly where that impression first started. It was a scene in Season 1. Sookie was cleaning the oven in her grandma’s house when Tara came over to talk about something going on in her life. But Sookie didn’t seem to give a rat’s ass until after she unloaded her own troubles on Tara. Now in Season 2 she invites Tara to come stay at her house and then is all, “See ya, I’ve gotta go save the vamps…..again.”
My take on why Jason wasn’t immune is because he doesn’t have the extra ability Sookie has – telepathy.
Oh and yes, we definitely needed more Eric in the finale! ERW as the Queen? I’ll have to wait ’til next season to get a better impression of her. Right now, I have no interest in her character.
Robin – very interesting comments on the maenads’ history.
After season 2, I have no idea what to expect from season 3. I’ll have to browse book 3 to refresh my memory of the events that happen but if it’s the one where Eric’s character goes through a major event, I can only hope it will be a big part of season 3. However, seeing how Ball took such a minor character as the maenad and gave us the unwanted, extended edition, I’m afraid my hope is in vain.
Jessica – RE: the Fellowship, I think Maryann’s storyline was too fresh in my mind since it took over the 2nd half of the season that I couldn’t focus on anything else
. Yes, the hypocrisy of the church and most especially its leaders. Leaders who preach about being goodness and light when in truth, they are prime examples of some of the seven deadly sins.
This reminds me of one of my favorite parts – Angela maybe you’ll remember this. It’s when Jason tells the preacher something like, “I’ve already been there, it’s inside your wife.” Cracked me up!
#5 by Edie on September 17, 2009 - 2:42 am
I was thinking of lifting my several years of no TV for this series, but I think I might stay away.. lol
But a quick query, can Ryan Kwantan actually act?
I only have his appearances from Australian soapies from my childhood.. was laughing my butt off when I found out he was in the show, but he is good?
#6 by AQ on September 17, 2009 - 6:06 am
My major problem with this season (okay, I had a problem with it in the first seaon too) is all the sex. I don’t mind the sex per se but I think it’s used as filler too often. I get rather annoyed because I’d rather like there to be a touch more plot.
I loved Michelle Forbes–I think I’d watch her in just about anything–but the Maryann storyline didn’t feel worthy of finale-ism. At least not how it played out.
Have to agree with the comments about Andy & Jason. Too easy. Andy wasn’t affected the other times he encountered Maryann but he’s suddenly affected by her cult. And Jason…a simple punch. Oh, well.
I have to agree with Jessica on the FOS. The Newlins and their organization were a fabulous storyline. Gave me lots to think about and in a sense the Fellowship “cult” was a counter-balance to MaryAnn’s cult. I just wish a scapel had been used instead of hammer.
Sookie. Well, I still don’t understand why anyone would be interested in her because I don’t think the scenes we’ve be shown with her in them have conveyed enough about her and her special gifts (sorry, haven’t read the books…YET). In fact, during this season, I couldn’t help but think Jason was getting more character exploration and screen time than Sookie. Of course, I’d need to re-watch to see if my impression of that held up.
Robin’s got something there with the opening song and the visuals. I guess it kind of sets the stage, putting my mind in certain place before the show even starts. And the music stays with you. Nice trick that. Other TV shows have managed it but it’s been a while since I actively noticed it.
On a side note: I heard that HBO is scheduled to start shooting a pilot for George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones. I know completely different style of books, writing techniques and situations. I find it interesting that Ball was able to take subplots of the Sookie books and make the show/story basically his own. I don’t think that can be done with Martin’s books. Well, not in the same fashion. Regardless, I love the fact that books are being made into series. I like that much more than movie adaptations. Go AUTHORS!
#7 by AnimeJune on September 17, 2009 - 10:47 am
Another two cents – I read the book and was not impressed but loved the show. I actually felt the show did a lot better job demonstrating the far-flung effects of vampires “coming out of the coffin” than the book did. I actually really didn’t like the book – a lot of showing instead of telling and the first chapter was particularly grating as Sookie broke the fourth wall to describe exactly which story stereotype her friends fit into.
I love the show, frankly. It’s a lovable mess. I kinda liked Maryanne – her cheerfulness at the beginning was a bit reminiscent of the Mayor, one of my favourite villains from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I do wish Tara would man up. Her character was hilarious in the first season, while the second season she just had to be rescued.
#8 by Robin on September 17, 2009 - 11:44 am
@ Edie:
Kwanten’s wonderful; IMO he’s the standout actor on the show. He plays a slightly dim guy and doing that well, in such a way that you become a lens so the audience can see through your character the things the character is too dense to see, requires some real talent, and Kwanten excels at that.
@ Wanderer:
The word that came to my mind when I was reading your thoughts about Sookie was “peevish” — which is I think is included in your explanation of her self-absorption. It’s difficult to know if that’s Paquin’s gloss on her character or the writers’, but I’ve frankly given up on the idea that TV Sookie is ever going to have the nuance or the wily innocence of Harris’s Sookie, so I often look right past her when her character is on screen.
As for Eric’s big storyline, that’s in Book 4. Book three, Club Dead, is the one that features Bill’s kidnapping and and rescue. It’s the book where we meet Russell, Alcide, and Debbie Pelt and where Sookie makes her first kill. It’s also the book where Sookie gets locked in the trunk of her car with Bill, who later forcibly has sex with her.
#9 by Jessica on September 17, 2009 - 2:29 pm
This is a fun article from Popeater that shows the actors in other roles. The purpose of the article is to show their real accents, but I think it also shows the very different roles each actor has played.
http://www.popeater.com/2009/09/10/true-blood-accents-bill-sookie/
Here’s one of S. Moyer, note how much higher his natural voice is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVrvfkZLseQ
#10 by Jessica on September 17, 2009 - 5:12 pm
I think my love for the Sookie books both compelled me to watch True Blood for a second season and also gave rise to some fo my complaints.
I don’t have any complaints about the acting, which is first rate, not just among the leads, but the smaller roles as well.
I have a superficial complaint about the vamp makeup. It is very inconsistent. In some scenes, the vamps’s skin seems very human and natural, in others very whitened. Bill, in particular, suffers from a very badly done and obvious makeup job.
I agree with everyone on Maryanne storyline. Although I confess to getting more of a dramatic kick out of Sam’s goring of her than I expected, it came way way way too late. I think it may have worked well as a 4-5 episode arc.
I’m not sure what function the Maryanne storyline served. even the excuse to show gratuitous violence is lame — that’s what VAMPIRES are for, Mr. Ball. To show transgression, to show hypocrisy, you don’t need more than the vamps (look at how well the hypocrisy of Hoyt’s mother played out?).
The worst casualty was Tara, a character I was already sick of by the end of season 1. I felt like I was stuck in some kind of Groundhog Day character loop with Tara. Did they actually give her the same lines show after show? It sure felt that way to me.
I agree that Sookie is practically a cypher at this point. This is my biggest disappointment with the series. I never felt Paquin was a good casting choice — sorry to be superficial, but Sookie needs to be the all American beauty, busty, tall, and gorgeous. Anna Paquin’s face is, at best, “interesting”, like a Picasso — but what can she do when she is given almost nothing TO do? I understand True Blood can no longer be “only Sookie’s story”, but why does it have to be everyone else’s story BESIDES Sookie’s?
I feel that Bill is much more heroic in the show than the books, and that’s too bad. Perhaps his kidnapping will yield up the trunk scene Robin mentions in her comment, and perhaps the hints that he is a plant for the queen will develop into a full fledged betrayal. But I regretted that the carnage he enjoyed after the bomb in the books, precipitating a separation from a grossed out Sookie, was excised.
A lot of my favorite things about Book 2 were left out actually, such Eric’s showing up in Dallas in disguise, or Eric donning a leotard to attend the orgy party with Sookie, or the mirroring of the traitor human’s relationship with his vamp love to Sookie’s own with Bill, and the divine punishment he receives.
Also, while Godric was well acted, Godric’s horrible centuries of violent crime against innocents, including pedophilia, was left out, something that made Sookie’s witnessing his suicide that much more complex.
Ok, so that’s what I didn’t like. But there are certainly things about the show that are as good or even better than the books.
First on my list is Jason, the number one reason I watch the show. Kwanten’s comic timing is a thing to behold. Jason’s time at the Fellowship of the Sun was the highlight of the season for me. Watching a dull person come to realize how hypocritical everyone around him is, was a real treat. I didn’t much like the hero he turned into after that — it was out of character — but I still love him overall.
The skewering of religious fanatics was superb. I loved every minute of it.
I also think Eric is perfectly cast and acted. His character is more fleshed out, and that’s to the good (although I miss Eric;s humor, one of the irresistable things about that character in the books.)
Andy has also been made into comic relief, to great effect. That actor is amazingly versatile, by the way, as anyone who has seen season 2 of the Wire knows.
And I love Hoyt. The Hoyt and Jessica storyline is easily the most romantic in the show, and while Jessica’s last scene was perhaps predictable Alan Ball camp, it was very effective for me. The idea of being an eternal virgin is perhaps the most horrifying thing to happen in the show.
This is a minority view, I think, but I liked what they have done with Sophie-Ann whom I always felt was underdeveloped in the books.
The music is amazing. The title sequence, of course, but also the way music is used throughout the show. Marcy Playground’s “Sex and Candy” when Jessica goes to Merlotte’s and sees Hoyt. Leona Lewis’s “Bleeding Love” when Jessica wakes up to find Hoyt decorating the hotel room. “The Good Life” sung by Ann-Margret when the queen and Bill are lounging by the pool. It’s heavy so heavy handed, it’s funny. And it’s GREAT music, especially the end credit choices.
Like Carolyn, I subscribed to HBO just for this show. It must be said, however, that we have also been enjoying Entourage (a surprise hit in our house) and we have always loved Curb Your Enthusiasm which we now get to watch new episodes of. We have even watched a few Hung episodes, which aren’t too bad.
I cannot believe it’s going to be June before we get new episodes, but I will definitely be ready for them.
#11 by Carolyn Jewel on September 17, 2009 - 7:07 pm
I’d hate for anyone to decide the show isn’t worth watching because we’re harping on perceived flaws.
When something — a movie, a piece of art, a book, a TV show — has something special critics can, and do, come out of the woodwork because there’s something worth thinking about critically.
If True Blood was horrible, believe me, there wouldn’t be any kerfuffle at all. It would just be another stupid TV show that died a merciful death. But that is just not the case here.
There’s too much right, too much well done, too much complexity to dismiss the show without taking a look. Plus, there’s Alexander Skarsgard.
For me, that’s the best reason to participate! (ETA: Well, I meant the complexity, but to be honest, Skarsgard is another excellent reason to watch.)
True Blood is doing a lot of things right — most things I’d say, actually. As has been mentioned, the acting is really first rate, pretty much across the board. The writing is often brilliant. There are, in fact, some complex and fun things to think about. Jason’s character arc is, as pointed out, particularly good at framing issues of societal hypocrisy.
I did not care for the Maryanne storyline, but the actress did a wonderful job and often saves scenes by virtue of her portrayal.
The fact that several very smart people cared enough to write and comment about this show is ample evidence that True Blood rises far above the common.
When my Season 2 DVD arrives, I will re-watch the entire series and eagerly re-subscribe to HBO for Season 3.
#12 by Booklover1335 on September 18, 2009 - 6:33 am
I have an award for you here
#13 by KMont on September 18, 2009 - 10:41 am
Ladies, I gots to run here shortly, so I tried to glance over this as thoroughly as possible. I hope I didn’t miss this point in any of your great recaps and insights…
I wasn’t aware that the second season had a new director for each episode, and that Ball didn’t direct any this season. Do you think that may have accounted for the less than satisfactory elements? At least in part? Because I was wondering what the heck Ball was doing all season, only to find out he’s not been directing it. My sister had to point out to me that there was a new director in each ending credits. Apparently this isn’t uncommon with HBO series.
And Carolyn you made this point:
“…a lineage that Sookie’s brother Jason shares. Why wasn’t he immune too?”
If I recall, in the books, isn’t it revealed that the only real benefit Jason gets from his fairy blood is his looks and sex appeal? I thought he did not gain any kind of special powers, not like Sookie. Maybe that accounted for his not being immune in the show? If they in fact decided to go with that part of the books.
I’m liking that they deviate from the books, but this season really was like some kind of carnival train wreck and wasn’t nearly as entertaining for me as last season. I used to do recaps every Monday, but I just didn’t have the heart to after about midway this time.
Maybe third time’s the charm and Season 3 will bring the TV series into its own.
#14 by AQ on September 18, 2009 - 9:44 pm
I’ve been thinking about Jason & Tara’s character/plot arcs. In many ways, they are similar. Their feelings of being lost, searching for something to give themselves and their lives more meaning. A place to belong.
The Newlins and their church offer that to Jason. They physically challenge him to be righteous and part of something greater than himself. They “make” him into something special.
Maryann’s offer is similiar for Tara but she’s challenging Tara to let go of her inhibitions, to allow herself to lower her shield and that chip on her shoulder. To consider herself loveable.
By far the greater risk, although given that Tara’s character protrayal grates on my nerves, it just isn’t subtle enough.
It’s interesting that the two characters get such vastly different treatments. Jason gets to be a hero. He eventually comes to the realization that the Newlins are hypocrits (not by himself but because Sookie is in danger –hero role) and that Sookie/family is the most important thing. Something that he had all along.
Tara…well, Tara gets to be a victim. Sookie and her family help her break free of MaryAnn’s influence and yet instead of giving Tara a heroic role, the writers/director give her the stereotypical damsel in distress role, having her run back into danger to turn the plot.
And, even though, Jason ends up being MaryAnn’s, he still gets to assume a hero role because he made the attempt while Tara is simply just another victim.
Even so, I liked the potential of the MaryAnn storyline. What a contrast it could have been to the Newlins’ storyline. Both cults, both striving to have a certain level of control over their members. Maybe on re-watching I’ll catch more meaning on the MaryAnn side of the equation.
While the Fellowship storyline was heavy-handed, there was tension and humor between the parties involved. We’ve seen it before, but it was interesting to see how the character’s would move the plot and which role they would assume.
With the MaryAnn storyline, Karl’s role was pretty standard, Eggs wasn’t anything out of the ordinary. Maybe I missed some of the complexity but I felt that the temptation and seduction MaryAnne offered was treated superfiscially.
Think of the possibilities: to truly let go without fear of societal judgment, guilt or retribution. Well, except for that little death part. How insiduous that temptation would be in real life and how interesting to watch something like unfold on the screen.
I never got that. Maybe because each time Tara came on the screen I got annoyed or because the writers/director concentrated on the drunken orgies. Or maybe it’s because to truly show something like that they’d need more time to properly seed the character motivations so the audience was seduced at the same time.
Anyone else see any of that? Or did you see it another way?
#15 by Carolyn Jewel on September 18, 2009 - 11:03 pm
AQ:
I’d like to think more thought went into Maryanne’s story, but I think the lack of thought is (was) the whole problem. I don’t think anyone set out to deliberately plunge into racial stereotypes — but that’s exactly what happens when no one thinks.
People think in symbols. We’re good at picking out meaning from what is random. I wish someone had taken the time to think about the symbolism of Tara’s character. It would not have been hard to give her more awareness and avoid some of the ugliness. And you’re right about the superficiality. What’s scary about mindless slaves if there aren’t any mindful people around as a counterpoint?
At any rate, it’s been fun reading all the comments and thoughts on the show.
From what I’ve heard, Ball is being rather coy about Season 3 (doh) but from what he’s said, I now expect Lorena will be the Bill-napping culprit. He’s also talked about Bill’s Big Fat Lie (which readers of the books know about) and which has been, I think, pretty well set up in the 2 seasons so far.
I’m looking forward to more.
#16 by angela on September 21, 2009 - 4:51 pm
TB Season 2: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
People often ask: do you want the good news or the bad news?
I myself get tickled pink, overcome with heart palpitations and prickly ears with the prospects of some bad news. Often it’s the phenomena of showing up to a fist fight and wind up seeing a hockey game. However, since most could say I’m a little cynical I will throw them for a loop and start out with the positive!
The Good:
1. Alexander Skarsgard/Eric Northman:
Where would we be without this wonderful portrayal of the Viking god? In the first season I felt Eric did not get his just deserves. We were unfortunately seeing only a little of whom he was, and that was mostly one-dimensional: evil, brooding Eric, using poor waitress Sookie and her abilities for his own gain. Bad Eric, shame on you (yet, it made me think of giving him a spanking’… I digress)
Most people, who never read the books, automatically didn’t like Eric on the show. Sure there were a few choice moments and words where we had glimpses of his sarcasm, his whit.
Then sprang forth Season 2. Hallelujah!
First of all, the haircut heard around the world- can a vamp get any sexier by simply snipping some length and foiling on the highlights? Heck yes! Most importantly with this sexy new haircut came long needed snippets of who I believe is the real Eric, a complex mixture of devious, manipulative, sardonic, witty but underneath and much deeper a loving, needing, almost dare I say, human!
Alexander does a brilliant job of portraying Eric. His timing is impeccable, his eyes and face tell the entire story in subtle nuisances. All I have to say is the rooftop scene with Godric and the first dream sequence with Sookie. Both so natural, so pooling over with emotion, Alex pulled me in made me think I was watching two real people (er- uh- or 1 real person, 1 real vamp).
2. Nelsan Ellis/Lafayette:
Purple glittery scarf-like hats off to whoever made the decision to allow us to enjoy this character for more than one season! I was celebrating when it was someone else in the back of Andy’s car. Lafayette is the perfect blend of sassy Cajun spice this show needs. He knows who he is, and he isn’t afraid to show it, tell it, do it, you name it; and if you don’t like, then he isn’t afraid to let you hear about it. Nelsan has taken a side character and made him memorable and one we want to see more of season after season.
3. Alan Hyde/Godric:
The show gave us more into the life of Godric, whether some of that was creatively different than the original book, it was well worth the exploration. Alan portrayed a vampire over two millennia old vampire whose life experiences have withered him to the decision to meet his own demise. Even though Godric was not originally Eric’s maker, the storyline made sense when it went that direction, didn’t disappoint me whatsoever, and gave us the best episode of the season. Again, central theme: rooftop scene with Eric, need I say more?
4. Ryan Kwanten/Jason Stackhouse:
It goes without saying what the first appeal to Jason is, but Kawnten takes us past the hot bod this season. He shows us keen character transformation going from total doofus, to soul and purpose of life searching young man, to almost intuitive, realizing that everyone and everything is certainly not what it seems, and likely the person, who on all outward appearances seems righteous, is morally and ethically worse than… let’s say your garden variety vampire.
The Bad:
1. Tara.
Loved her sassiness in the first season, understood her issues concerning her mother, found comedy in her infatuation with Jason, and liked the connection with Sam. Then Maryann had to come along and ruin this for me. Tara the forever victim. Didn’t she learn anything from the last season and all the years she allowed herself to enable her mother and get sucked into co-dependency? Thought she was over that… I sure was.
2. Not enough Eric.
Where was the Viking god in the finale? I think I saw him on screen for two minutes, maybe three. Total rip off! He is crucial to the show!
3. Cop out on Jason and Andy falling under maenad’s spell.
They went how long- like until the 11th hour- not susceptible to her black orbed spell? Then Jason saying to Andy, it doesn’t matter if they don’t know we’re the heroes, all that is important is that we know. This doesn’t sound the Jason I read about in the books, and even considering soul searching, semi-reformed TV version of Jason, it’s still not likely. And Andy was pretty much on everyone’s pooh list as the cantankerous, ultra-suspicious, bumbling alcoholic cop whose badge was taken away. Don’t you think he’d push more for some redemption? Come on.
4. Bill Compton: He is the ever knight in shining black T-shirts. Anytime we get to see a glimpse of his bad side, it gets whitewashed (and that’s not just my pooh-poohing on some terrible make up shots) and seen as the forever hero. They better get into the complexity of Bill Compton and his original, true motivation behind coming to Bon Temps. It makes for a better story. Plus, selfishly, will likely lead to more Sookie and Eric. (See my ulterior motives here?)
The Ugly:
1. Maryann/maenad storyline.
Was a cool concept that went ice cold- and what I mean by that is it done gone south, way south, like Antarctica. This dragged on and on, was so contrived and bizarre, and I’m all about bizarre and paranormal. It was just way too overblown. Charlie Brown sums it up best: Ugh!
Think this could have been summed up in 1-2, maybe 3 shows at best. It was not worthy of season finale material. It was to the excruciating point that I didn’t care about any of the plot, the characters involvement in it and worse yet it made me HIGHLY disappointed with the ho-hum finale.
2. Complete blindness to stereotypes. You girls have done an excellent job of already going over those points. I don’t think there is more to add, so I will just acknowledge my agreement.
#17 by Robin on September 23, 2009 - 10:35 pm
So does anyone know the answer to my most pressing question of the season: Why doesn’t Eric’s hair grow instantly back when Jessica’s hymen does?
#18 by Carolyn Jewel on September 23, 2009 - 10:38 pm
@ Robin:
Silver scissors.
All they need to do to fix up Jessica is have Dr. L remove her hymen with silver implements. I’m sure if you do it right stuff never grows back.
That’s my explanation.