Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Book Bombs
February 11, 2012
1:20 AM
JerronBarksdale
Veteran
Forum Posts: 927
Member Since:
June 10, 2011
Offline
21
0

I never got that either Exit.  I wasn't made about him getting betrothed.  Apis did it.  Telling Sookie is one thing but actions outside his control are a whole other story.  Maybe I can pay CH to stop writing.

February 11, 2012
1:38 PM
Bobsgran
Veteran
Forum Posts: 2590
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
22
0

For the first time in years I am not looking forward to the next book.  I think there is going to be one heck of character assassination on Eric.  I have yet to get over the tickle fest in the cubby.  Reading Dr a second time when I finally could, didn't help for all the reasons mentioned.

February 11, 2012
1:49 PM
anna
Veteran
Forum Posts: 842
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
23
0

The first few books were a good read. Things went downhill when she allowed Bill to glamour her into allowing him to continue his undead life and appear to be a hero.

February 11, 2012
1:51 PM
Bobsgran
Veteran
Forum Posts: 2590
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
24
0

@anna

LMAO.  

February 11, 2012
4:43 PM
Exit_Pursued_By_A_Sloth
Veteran
Forum Posts: 642
Member Since:
September 2, 2011
Offline
25
0

anna said:

The first few books were a good read. Things went downhill when she allowed Bill to glamour her into allowing him to continue his undead life and appear to be a hero.

LOL.

 

It irritates the fuck out of me when people say they are certain CH can't be influenced on her story, or that she had this all planned from the get-go, because she ADMITTED that she was talked out of killing off Bill (in D&G) at the last minute by her 'editor'. If she's capable of altering that, she's capable of altering any part of her main storyline. And it also means that none of the Bill-related bullshit from the past two books is any part of some larger/deeper meaning for Sookie's storyline (somebody once said that her nonreaction to Bill in the cubby meant that she was healthy and better, recovered from the rape because she no longer sees Bill as a threat, which just made my brain melt a little). Because none of it was supposed to happen, because Bill should have been dead.

And I was just thinking about the Franklin Mott/Mickey/Tara storyline, and how it was suggested that Tara bore some responsibility for what happened to her. And I don't mean just what Eric said to her, but Sookie's internal narration was trying very hard to convince the reader that Tara's greed and sluttishness were responsible for her plight, she should have known better than to get involved with men like that. Because Franklin was her sugar daddy, she allowed herself to be turned into a possession, so her getting raped by Mickey was kinda her fault a little. Sookie even thought "[Tara] may have repulsed his advances that night, but she hadn't done it instantly and decisively…[Mickey'd] given plenty of advanced warnings of his intentions." This is also the book where Sookie later on wishes Bill could stay with her that night, because he was so gentle the night before when he visited her in the hospital and made her feel cherished…although the night before that he brought another woman into Merlotte's to rub in Sookie's face, and the night before that he nearly broke both her arms because he saw her kissing Sam, but he's a gentle fellow, really…she also calls the trunk rape a 'near rape' although there was nothing near about it and asks Bill to cuddle with her…in retrospect, I don't know how I got through the rest of the series after this book. I think at the time, I was chalking up Sookie's attitude as some fucked-up way of dealing with what happened to her (she spazzed out on Alcide early in the book when he tried to get her to talk about it), that she was projecting onto Tara her own feelings of guilt and responsibility for her rape (which Bill certainly contributed to making her feel this way), and that might have been CH intent, but with what happened in the later books, it now just looks like a pattern of an author with a really fucked-up attitude about rape. Her heroine has warm, fuzzy feelings about her rapist.

February 11, 2012
4:55 PM
lucasa
Member
Forum Posts: 278
Member Since:
July 16, 2011
Offline
26
0

I thought it would be interesting to add what CH wrote in 2007. Has greed and the almighty dollar changed her mind and views? http://www.charlaineharris.com…../bb97.html

MY POINT OF VIEW
I hate to get all dark and serious in this happy season, but I read an
article in Romantic Times Booklover’s Magazine that disturbed me
greatly. The article discusses the rise and fall — and rise again — of a
scenario that lots of readers seem to enjoy. This plot device features “forcible
seduction.” (Most sentient beings would call this “rape.”) In the context of the
romance world, however, this means a situation where the hero persists in
seducing the heroine after she has said, “No.” She really wants to, the writers
explain. She’s just saying “No” for reasons that in the end don’t matter very
much.

Point of View A: This is a fantasy situation we’re talking about here. It’s
not real life, and it’s not meant to be like real life.

Point of View B: We’ve spent years – decades – trying to get both females and
males to learn that “no” means “NO.” It doesn’t mean, “Yes, if you still
persist, I’ll cave. Disregard what I’m saying. Gosh, I don’t mean it.”

Point of View A: Lighten up, already! Not too many men read romances, anyway!
No one’s trying to teach men that they should go ahead with sex – forcibly –
even if the woman says she doesn’t want to.

Point of View B: This is true. And I’ve tried to lighten up, believe me. I
admire all of the writers quoted in the story. I admire anyone who can make a
living writing. And one of the writers quoted is someone I consider a friend.
Not too surprisingly, she’s a lot younger than I am. So she wouldn’t remember
the Bad Old Days, when police treated rape victims like hysterical crybabies, or
when women had to supply a witness to the rape in order to prosecute.

I know that romance novels are not realistic. I’ve written some novels that
were strongly in the romance vein, myself. I know that literature is escapist.
People read to get away from the ugly everyday, from the mundane, from the
boring. And if there are sexual elements depicted in books which are obviously
not meant to be realistic, I probably should be able to accept them for what
they are.

I just can’t do it.

I got raped over thirty years ago, and yet there’s not a moment of my life
today that hasn’t been shaped by that incident. The women’s movement was working
hard to train a largely male police force in handling and caring for rape
victims, and (thank God) I was able to benefit from that improvement.

You can see why I consider the inclusion of such scenes to be, at the least,
a mistake. I know I’m being over-serious and heavy-handed, and probably a lot of
other things, but I simply can’t help it. I’m not a confrontive person; I’m not
a poster girl for any cause. I tried really hard to forget I’d read the article,
forget the justifications for including such material, and lecture myself on the
harmlessness of a few scenes out of thousands of books. I have no personal beef
against any writer, and I don’t consider myself a crusader for political
correctness in any sense.

I do feel very strongly about this idea, and I am obliged to speak out, here
in my own forum. Read what you want, and enjoy it: but there are thousands of
women who know “forcible seduction” is anything but fun.

Charlaine Harris

 
© 2009 Charlaine Harris
February 11, 2012
5:10 PM
Exit_Pursued_By_A_Sloth
Veteran
Forum Posts: 642
Member Since:
September 2, 2011
Offline
27
0

Please excuse me, I have to smash the keyboard repeatedly into my face.

 

SHE WROTE A SCENE LIKE THAT. Sookie told Bill to dial it back, he said no, they continued fucking. What, does that not count because Sookie was willingly engaging in sexual relations before she told him to chill?

 

2007? So that was five books ago,  so around-about All Together Dead?

 

I'm not so sure its greed/money that caused her to produce shit like NCTF, so much as the people around her and her website. Greed/money might be responsible for the general slide in quality, but NCTF wasn't the result of poor quality control or laziness. That was some special fuckery right there.

February 11, 2012
5:25 PM
lucasa
Member
Forum Posts: 278
Member Since:
July 16, 2011
Offline
28
0

I quit reading after book 4 to be honest. I think she's a crappy writer……. it seems that from this answer, she has gotten a taste of the good life.

Has the success of the Stackhouse books shaped your  backburner list? Do you now find yourself considering more  strongly other supernatural projects?

Well, yes I do. Because I know where the money is, and I know whether  for good or ill if I write something supernatural, I'm gonna make big  bucks; and if I write something else I might not. And I'm not above  considering business when I pick my projects, because that's realistic.  Though I know writers who are unrealistic, and I admire them too.  They'll say, "No, I'm not gonna write that book. I'm gonna write this  book." Everyone is asking Robin McKinley to write a sequel to Sunshine. She won't do it. [Laughs.]

February 11, 2012
6:26 PM
anna
Veteran
Forum Posts: 842
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
29
0

Sounds a lot like greed to me, with unfortunate implications, because she now seems rather confused about the kind of message she's giving out. Would she really want a daughter of hers  to cavort naked with a person who "forcibly seduced" or raped her?

February 11, 2012
8:45 PM
JerronBarksdale
Veteran
Forum Posts: 927
Member Since:
June 10, 2011
Offline
30
0

I thought it was greed too Anna.  She has said more than once money money money.  Bill lovers buy books too.

 

LMAO @Exit!  Don't let CH ruin your keyboard.

February 11, 2012
9:41 PM
Exit_Pursued_By_A_Sloth
Veteran
Forum Posts: 642
Member Since:
September 2, 2011
Offline
31
0

I guess I could understand the greed cause in that respect (I was thinking more along the lines of 'How is there money in mocking rape?'), but even still, she could have kept the Llamas around without totally debasing her heroine. The scene could have been so much Less Bad if Sookie had just not been naked. But as it stands, it came off as spiteful. Sometimes I think she really hates Sookie, and truly thinks she's dumb and self-centered.

 

But I do think the herd of Llamas that surrounds and aids her has to be an influence (she had a freaking Llama write a book for her, for fuck's sake). If all she's hearing is "BILL BILL BILL BILL", that could very well be skewing her perception. Although if I wrote about a surfacely charming but obviously douchey, controlling, violent rapist, and then a bunch of my fans were all like "OMG, I love him! He's so romantic! Please have him get back together with his victim!" I would be all "Later, Bitches", but that's just me.

February 11, 2012
10:15 PM
JerronBarksdale
Veteran
Forum Posts: 927
Member Since:
June 10, 2011
Offline
32
0

Back to book bombs…now the lawyer said in DR, that gave the "gift" of mind to the descendants of Adelle and the fairy man.  I forget his name.  But in the Rhodes book he said that he couldn't read minds.  Is there something I may have missed?  Because that seems like a lie.  Or maybe I overread something.

February 12, 2012
12:58 AM
Bobsgran
Veteran
Forum Posts: 2590
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
33
0

@Jerron

You're right about Mr. C. lying.  On the plane to Rhodes, Sookie is counting coffins 

PB pg. 106- Mr. C. to Sookie "You were wondering where the fifth sheriff was." 

Sookie – "Yes, but you were maybe a thought or two behind."

Mr. C.  - "I'm not telepathic like you, my dear.

 

So if he lied about that, what else has he lied about?

February 12, 2012
2:12 AM
JerronBarksdale
Veteran
Forum Posts: 927
Member Since:
June 10, 2011
Offline
34
0

Or BG, is this just some more junk CH is throwing in at the last minute.  Another contradiction and I think it's a biggie.

February 12, 2012
6:35 AM
Bobsgran
Veteran
Forum Posts: 2590
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
35
0

Do you think it might have something to do with that Cluvial D'or thing and how it works or how many times it works, or someone is alive that was thought dead?  I thought CH said that someone is alive who was thought dead.

 

There's a joke about lawyers in there somewhere I'm sure, but I don't want to offend.Wink 

February 12, 2012
6:47 AM
Bobsgran
Veteran
Forum Posts: 2590
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
36
0

I'm going to add my gripes to the NCTF.  It always bugged me that Bill was naked down in that hole.  He was just sleeping on the dirt not buried in it, or had some sort of mat to lie on.  Why couldn't he have put a coffin down there for sleeping?  

Heck, at Rhodes there was a vendor selling space-age and traditional  coffins.   It's not like he couldn't afford one.

For me it goes to CH using a device to keep BL's coming back.

February 12, 2012
1:00 PM
anna
Veteran
Forum Posts: 842
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
37
0

@ BG

There was a TV show called Dead Lawyers

This is a one-hour series with a deliciously judicious concept: sleazy unscrupulous lawyers, in order to redeem themselves, come back from the dead to defend everyone they screwed when they were alive — and it's all pro bono! When hotshot defense attorney Jimmy Quinn is run over by a bus, he finds himself in his own version of hell: a law firm on earth composed of other dead lawyers, all trying to right miscarriages of justice in order to redeem themselves.

February 12, 2012
1:17 PM
Bobsgran
Veteran
Forum Posts: 2590
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
Offline
38
0

ooooo wish I could see that.  Sounds very funny.

February 12, 2012
2:51 PM
sunny
Mobile
Admin
Forum Posts: 4369
Member Since:
June 10, 2011
Offline
39
0

OMG, that sounds so good! And hilarious! I need to see this as soon as possible. Did it make it to the end? It didn't get cancelled before it reached resolution did it?

Jesus and I agreed to see other people, but that don't mean we don't still talk from time to time.
February 12, 2012
3:12 PM
JerronBarksdale
Veteran
Forum Posts: 927
Member Since:
June 10, 2011
Offline
40
0

Do all the vamps on SVM sleep in the buff?  I don't recall any other lines about Eric or any sleeping nude.  I seem to recall Eric pjs being described.

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 157

Currently Online:
13 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Bobsgran: 2590

JerronBarksdale: 927

anna: 842

IATM: 810

Exit_Pursued_By_A_Sloth: 642

BellaKarma: 417

Genie: 296

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 1643

Moderators: 0

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 13

Topics: 309

Posts: 14356

Newest Members: carrie, tawnymac, ravynsprt, pez, Jennifer, Dwimordene, aiyanamichaela, Marianne, blunderwoman, Sass

Moderators:

Administrators: Renée (576), sunny (4369), osterby (1122)