julie (onetrooluff) wrote,

  • Location:
  • Mood:

House of Night and True Blood mini-rants

Ok, I'm posting these under cuts so I won't spoil anyone who doesn't want to read my mini-rants on both the first House of Night book, and the True Blood TV series.

Admittedly, I've totally cracked and started reading/watching every vampire-themed thing in sight (uhh, minus Anne Rice. I don't think I'll ever have any desire to read those. We were watching Interview at Danielle's last time D was home and I was disgusted to the point that I gave up halfway through and half-fell asleep. I will say, they portrayed the vampires' movements etc. pretty nicely.)—I just can't help it. But you know what? It has cleared something up for me.

I was sort of wondering if I was going to turn into a raging vampire fan. But you know what? The vampire-related stuff I like has nothing very little to do with the fact that there are vampires in it. My favorites? Twilight, obviously, The Historian, Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, and so far, Moonlight. In every one of these, when I think about them, I don't think about how awesome or sexy the vampires are. I remember the characters, and the storyline, and how they intertwined.

Edward and Bella both so drawn to each other but trying so hard to do whatever they think would be best for the other person. The family of Cullens creating a lifestyle for themselves that makes them feel less like monsters. And yes, the whole love triangle with Edward, Bella and Jacob.

Two intellectuals swept up in a Europe-wide chase after a legendary figure of evil, trying desperately to save someone close to them. Plus, of course, a very interesting period of history as the backdrop (I learned a LOT from that book, and it made me go read other books on the subject too).

Meier, a vampire, fighting his desires to protect his beloved Charlotte.

And, well, Mick St. John, also fighting his nature to live among humans and munch on some bad guys.

I need self-sacrifice; love; likeable characters... which is why I really don't care for any of the vampires who just go around snacking on whoever they want (a la Anne Rice, and True Blood). Anyway...

First of all, holy crap. People think Stephenie Meyer had a moral agenda when she wrote Twilight (which by the way, she says she didn't)? Have they read these books? Let's examine some of the blatant themes running through this book, and mind you, I'm only halfway through:

1. Damien is gay. Gay, gay, gay. Yes, I get that. By the way, did I mention Damien is gay?

2. Homophobes = losers. I'm not trying to disagree with that, I'm just saying, I don't need to be smacked with it QUITE so hard, thank you.

3. ..not sure how to put this. I wanted to say "organized religion is bad" but the vampires—sorry, vampyres—are pretty organized too so I don't think that's it. How about: Traditional church religions (like Catholicism, and probably most of the rest of Christianity) are controlling and boring. People fall asleep or do sudoku in church, and religion is just a means of control.

4. Pagan religion, however, = AWESOME. I really want Kim to read this book and tell me her take on the stuff that goes on in this book.

Seriously, I think what gets me, is that Stephenie Meyer has gotten such a backlash for writing a story that reflected (reflected, not promoted) her more... traditional values, while these people write a book that wallops me with moral agenda every few pages, and yet I don't seem to be hearing about it. I can think of a couple of factors: These books aren't as wildly popular as Twilight, so of course I'm not hearing about them; and also, maybe the people in the particular online communities I am thinking of, are less offended by this particular moral agenda than they are by the the more conservative mindset, and so aren't mouthing off so much about this one. Thoughts, anyone? (I totally have to go back and read Shannon's review of this book when I'm done reading it.)

Dude. WHAT is with this show. It's like they took the book and skanked it up several notches—oh wait, it's HBO. Of course they did. Not that the book didn't have blatantly sexual stuff in it, etc., but I never got the sense that it was skanky like this show.

I think the casting was okay for Bill, and EXCELLENT for Sam, but I had some trouble getting used to Anna Paquin as Sookie. To be quite honest, I think it's the gap between her teeth, which sounds terribly shallow and probably is. She's grown on me, though, and I thnk she's doing okay.

But, really, people. I don't need to see Sookie touching herself and I don't need visuals on every ridiculously wild sex scene you can think up, just because it's HBO. Oh, and Jason, while they have cast him well, is A TOTAL IDIOT, not to mention an asswipe, in this show. In the book, he was a manwhore but I don't think he was QUITE this stupid or perverted. Stupid: blatantly lying to the police repeatedly as you stand there getting asked about whether you've met/slept with/spent last night with a murder victim. "No, never. Oh yeah, last night." Auuugh. Perverted/Asswipe: oh let's see, how about pretending to be a vampire and attacking your latest conquest and scaring the absolute crap out of her like you're going to rape and kill her. WHAT THE HECK.

The other part that is killing me: PLOTDOG. I KNOW THE SECRET, you are killing me by throwing random plotdog into every other scene just to torment me, AND THEN SHOWING SAM AND PLOTDOG SHARING A MOMENT ON HIS FRONT STEPS. AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH. I think I love Sam in this show, though. I love how he has shaggy hair with little curls of hair by the nape of his neck that stick out like... oh, never mind.

I like Tara, although I guess she's not introduced until later books in the series, and is fairly different from her character in the show. She's interesting. Uhm, is Lafayette a drug dealer/prostitute in the books? And, I can't believe I sat through Jason-the-asswipe dancing in his tightie-whities while wearing a Laura Bush mask. The people making this show are just... MESSED UP.

Also, Bill did not say he owned slaves in the book. I believe he said that some great-great-great-great-grandfather of someone at the Glorious Dead meeting owned slaves. So Tara getting all upset with him for that is just another example of someone bringing in a moral bone to pick, that wasn't previously there.

AND WHY OH WHY DOES BILL SAY HE WAS VAMPIRED IN 1865. Why do they change details like this, that there is no point in changing!? I think everyone has brain cells enough to realize that if he was vampired in 1870, YES, he would have been around BEFORE that to fight in the Civil War. Oh, my brain hurts. It's like the William Hurt version of Jane Eyre, saying that she was at Lowood for two extra years, or some such. FOR NO REASON.

I don't know why I don't just stop watching this show. It's sort of like watching a train wreck. But I will probably keep watching it anyway. *sigh*

Ok, I'm done with the ranting. It's my last day of break and I'm going to enjoy it, darn it. But I also have some stuff to get done.
Tags: books, house of night, true blood, tv, twilight, vampires
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.